Hopelessness, helplessness, and haplessness as predictors of suicidal ideation

Scales to measure helplessness and hopelessness were found to have good reliability and concurrent validity and were significantly correlated with suicidal ideation.     

Managing Risk: A Joint U.S.-German Perspective

Ideas from a USA-FRG conference on risk management are presented. In general, the difficulties confronted by risk management authorities in the two countries are similar, from discovering important risks at an early stage to setting acceptable goals. Government regulation is overburdened and somewhat inefficient in both countries, leading to greater search for alternatives. The many differences in approach between the two countries can inform both. German risk management is done largely through negotiations among the affected parties; when this does not resolve a dispute, a specialized administrative court takes charge. In both countries nonregulatory methods of managing risk should be enhanced and given a larger role. A matrix of risk management method versus criteria proved stimulating in comparing and ranking approaches. The conceptual differences between managing discrete events (auto crashes, boiler explosions, etc.) and chronic exposures have not been appreciated. Although uncertainty and probability are involved in both, there are qualitative differences in both analysis and management. Public perceptions of risk and the role these should play have been characterized by "objectivist" and "subjectivist" positions. In the former view, risks are subject to analysis, are calculable, and the public must be educated to accept the conclusions of experts. In the latter view what people perceive is what is most important, both psychologically and politically, and the risk experts must understand public fears and desires. These are important opportunities for cross cultural studies.     

In search of the non-profit sector II: The problem of classification

Building on a previousVoluntas article (Salamon and Anheier, 1992b), which formulated a systematic approach to defining the non-profit sector for purposes of comparative research, this article takes on the complementary task of formulating a classification system that can be used to differentiate systematically the types of non-profit organisations that exist at the global level. To do so, the article first assesses a number of existing classification systems, such as the International Standard Industrial Classification and the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities. Finding these systems inadequate, the article then introduces an alternative system, which we term the International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations (ICNPO). The ICNPO classifies non-profit establishments into 12 major groups based on their primary economic activity, and then further sub-divides these into 24 sub-groups. The result is a system that scores high in terms of five key evaluation criteria: economy, significance, rigour, organising power, and richness. What is more, initial tests of the ICNPO in a set of countries show that it performs well in coming to terms with the diverse types of non-profit institutions that exist around the world.Lester Salamon is Professor at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 and Director of the Institute for Policy Studies there.Helmut Anheier is Research Scientist at the Institute for Policy Studies at the Johns Hopkins University and Assistant Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08903. He is co-editor ofVoluntas.The authors are grateful to Kusuma Cunningham for her assistance in developing the ICNPO and for compiling Appendix C of this paper.