Suchergebnisse

Preliminary draft ; Each year, the United States Federal government procures goods and services in an amount that exceeds three percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Federal acquisitions are subject to binding legislative guidance, including the expansive Federal Acquisition Regulations and agency-specific supplements. In addition, contracting firms face oversight from a variety of executive sub-agencies, all of whom monitor ongoing and ex post performance. Uncle Sam enjoys virtually unlimited power to reclaim previously disbursed revenues, to debar (or ban) misbehaving contractors from future government business, and to imprison and fine contracting miscreants. Despite the unique nature of the business environment and the monetary importance of Federal contracting, prior literature generally ignores the determinants of contractor misconduct. Whether and to what extent firm characteristics predict a range of misbehavior, covering a span from minor statutory violations to fraud commission, is the subject of this paper. We exploit a hybrid research design that combines both within- and between sample elements and document a consistent association between certain contractor characteristics and misconduct commission and severity. We also find that artifacts of the awarding agency display a predictable relationship with contractor misconduct, underscoring the complex institutional setting in which contractor deviancy occurs.

Preliminary draft. Please do not cite without author permission. ; Each year, the United States Federal government procures goods and services in an amount that exceeds three percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Federal acquisitions are subject to binding legislative guidance, including the expansive Federal Acquisition Regulations and agency-specific supplements. In addition, contracting firms face oversight from a variety of executive sub-agencies, all of whom monitor ongoing and ex post performance. Uncle Sam enjoys virtually unlimited power to reclaim previously disbursed revenues, to debar (or ban) misbehaving contractors from future government business, and to imprison and fine contracting miscreants. Despite the unique nature of the business environment and the monetary importance of Federal contracting, prior literature generally ignores the determinants of contractor misconduct. Whether and to what extent firm characteristics predict a range of misbehavior, covering a span from minor statutory violations to fraud commission, is the subject of this paper. We exploit a hybrid research design that combines both within- and between sample elements and document a consistent association between certain contractor characteristics and misconduct commission and severity. We also find that artifacts of the awarding agency display a predictable relationship with contractor misconduct, underscoring the complex institutional setting in which contractor deviancy occurs.

Charities in the United Kingdom have been the subject of intense media, political, and public scrutiny in recent times; however, our understanding of the nature, extent, and determinants of charity misconduct is weak. Drawing upon a novel administrative dataset of 25,611 charities for the period 2006-2014 in Scotland, we develop models to predict two dimensions of charity misconduct: regulatory investigation and subsequent action. There have been 2,109 regulatory investigations of 1,566 Scottish charities over the study period, of which 31% resulted in regulatory action being taken. Complaints from members of the public are most likely to trigger an investigation, whereas the most common concerns relate to general governance and misappropriation of assets. Our multivariate analysis reveals a disconnect between the types of charities that are suspected of misconduct and those that are subject to subsequent regulatory action.

Intro -- Preface -- Overview -- Table of Contents -- Abbreviations -- Questionnaire Structure -- A. Introduction -- 1. General Overview -- B. The Nature of the Misconduct Required -- 2. Forms of Misconduct -- C. The Required Standard of Conduct -- 3. Criteria for Assessment -- 4. The Relevance of Statutory Norms -- 5. The Relevance of Non-Statutory Norms -- D. An Objective or Subjective Standard? -- 6. Special Skill or Expertise -- 7. Inexperience or Lack of Skill -- 8. Age -- 9. Physical Disability -- 10. Mental Disability -- 11. Incapacity due to Drugs or Alcohol -- 12. Incapacity due to Other Transient Factors -- E. Degrees of Misconduct -- 13. Degrees of Misconduct -- F. Grounds of Justification -- 14. Self-Defence and Other Grounds of Justification -- 15. Self-Defence against Non-Misconduct -- G. Other Issues -- 16. Additional Questions -- Contributors -- Publications -- Index

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

A significant barrier to successful juvenile intervention is misconduct committed against juveniles by the persons employed to help them. Professional Misconduct with Juveniles explores the nature of employee-on-youth misconduct, its extent, its consequences, factors that increase its occurrence, and potential solutions to the problem. Obviously, employee-on-youth misconduct interferes with the effective treatment of delinquent and at-risk youth, but it also harms the agency as a whole and creates a poor working environment for all employees. Professional Misconduct with Juveniles

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.