An action research strategy for selecting and conducting program evaluations.

Describes a strategy for school psychologists to use in selecting the types of program evaluation required to meet system needs. Dimensions of program evaluation—target, purpose, and stage—relevant to school psychologists are described and defined and combined into a conceptual framework indicating 48 different types of program evaluation. The proposed model incorporates relevant aspects of existing program evaluation strategies and action research, affording practitioners a strategy for selecting and conducting program evaluations. Suggested steps for implementing the action research strategy, as well as a hypothetical example of its use, are offered.

Chief Audit Executives’ Evaluations of Whistle-Blowing Allegations

This study examines the effects of the source of whistle-blowing allegations and potential for allegations to trigger concerns about reputation threats on Chief Audit Executives’ handling of whistle-blowing allegations. The participants for this study, 79 Chief Audit Executives (CAEs) and deputy CAEs, evaluated whistle-blowing reports related to financial reporting malfeasance that were received from either an anonymous or a non-anonymous source. The whistle-blowing reports alleged that the wrongdoing resulted from either the exploitation of substantial weaknesses in internal controls (suggesting higher responsibility of the CAE and internal audit) or the circumvention of internal controls (suggesting lower responsibility of the CAE or internal audit). Findings indicate that CAEs believe anonymous whistle-blowing reports to be significantly less credible than non-anonymous reports. Although CAEs assessed lower credibility ratings for the reports alleging wrongdoing by the exploitation of substantial weaknesses in internal controls, they allocated more resources to investigating these allegations.

Does Israel Follow the Law? A Critical Analysis of Israel's Application of the International Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Occupied Territories

Israel's occupation of territories it captured in 1967 has become one of the longest and most controversial occupations of the last fifty years. Eschewing the traditional political analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this paper aims to explore whether Israel has adequately applied international law in the occupied territories, in particular, the law of belligerent occupation. The two actors under assessment are the Israeli government, particularly its military which enforces and maintains the law in the territories, and the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power of review over military actions in the territories. The particular issues of the occupation that are critically analyzed are the general legal framework that Israel established in the territories, Israel's civilian settlement policy in territories, and Israel's construction of a barrier in the West Bank. This paper concludes that Israel has incorrectly applied the legal framework of belligerent occupation by refusing to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention; it has wrongly concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories conform with international law; yet it has rightly concluded that the construction of the barrier in the West Bank is permissible under international law, in contrast to the conclusion of the much publicized International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the 'Wall.' Along with these general assessments, the author will also provide some historical and political insight into why the Israeli government and the Supreme Court may have applied the law in the way that they did.