Must live in ConcordKannapolisChina Grove RockwellSalisbury area. I have no children and I'm just waiting for Discretion is a necessity man that will treat me right, that has a Disxretion and isn't a player. Oh yea, if you know how to play backgammon, that is a big plus. A woman who understands her body and what she wants.
|Relationship Status:||Not married|
|Seeking:||Searching Teen Sex|
|Relation Type:||Smaller Equipped Man Looking For A Submissive Petite Girl|
IT TASTES NASTY,LOL You Betcha.
Eyes hair just a decent description maybe what you're seeking to do.
Drug and alcohol addiction affects all walks of life and cares nothing of race, creed, color or social status. For those who are in a position where discretion is required, an executive rehab just could be the right choice. Private drug rehab facilities across the world are in place to help all those who suffer from the devastating effects of addiction, and each private drug rehab works hard to protect the identities of their clients.
However, there are times when an Executive Rehab can be of great help for those who are seeking absolute discretion. An executive rehab will often cater their treatment programs to fit the specific needs of their clientele. For some, they may require an executive drug rehab facility because they are in the public eye and are fearful of the scrutiny. Others may require an executive private drug rehab because their lifestyle demands that only the best rehab centers can accommodate their sophisticated lifestyle.
Whatever the reason, executive rehab facilities are just as important to them as any private drug rehab for any other person in lesser social statuses.
Anonymity is a key part of recovery, and any drug rehab facility worth its salt knows that any violation of privacy can have devastating, both for the client and the facility itself. However, an Executive Rehab goes to great lengths to preserve the identities of its clients, and provides a program of recovery that fits their specific lifestyles. For the executive who is unable to dedicate themselves full-time to in-patient treatment, and executive private drug rehab will likely tailor a program that works with their busy schedule.
Many of the best rehab centers will customize their treatment programs to fit the needs of their clients, however, an executive rehab will not only provide a program that helps clients to achieve quality sobriety, but also helps to maintain their schedules and ensure absolute discretion at all costs.
For more information about the treatment program offered at 12 Palms, please call 1 , or visit us at www. Doug Mead is a freelance writer who is also a recovering alcoholic with over 20 years of sobriety.
Doug strongly believes in working with fellow recovering alcoholics and addicts who are new to recovery, and as a writer believes in delivering content that is both insightful and thought-provoking For More Details Visit us: Please Register or Login to post new comment. Access the best success, personal development, health, fitness, business, and financial advice Take the Self Improvement Tour.
When Discretion is a Necessity. Post new comment Please Register or Login to post new comment. Related Articles What is Medical Marijuana? What is Medical Marijuana? Is medical marijuana addictive? Free Self Improvement Newsletters. Gifted and learning disabled: Students who are twice exceptional. Treating Lyme with Energy Medicine. Raising a Successful College Graduate. How to Manage Anger with Appropriate Assertiveness. Costa Rica Caribbean Travel.
Create new account Request new password./p>
In Box 2 , we discuss in detail the nature of this challenge and how we address it. The neutral answer score of 3 poses a conceptual challenge for calibrating set membership. Neutral answers could indicate that a frontline worker experiences neither the presence nor the absence of, say, tactical powerfulness point of indifference. However, cases with a set membership score of 0. Although Likert scales are typically acknowledged to represent ordinal rather than interval-level data Wirth and Edwards , the status of neutral answers in the scale and hence also in the set can be disputed.
Different calibration techniques can substantially affect the results of set-theoretic configurational comparative analyses Skaaning To identify the best calibration strategy, we tested for two different commonly used calibration techniques for Likert scales. First, the direct method of calibration uses a logistic function to fit the raw data in-between the three qualitative set membership anchors Schneider and Wagemann, This method is very popular in large-N set-theoretic configurational comparative analyses.
Typically, the crossover point is set right above the indifferent answers, resulting in set memberships extremely close to 0. As Wagemann et al. Answers of 4 agree and 5 fully agree were recoded into 3 and 4 before calibration for thresholds see caption of Supplementary Table B1. Second, we alternatively treated the answers as a scale using simple recoding technique, which involves the grouping of cases into previously defined set-membership scores Schneider and Wagemann Here, we followed the proposal by Emmenegger et al.
Our results indicate that in the analysis of sufficiency, the recoding method works better for dataset 1 the models perform better and explain more cases , while for dataset 2, the direct strategy is more feasible—recoding method leads to distorted parameters of fit that prevent a meaningful analysis of sufficiency see Supplementary Tables B13 and B Importantly, however, both calibration strategies attribute indifferent answers as more out than in the set, resulting in the same conceptual meaning and attribution of cases to truth table rows.
The differences in the results are thus exclusively due to changes in the parameters of fit. The results of necessity are robust regardless of the calibration strategy. Using the direct strategy for dataset 1 for sufficient conditions leads to the same overall conclusions regarding our hypotheses as with the indirect strategy.
For these reasons, we adopted the recoding method for dataset 1 and the direct calibration method for dataset 2 for the results interpreted below see Supplementary Tables B3, B4 , B6 , and B7. In short, we conceive of indifferent values as more out than in of the set. First, the direct method of calibration uses a logistic function to fit the raw data in-between the three qualitative set-membership anchors Schneider and Wagemann, Using our data, this commonly applied technique results in set-membership scores of 0.
Second, we alternatively treated the answers as a scale using a simple recoding technique. This technique involves the grouping of cases into previously defined set-membership scores Emmenegger et al. Based on assessment of their performance see Supplementary Boxes B1 and B2 , we adopted the recoding method for dataset 1 and the direct calibration method for dataset 2 for the results interpreted below see Supplementary Tables B2—B7. Missing values make it impossible to attribute cases to truth table configurations.
This is a potential issue since a high share of cases has missing values on at least one indicator set in dataset 1. Excluding these cases from the analysis would result in a biased sample.
The aggregation strategy will affect the analysis. It needs to avoid such excessive dropout, whereas ensuring construct validity and avoiding overly skewed condition and outcome sets. The first out of three aggregation options would be building averages across the indicators. Doing so for raw values would negatively affect construct validity: Calculating averages of calibrated sets is equally problematic because it can result in set-memberships of 0.
The second and third options are set-theoretic. Using the logical AND as aggregation strategy minimum rule represents a very restrictive conceptualization, as all indicators need to be present simultaneously for an attitude to be present.
This results in the excessive dropouts. Moreover, it would produce highly skewed sets that make it impossible to proceed with the analysis of the outcome Schneider and Wagemann This aggregation strategy conceives of different indicators as functional equivalents that indicate the presence of an attitude Goetz and Starr This has consequences in terms of concept validity: This conceptualization does justice to the wide range of experiences facing frontline workers on the ground.
We can now evaluate the hypotheses. Supplementary Table B1 displays descriptive statistics. They show that, overall, the Dutch teachers study 2 have a more positive attitude than the healthcare workers study 1. They feel more powerful, perceive the policies as more meaningful, and have higher implementation willingness. Regarding hypothesis 1, we indeed found that feelings of powerfulness are almost always necessary for high implementation willingness.
This holds for both datasets and regardless of the calibration strategy used see Table A1, appendix. This is shown in Figure 2. In the Dutch education sector, either strategic, tactical, or operational powerfulness is needed for high implementation willingness.
Among Dutch healthcare workers, the finding is even stronger: These results provide strong support for the hypothesis that powerfulness at different levels is a prerequisite for implementation willingness.
Hypothesis 2 captured a potential consequence of the first hypothesis, namely, that a lack of powerfulness might be quasi-sufficient for low implementation willingness. Table 4 reveals three configurations in dataset 1, and five configurations in dataset 2, that are almost always sufficient for low implementation willingness. The Dutch health workers who are unwilling to implement the DRG policy consistently experience low levels of powerfulness and, in path 3, meaningfulness.
Conversely, in the education sector, the picture is less clear at first sight: The parameters of fit score well in dataset 1, whereas in dataset 2, the results are highly consistent, but have a fairly low empirical relevance coverage. Using set-theoretic theory evaluation to assess H2 formally, we find robust support that the absence of tactical, strategic, and operational powerfulness implies low implementation willingness in the healthcare sector.
This is shown in Table 5. However, quite some cases remain unexplained lower right quadrant. In addition and compatible to what we hypothesized, the absence of operational, but not also tactical and strategic powerfulness in some situations also leads to low implementation willingness lower left quadrant.
Conversely, in the education sector, overall the empirical support for the second hypothesis is so weak that we must reject it. The contradictory cases are empirically more frequent than those instances that directly support the hypothesis left-hand side of Table 5.
Here, the solution term only explains a tiny fraction of the observed patterns of low implementation willingness. Overall, the conclusion for H2 is ambiguous. Although seemingly puzzling, this finding illustrates that the things that motivate people at the workplace can be different from those that demotivate them see also Schneider and Wagemann The third hypothesis states that the combination of policy powerfulness strategic, tactical, or operational and policy meaningfulness societal or client meaningfulness is a quasi-sufficient condition for high implementation willingness.
Table 4 indeed suggests that the combination of high powerfulness and meaningfulness relate to high implementation willingness. Four configurations are very often sufficient for high implementation willingness in the Dutch healthcare sector, and three are almost always sufficient configurations in the education sector.
For example, Dutch healthcare workers who feel powerful at the strategic and tactical level and to whom the DRG policy makes sense for the patients typically make efforts to implement the policy. Both models have a good consistency, whereas its explanatory power coverage is quite low in the education sector. The left-hand side and lower right quadrant of Table 6 lend full support to our third hypothesis.
Powerfulness, in one of its three variants, combined with meaningfulness almost always results in high implementation willingness.
This support is empirically stronger in study 2 education than in study 1 healthcare. However, findings also restrict the hypothesis to certain circumstances. For example, the upper left quadrant of Table 6 shows that in the healthcare sector, the positive motivational role of tactical powerfulness together with meaningfulness often unfolds even in the absence of either strategic or operational powerfulness.
In the education sector, regardless of the type of powerfulness typically both societal and client meaningfulness must be present.
Conversely, the instances in which hypothesis 3 is rejected both datasets are negligibly rare upper right quadrant. In summary, both bottom-up interpretations H1 and H3 of how perceived discretion motivates frontline workers are indeed reflected in our data.
H2 is supported for the first dataset but rejected for the second. However, for the second interpretation, there is also room for improvement, as quite some cases are not explained This is not particularly high, as we aimed to explain willingness with just a few indicators and the unexplained variance is quite low.
In field studies in social sciences, we should not expect a perfect theory explaining everything. The main conclusion of our study is that discretion-as-perceived is a quasi-necessary condition for high implementation willingness. Frontline workers need to feel that they can influence the policy—this is a necessary condition. Thirdly, we also found that—in combination with policy meaningfulness—powerfulness is quasi-sufficient for high implementation willingness.
When frontline workers felt that they had both high powerfulness and that the policy was meaningful for society, this strengthened their willingness to implement it Maynard-Moody and Musheno ; Van der Voet et al. Our results encourage scholars to rethink assumptions of implementation theory by moving from a correlational logic to the consideration of asymmetric patterns.
By adapting Herzberg et al. The important role of powerfulness could be uncovered by modeling asymmetric effects via a methodology specifically designed to test these Ragin , ; Schneider and Wagemann Our analysis sheds more light on the puzzling results of previous studies, which assumed symmetric, correlational patterns Tummers ; Van Engen et al.
The strong and robust asymmetric effect of powerfulness that we detected simply escaped the attention of these studies because their designs are unable to detect such asymmetric relationships Schneider and Wagemann This has helped us to identify discretion-as-perceived as a necessary prerequisite for high implementation willingness. Accordingly, implementation theory might fruitfully turn toward more asymmetric and complexity-oriented models of policy in practice Misangyi et al.
A number of caveats apply for this study. Second, although we analyzed two large-N datasets, we should be careful to generalize these findings to frontline workers in other policy domains or countries.
Fourth, although there is a fairly strong correlation between intended behavior and actual behavior Armitage and Connor ; Randall and Wolf ; Sheeran and Orbell , future studies could measure behavior more directly. Fifth, it should be noted that common method bias could be a problem in our study, since we used the same data source to measure the variables under study powerfulness, meaningfulness, implementation willingness.
It is recommended that future researchers studying the relationship between powerfulness and implementation willingness apply stronger designs and techniques to establish causal inference. We recommend the use of field, lab, or survey experiments. Despite the fundamental theoretical debate on the role of discretion and its relevance for policy design and implementation, to date, there has been little empirical research to assess the behavioral assumptions underlying this debate.
Our study is the first large-N empirical illustration lending robust support to a bottom-up view on discretion as an inevitable and potentially beneficial aspect of frontline implementation. We find that possibilities to participate in and influence public policies are a prerequisite for frontline workers to be willing to implement the policy. However, this is not enough.
It is not sufficient. Other factors—including perceiving the policy as meaningful for society and clients—are needed to truly increase the willingness to implement of frontline workers.
Our study contributes to clarifying the behavioral underpinnings of the top-down versus bottom-up debate on discretion Hupe ; Sabatier ; Thomann et al.
The question whether frontline workers should be granted discretion continues to be hotly debated not only in research on policy implementation, but also on policy, regulatory, and organizational design e.
Our findings lend substantial support to a bottom-up view of street-level bureaucrats as problem-solvers who crucially need the freedom to adapt the program to local conditions. Conversely, they lend very little support to top-down assertions that high levels of discretion often or predominantly have a negative impact on policy implementation—at least not at the perceived, motivational level.
The link between implementation willingness and actual implementation behavior—which was not analyzed here—will continue to provide fertile grounds for further exploration see e.
Committed implementers are a crucial factor for successful policy implementation May and Winter Our contribution lies in showing that the overwhelming majority of those frontline workers with high implementation willingness also experience high levels of discretion.
This should encourage scholars and practitioners to move beyond the question whether frontline workers should be granted discretion: Discretion appears as a defining contextual feature of street-level bureaucratic work that changes the daily experiences shared by frontline workers. A micro-level perspective is useful to evaluate the underlying psychology and mechanisms of frontline implementation Grimmelikhuijsen et al.
It provides valuable information to policymakers and managers engaged in shaping the macro- and meso-level contexts of street-level bureaucracy, in their continuous quest to improve public service delivery.
Supplementary material is available at the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory online https: Conditions meeting consistency threshold 0. This table shows the consistency, coverage and relevance values of those conditions that meet the consistency, coverage, RoN and significance thresholds for necessity. Only if these criteria are met, we say a condition is necessary. Marked bold are those necessary conditions that provide support for hypothesis 1.
The other conditions should be seen as alternatives to the ones marked bold that are not of analytic interest for evaluating our hypothesis. Hypothesis 1 would be falsified if no combination indicating the presence of powerfulness was necessary for high implementation willingness. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account.
Close mobile search navigation Article navigation. The Necessity of Discretion: Department of Politics, University of Exeter. Address correspondence to the author at vanengen essb. Utrecht University Utrecht School of Governance. Abstract The topic of discretion continues to be hotly debated in policy design and policy implementation.
View large Download slide. Procedure to Test for Different Calibration Strategies. Likert score Survey question: Direct calibration, No italics: As Fiss et al. This is a difficult one. Discretion as in well-exercised common-sense prioritizing is necessary. Pretty much everyone is committing a "felony a day" as a recent book title states - well, maybe not a felony but certainly a misdemeanor.
And people are at risk of getting ticketed, arrested, or worse, for disrespect of cop and not for serious crimes. So if the officers do not exhibit the utmost professionalism, it's asking for abuses of our civil liberties. Therefore, we have to focus on having the best-trained, well-balanced, common-sense police force that we can afford, or we'll end up with the equivalent of anarchy, perpetrated by thugs with badges.
Wings19 - "And police don't break down doors without reason. Do you recall this event? And police don't break down doors without reason. If your "friend's" door gets kicked in and they get sent to dawn farm, maybe they should rethink their lifestyle. As for discretion by the police, I agree it's subjective. But there is a really simple solution; Don't break the law. It takes no effort to not go over the speed limit, etc.
And in my experience, most people who lament "discretion" by the police are those who cry the loudest when ticketed for speeding, etc. You couldn't get me to be a cop if you put a gun to my head. What was a difficult profession many years ago has become impossible today.
This guy is getting slammed even when he is trying to give us a break. There will always be those who take the art of nit-picking to a level of perfection unattainable to the rest of us peons. By that metric, we'd have to have 60 judges on hand deciding if this or that infraction should be punishable or not.
Anyone preoccupied with race. I think the reason people are so talkative about this isn't the concept of police using their discretion, that's common sense. The issue is that this idea is presented as if there's no discrimination, no corruption, and no unfair enforcement. That's the real matter at hand, how to allow the police to apply their discretion without allowing them to take advantage of it. What oversight would be required? That's the part of this discussion that would lead to improvements in policing and life in the community.
And the old adage of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch is usually misapplied when discussing police abuses, in case anybody wanted to bring that up; usually it's stated as some sort of excuse, explaining away the few bad apples without condemning the rest, but in reality that statement condemns the entire system based on the actions of a few bad cops. This is a great article, and presents the realities of the job well, IMHO.
Just three years ago a young woman I know had her front door broken down at 6AM by the local narcotics enforcement team. They made her and her partner stand in handcuffs, naked in their living room, for an hour as the cops tore the place apart, pulling down the drop ceiling and dumping out drawers. All they found was one joint's worth of pot on the coffee table, left from a small party the night before. That's a big penalty for a youngster who works as a supermarket cashier.
All I can say is, drug prohibition is a complete and utter failure, and people who think AA is lenient about pot possession are sadly misled. I applaud the police who understand the inherent trade-offs in their jobs and focus on the serious crimes, especially stopping violence of any kind, but think our legislators need to wake up, and LAWNET should be disbanded or re-directed.
I hope the person who suggested that GPS tattle tale devices be installed in cars was kidding. The reason that it was outlawed in the '80s was that downtown merchants lobbied for it to be outlawed as they felt it 'Scared away customers". Most of those merchants are now gone despite the ban on skate boarding. Police discretion is a fact of life but let's not confuse discretion with assigning priorties. Whether or not an officer decides to stop someone for a traffic violation or prevent an assault, does not involve the use of discretion but the establishment of priorities.
Discrimination is also a fact of life whether it be race, dress, attitude, or whatever rubs someone the wrong way. Cops can definitely be rubbed the wrong way. Whether they use their discretion to operate within the parameters of the law or outside those parameters is an issue of concern. There's a difference between arresting someone, and arresting the same person with a few uneccesary, but well placed whacks with a baton. There are officers who abuse their discretionary powers just like there are citizens who abuse their discretionary powers.
It's not a perfect world but I think there should be more concern when sworn, armed officers function on the border of discretionary legality. Rank has its privledges and its responsibilities and those commissioned for the task should be held accountable for even a hint of abuse.
Jake CA voice of reason It seems that if Kinsey wrote the "Earth is round" a bunch of you would have to chime in and claim it wasn't. More importantly you are over looking something very fundamental for all of us. In this country we are all innocent until proven guilty. Should we be charged with a crime we have the right to a trial and be judged by a jury of our peers.
And this can also play in reverse The point is we do not KNOW what an officer is thinking when he uses his own personal discretion to decide if a person should or shouldn't get a ticket.
Second of all, we have a right to a trial and to be judged by a jury of our peers. The officer is not a judge. Maybe he shouldn't be deciding who gets a ticket and who doesn't.
It certainly provokes a lot of thought. I think there are things to think about seriously when one person, not sworn to be a judge but sworn to uphold the laws Right or wrong, there is much to think about.
Look at this long list of speed traps that people have reported in AA One thing is for sure I'm not sure why so many people are getting bent out of shape by this article. The point is that when a police officer is on the job, he will probably observe more "illegal activity" than he can handle at one time, thanks to our huge criminal code. Jaywalking, speeding, parking near fire hydrants, running red lights, smoking pot or drinking in public, graffiti, assaults, shoplifting, robbery, etc.
After all, just because an officer is writing one person a ticket doesn't mean everyone else starts behaving entirely within the law. And if a cop patrolling Main Street ticketed everyone who jaywalked or was publicly intoxicated or drove 2 MPH over the speed limit instead of just giving them a quick warning he probably would miss a dozen other more serious violations happening. I disagree with the premise of this article.
Legislatures make laws, Judges interpret them, the police enforce them. That is how the system is designed and is supposed to work. If there is any "discretion" in the system, it is at the interpretation level with judges. This was known as the "spoils system", in which was a system was in place where presidential administrations had the power of hiring or firing federal workers; this brought a constant change in demands and routines for personnel.
Of his additions to the administrative discretion and of bureaucracy as we know it today, one in particular, the creation of The Patent Reform Act of brought about the creation of new offices and adjudicatory administrative boards.
Although, perhaps unknowingly, Jackson brought a new age to administrative discretion. Another president who has come in contact with administrative discretion is Madison. Known as Madison's Managers, drafted in , some argue that early public administration literature had it right. After Jackson, many presidents followed suit of his example—appointing members to administrative processes. In some cases, officials appointed by the presidents abused their powers in administration.
There were attempts to control administrative discretion throughout the 19th century, but those attempts overall, failed. Political appointees believed they indeed were law themselves—Jesse Hoyt and his successor Samuel Swartwout for example, notoriously did not comply with the rule to return funds they had collected on behalf of the Federal Government.
There was a type of bureaucratic "sprawl": The New Deal emphasized the importance of administrative discretion in government and their processes by expanding the staff of the White House and creating new managerial techniques for the executive. The Administrative Procedure Act of was created to govern the internal procedures of administrative agencies and how those agencies interact with the public.
The act came about after the Attorney General appointed a committee to investigate the need for procedural reform. The view was that there was no uniformity in the chaotic bodies to administer anything. The intention was to make sure that the public is protected and safe, with secured proper entitlements. The problem arose as residents receiving financial aid claimed that the New York City officials overseeing and administering these programs terminated their aid without notifying them or holding a hearing.
Recipients alleged that this was unconstitutional on the Administration's part because it denying them due process of law guaranteed under the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment Case Briefs. In this case, Administrative Discretion resulted in individualized parameters of what was deemed necessary to convey a termination of aid, instead of a federal standard. Industrial Union Department v.
However, this failed to happen. The Secretary did not say or record anywhere that exposure to the substance benzene at 10 ppm parts per million would cause leukemia and exposure to 1 ppm would not Oyez cases.
The holding of the Supreme Court, under Justice Warren Burger, concluded that there was a statute for a requirement of significant risk, and the Secretary and agency had failed to uphold the statue of workers' health at risks. Furthermore, the Secretary's decision to use federal money for the highway did not comply with the Department of Transportation Act of The IRS must exercise discretion in administering the tax law.
This has helped us to identify discretion-as-perceived as a necessary prerequisite for high implementation willingness. Accordingly, implementation theory might fruitfully turn toward more asymmetric and complexity-oriented models of policy in practice (Misangyi et al. ; Raab et al. ; Thomann et al. ). Exercise of discretion in administrative decision-making Revised October Ombudsman Western Australia Factors to consider when exercising discretion The act of exercising discretion can add a level of complexity into the decisionmaking process- as the decision to be made may not be clear cut. Discretion as in well-exercised common-sense prioritizing is necessary. Pretty much everyone is committing a "felony a day" as a recent book title states - well, maybe not a felony but certainly a misdemeanor.