Search results

Food sector supply chains have significant negative environmental impacts, including the expansion of global food commodity production, which is driving tropical deforestation – a major climate and biodiversity problem. Innovative supply chain monitoring services promise to address such impacts. Legislation also designates “forest-risk commodities”, demanding supply chain due diligence of their provenance. But such data alone does not produce change. This study investigates how theory in performance measurement and management (PMM) can combine with sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and decision theory (DT) via case study research that addresses paradoxes of simplicity and complexity.

Given existing relevant theory but the nascent nature of the topic, theory elaboration via abductive case study research is conducted. Data collection involves interviews and participatory design workshops with supply chain actors across two supply chains (coffee and soy), exploring the potential opportunities and challenges of new deforestation monitoring services for food supply chains.

Two archetypal food supply chain structures (short food supply chains with high transparency and direct links between farmer and consumer and complex food supply chains with highly disaggregated and opaque links) provide a dichotomy akin to the known/unknown, structured/unstructured contexts in DT, enabling novel theoretical elaboration of the performance alignment matrix model in PMM, resulting in implications for practice and a future research agenda.

The novel conceptual synthesis of PMM, SSCM and DT highlights the importance of context specificity in developing PMM tools for SSCM and the challenge of achieving the general solutions needed to ensure that PMM, paradoxically, is both flexible to client needs and capable of replicable application to deliver economies of scale. To advance understanding of these paradoxes to develop network-level PMM systems to address deforestation impacts of food supply chains and respond to legislation, a future research agenda is presented.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the characteristics of all the referrals to the forensic MHIDD service over the past five years and to compare these characteristics to the cohort of service users attending the three general MHID services based in Dublin which are Service 1, Service 2 and Service 3.

This is a cross-sectional study of adults attending the three generic MHID services and the national forensic MHIDD service. The medical files of service users attending the MHID services were reviewed, and data such as age, gender, level of intellectual disability and psychiatric diagnoses were extracted and compiled into a database. The forensic MHIDD service has since its inception maintained a database of all referrals received and reviewed. The characteristics data needed were extracted from the forensic MHIDD database. All these data were then analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

The majority of the three MHID service users were in the moderate to profound range of intellectual disability, while the majority of the cases assessed by forensic MHIDD had normal IQ, borderline IQ and mild intellectual disability with 66.1%. The prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorder, schizophrenia and emotionally unstable personality disorder in the forensic MHIDD is comparable to the three MHID services. The prevalence of depression, bipolar affective disorder (BPAD), anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is higher in the three MHID services than in the forensic MHIDD service.

The FHMIDD received referrals at a greater level of overall ability, with two-thirds of the service users having mild intellectual disability to normal IQ. The prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorder such as ASD and schizophrenia is comparable between the forensic MHIDD and the three MHID services. There is a higher prevalence of depression, BPAD, anxiety disorder and OCD in the three MHID services as compared to the forensic MHIDD service.

In this chapter, we focus on specially designed instruction (SDI) as a core value for the field of specific learning disabilities (SLD). SDI is at the heart of special education, and the field of LD has been built on the core value that effective instruction improves student outcomes. We describe a two-step test and an extended example of what is and is not SDI for Matt, a student with an SLD. Finally, we discuss some of the confusion surrounding SDI and the need for the field to return to its core value of individualized, intentional, targeted, evidence- or high leverage practice–based, and systematic instruction for students with SLD.