Search results

Age discrimination is common and occurs in all types of industries, fields, and professions all across the world. The common misperceptions about “older workers” include hard‐to‐break habits, technological ignorance, and lack of energy and flexibility. Such attitudes, expectations, and perceptions of older workers should not exist in our professional community. Whether old or young, all people should be treated with respect and dignity. The purpose of this article is to understand the reasons behind age discrimination and ways to prevent it from occurring in the workplace. Removing age discrimination in the workplace lies in the hands of all organisations. First, they need to demolish the myths of age and realise its strengths, such as reliability, mature judgement, lack of impulsivity, timeliness, strong work ethics, and experience. Second, upper management should educate its chain of managers and supervisors about the effects discrimination has on the company’s financial situation as well as its reputation. The government plays a major role in enforcing the laws regarding age discrimination and punishing those who are unlawful.

Extant literature resoundingly praises Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs for the multitude of benefits they provide for law enforcement agencies and individuals with mental illnesses. The majority of CIT research is based on perceived benefits of this approach. Most of the goals of CIT programs are readily amenable to empirical study, yet there are few outcome evaluations of the programs. The purpose of this paper is to examine why empirical studies examining the effectiveness of CIT programs are nominal.

Structural and practical impediments to the collection of empirical data for CIT programs were identified through including examinations of the types of data routinely collected, interviews with CIT participants, and the researchers’ own observations of hindrances to the data collection processes. By triangulating these methods, the authors were able to observe a number of impediments to the collection of empirical data on this topic.

The multi-jurisdictional CIT program under review had several data problems. First, there was a lack of official data concerning CIT calls. Second, it was virtually impossible to follow a person with mental illness throughout the system from first contact to final disposition. Third, data sharing was hindered by a lack of memorandums of understanding. Fourth, important information was not being properly recorded.

This manuscript provides recommendations to address data concerns for CIT evaluations. Suggestions are intended to help facilitate more robust data for analysis and evaluation purposes, helping to grow the literature on the effectiveness and efficiency of CIT programs.