20 results
Abbreviations
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp iv-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
three - Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds in the UK
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp 31-60
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In this chapter we concentrate on the development of outcomes-based commissioning in the UK. This chapter starts by identifying key policies that have underpinned outcomes-based commissioning in the UK since 2010, and then goes on to describe in more detail Payment by Results programmes and Social Impact Bonds. For both PbR and SIBs we list key programmes, identify results and summarise some of the key discussions around these areas of policy. The themes of New Public Management and risk management, discussed in Chapter Two, are evident in the development of PbR and SIBs, with the theme of social innovation present but less prominent.
Policy on outcomes-based commissioning
Payment by Results
As Tan et al (2015) note, the term ‘Payment by Results’ can be confusing in a UK context because it is also the term used in the English NHS to refer to a programme of activity-based commissioning. An extensive programme of activity-based PbR was introduced in the UK health system in 2004 (Conrad and Uslu, 2011). Prior to the introduction of PbR, many hospitals were paid according to block contracts where funding received by the hospital was fixed irrespective of the number of patients treated (National Health Service, 2012). Payment by Results was introduced to support patient choice by creating tariffs so that commissioners pay healthcare providers for each patient treated (National Health Service, 2012). However, in this model payment is linked to delivery of treatments to a defined standard, but not to outcomes such as morbidity or mortality. It is therefore a form of ‘output-based commissioning’ rather than ‘outcomes-based commissioning’, and will not be a substantive focus of this book.
Payment by Results in the sense that is the focus of this book really entered mainstream policy following the 2010 UK election, which led to the creation of a coalition government between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. During the election campaign the Conservatives argued for the creation of a ‘Big Society’ with charities, social enterprises and communities playing a greater role in tackling social problems, while the Liberal Democrats emphasised strong communities and localism (Bochel and Powell, 2016).
five - Review of the evidence for outcome-based payment systems
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp 83-108
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In this chapter we review published evaluations of UK PbR and SIBs and US SIBs to assess the current state of evidence on what works in outcomes-based commissioning. We have used elements of a systematic review methodology to structure our search for evaluations, our assessment of their quality and the synthesis of results.
For every PbR and SIB programme identified in the UK (Tables 3.1 and 3.2) and the SIBs identified in the US (Table 4.1) a thorough search was undertaken for any published evaluation associated with each programme. This included searching websites associated with the programmes, their funders, investors and service providers. In addition, we undertook a structured search of two databases: ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts) and Web of Science. In total, 811 papers were sifted for relevance based on reading titles and abstracts.
In the US there are only three published evaluations, making our search relatively straightforward.
In the UK there was more material: we retained 46 empirical evaluations of UK PbR and SIB programmes for detailed analysis. No papers were excluded based on methodological rigour; however, the methodologies of these papers were assessed. Qualitative evaluations were assessed using the set of quality standards for qualitative evaluation that was drawn up by the UK government's Cabinet Office (Spencer et al, 2003). The design of impact evaluations was assessed using Sherman et al's (1998) Scale of Scientific Methods (the Maryland Scale). Some UK papers were not designed primarily as evaluations, but were nevertheless included because they had some evaluative elements. In these cases, and where the methodological standards set out above were relevant, they were applied. Where they were less relevant, professional judgement was used to assess the overall methodological rigour of the paper.
For the UK, synthesis of findings was undertaken in two stages. Some initial themes were taken from previous reviews, including Tan et al (2015), Fraser et al (2016) and NAO (2015), and relevant data from the 46 papers was extracted. Additional themes were also identified during the analytical process, to reflect themes emerging from the data. When synthesising results, findings from papers assessed as methodologically weaker were given less weight.
The bulk of this chapter focuses on the UK programmes, with a short summary of the US evidence at the end. This reflects the relatively greater UK evidence base.
Acknowledgements
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp vii-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Index
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp 131-136
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
one - Introduction: outcome-based payment and the reform of public services
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp 1-12
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Outcomes-based commissioning
Over recent decades on both sides of the Atlantic we have experienced important social gains. Average life expectancy has continued to rise, employment rates have risen, participation in higher education has increased, crime has fallen and technological innovations have provided new opportunities for work and play for many. But change has also brought challenges, including increasing inequality, an ageing population, rising levels of childhood obesity, changes in family size and structure, loss of traditional industries, new working practices, a more mobile population in Europe and a less mobile population in the US, and the erosion of social capital. Almost 20 years into the new millennium, the ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973) we face are remarkably similar to those we faced at the end of last millennium: adults and families experience multiple social, economic and health challenges.
Meanwhile, the role and structure of the public sector has also changed, with government increasing its reach in some areas of social and economic life and withdrawing from others. New models of commissioning and delivering services have evolved and, since 2008, public services on both sides of the Atlantic have experienced budget cuts in real terms.
In this fast-changing world, outcomes-based commissioning has become an important element of the public service reform agenda, and underpins two distinct but related approaches. On the one hand, ‘Payment by Results’ (Pay for Success or outcomes-based funding in the US) is arguably rooted in New Public Management approaches, whereas ‘Social Impact Bonds’ (Pay for Success financing in the US) are associated more closely with the social finance movement and impact investing. However, Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) can also be understood as a class of Payment by Results (PbR) and analysed as the logical conclusion of outcomes-based performance management (OBPM) (Lowe and Wilson, 2015), as they are intended to ensure that financial rewards flow directly from the achievement of specified outcomes. OBPM is a general term used for using outcomes as a means of assessing performance (Lowe, 2013).
Currently, the study of Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds is limited and emerging. The majority of publications to date have been policy briefings produced by government departments, industry leaders and think tanks.
Notes on the authors
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Frontmatter
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp i-ii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
six - Conclusions, cautions and future directions
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp 109-118
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
We started this book with some technical, economic and political questions about outcomes-based commissioning.
In Chapter Two we developed some of these questions through consideration of key theoretical debates, and argued that outcomesbased commissioning in its various guises may be theorised as a logical extension of New Public Management or marketisation. This argument has rather more traction in the UK than in the US, as the UK government has committed to ‘introducing payment by results across public services’ (Cabinet Office, 2011: 9), as part of a longstanding outsourcing and privatisation agenda (Dowling and Harvie, 2014; Dowling, 2017). By contrast, PFS is not generally seen as a form of marketisation in the US.
More generally, outcomes-based commissioning might also be theorised as policy makers’ response to complexity and risk management, and/or as a means of facilitating philanthropists and other private sector actors in social innovation. This latter motivation applies in particular to the US, as it has a different emphasis in the history of provision of public services to the UK, tending to rely rather more on private philanthropy than innovative government interventions in the provision of public goods (cf. Carnegie, 1889a and 1889b).
Drawing on the evidence presented in earlier chapters, we start this concluding chapter by addressing these questions, before going on to consider the future of outcomes-based commissioning.
The evidence to date on outcome-based commissioning
Models that encourage social innovation are attractive to governments concerned that public provision of services is resistant to reform and/or inefficient. Likewise, such models have an obvious application where government feels the private sector needs encouraging in the production of social goods. Our discussion in Chapter Five indicates both PbR/PFS in general and SIB/PFS financing in particular have provided new opportunities for the private sector to complement or substitute the public sector in the delivery and financing of social services (Gustaffson-Wright et al, 2015). However, we find that there is little clear evidence of the benefit of the PbR/PFS approach in terms of three key policy areas:
• incentivising desired behaviour
• complexity and risk management
• facilitation of social innovation.
Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Outcome-Based Payment Systems in the UK and US
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018
-
As public services budgets are cut, the ‘Payment by Results’ (or Pay for Success) model has become a popular choice in public sector commissioning. Social Impact Bonds are a variant of Payment by Results also promoted by proponents of social (or impact) investing. But how effective are these approaches? This short book asks whether the Payment by Results model is an efficient way to unlock new capital investment, help new providers to enter the ‘market’ and foster innovation, or whether the extension of ‘neoliberal’ thinking, complexity and the effects of managerialism undermine the effective delivery of social outcomes. Synthesising lessons from the UK and US for the first time, the book draws on published work in both countries together with insights from the authors’ own research and consultancy experience to offer a balanced and bipartisan overview of a field where the evidence has been weak and there are strong ideological agendas in play.
References
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp 119-130
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
two - Outcome-based commissioning: theoretical underpinnings
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp 13-30
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The growing use of Payment by Results and other forms of outcomesbased commissioning raises significant questions about the direction of public administration reforms. Here, we consider why and how such innovations in commissioning arrangements have developed, and how they might be theorised.
To date there is a very limited literature in this area; and that which does exist largely focuses on either: (a) criticising such commissioning arrangements as examples of marketisation, or (b) examining the use of such instruments in specific sectors or specific arrangements. There is little detailed examination of the theoretical underpinnings of outcomes-based commissioning.
We suggest that there are three potential theoretical drivers of outcomes-based commissioning. These are not necessarily alternative or complementary explanations. First, such innovations can be seen as the logical next step in the New Public Management (Hood, 1991) reforms implemented by the UK and US governments with a view to improving public sector efficiency. Second, they can be viewed as an attempt by policy makers to deal with complexity in the social world. Finally, they can be explained as a means by which policy makers seek to facilitate and develop new and existing philanthropic activity and social enterprise.
We evaluate each explanation and, in particular, discuss the extent to which policy objectives motivate outcomes-based commissioning. We go on to discuss the theoretical criticism of such commissioning models. The extent to which these promises and problems are observed in practice is the focus of Chapter Five. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of outcomes-based commissioning theory on wider discussions about the use of PbR in the UK, the US and worldwide.
Theories and objectives
It is no new observation that public interventions may fail to deliver, or may not deliver as well as might have been hoped, solutions to social problems. Outcomes-based commissioning may be viewed as a measure developed by government seeking to address these shortcomings.
PbR is a broad term applied to a number of the wide variety of outcomes-based commissioning strategies used by government (Battye, 2015). The common theme is that payment is made, in part or entirely, contingent on the achievement by the contracted agent of specified goals or targets.
Contents
- Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chris O'Leary, Gary Painter, University of Southern California
- With Kimberley Bailey, Jessica Labarbera
-
- Book:
- Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 08 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 28 February 2018, pp iii-iii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Pyricularia setariae: a potential bioherbicide agent for control of green foxtail (Setaria viridis)
- Gary Peng, K. N. Byer, K. L. Bailey
-
- Journal:
- Weed Science / Volume 52 / Issue 1 / February 2004
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 105-114
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
One hundred and thirty-three fungal isolates, pathogenic to green foxtail, were evaluated for weed control potential under controlled conditions. To determine weed control efficacy, these pathogens were applied as spore or mycelial suspensions at approximately 105 propagules ml−1 to green foxtail at the three-leaf stage. One week after inoculation, most isolates caused only minor injury to the plants, but 15 isolates caused 50 to 100% disease. Among the most efficacious isolates, only those of Pyricularia setariae exhibited strong host specificity to the target weed, revealing no significant pathogenicity on 28 other plant species tested, including many important crops such as wheat, barley, and oat. On green foxtail leaves, conidia of this fungus germinated readily at 14, 20, and 26 C, but the process of germination and appressorial formation was more rapid at the higher temperatures. The fungus applied at the concentration of 105 spores ml−1 reduced weed fresh weight by 34% 7 d after the treatment when compared with controls, whereas a concentration of 107 spores ml−1 reduced fresh weight by 87%. This efficacy was comparable with that of the herbicide sethoxydim. When applied to the weed at the one- to four-leaf stages, the fungus reduced green foxtail fresh weight by more than 80%. Efficacy was slightly lower on plants at the five-leaf stage or older. On the green foxtail biotype resistant to the herbicide sethoxydim, P. setariae caused 80% fresh weight reduction compared with untreated controls, as opposed to 17% achieved with the herbicide. At 20 C, the fungus required a minimum of 6-h dew period to initiate infection, but a 10-h dew period was needed to cause severe damage to green foxtail.
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Foreword
-
- By Gary Bailey
- Edited by Julie Fish, De Montfort University, Leicester, Kate Karban, University of Bradford
-
- Book:
- LGBT Health Inequalities
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 11 March 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 March 2015, pp xxi-xxvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
I am delighted to have been asked to write the foreword for this book, Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans health inequalities: International perspectives in social work, especially because I have lived my life as an openly gay male of African descent in the United States. Over the years I have had the opportunity to watch the emergence of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ) community from the shadows, while at the same time participating in the work needed to ensure that globally all LGBTQ people are able to live out their lives safely, healthily and openly.
Recent anti-LGBTQ actions in India, Russia and Uganda, as well as heated protests and resistance in France as the government there moved to make same-sex marriage legal and allow same-sex couples to adopt, show that there is still work to be done. According to an article that appeared in The Guardian newspaper in November 2013, currently 41 out of 53 Commonwealth countries have laws that allow for discrimination of LGBTQ people and more importantly this topic is not on their agenda (Davidson, 2013).
The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human wellbeing and help to meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed and living in poverty. A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession's focus on individual wellbeing in a social context and the wellbeing of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to and address problems in living.
As professional social workers we know that individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans are members of every community. LGBT people are diverse, come from all walks of life and include people of all races, ethnicities and ages, they are from all socioeconomic statuses and they exist in all parts of the globe.
In addition to considering the needs of LGBT people in programmes designed to improve the health of entire communities, there is also a need for culturally competent medical care and prevention services that are specific to this population. Social inequality is often associated with poorer health status, and sexual orientation has been associated with multiple health threats.
Contributors
-
- By Michael H. Allen, Leora Amira, Victoria Arango, David W. Ayer, Helene Bach, Christopher R. Bailey, Ross J. Baldessarini, Kelsey Ball, Alan L. Berman, Marian E. Betz, Emily A. Biggs, R. Warwick Blood, Kathleen T. Brady, David A. Brent, Jeffrey A. Bridge, Gregory K. Brown, Anat Brunstein Klomek, A. Jacqueline Buchanan, Michelle J. Chandley, Tim Coffey, Jessica Coker, Yeates Conwell, Scott J. Crow, Collin L. Davidson, Yogesh Dwivedi, Stacey Espaillat, Jan Fawcett, Steven J. Garlow, Robert D. Gibbons, Catherine R. Glenn, Deborah Goebert, Erica Goldstein, Tina R. Goldstein, Madelyn S. Gould, Kelly L. Green, Alison M. Greene, Philip D. Harvey, Robert M. A. Hirschfeld, Donna Holland Barnes, Andres M. Kanner, Gary J. Kennedy, Stephen H. Koslow, Benoit Labonté, Alison M. Lake, William B. Lawson, Steve Leifman, Adam Lesser, Timothy W. Lineberry, Amanda L. McMillan, Herbert Y. Meltzer, Michael Craig Miller, Michael J. Miller, James A. Naifeh, Katharine J. Nelson, Charles B. Nemeroff, Alexander Neumeister, Matthew K. Nock, Jennifer H. Olson-Madden, Gregory A. Ordway, Michael W. Otto, Ghanshyam N. Pandey, Giampaolo Perna, Jane Pirkis, Kelly Posner, Anne Rohs, Pedro Ruiz, Molly Ryan, Alan F. Schatzberg, S. Charles Schulz, M. Katherine Shear, Morton M. Silverman, April R. Smith, Marcus Sokolowski, Barbara Stanley, Zachary N. Stowe, Sarah A. Struthers, Leonardo Tondo, Gustavo Turecki, Robert J. Ursano, Kimberly Van Orden, Anne C. Ward, Danuta Wasserman, Jerzy Wasserman, Melinda K. Westlund, Tracy K. Witte, Kseniya Yershova, Alexandra Zagoloff, Sidney Zisook
- Edited by Stephen H. Koslow, University of Miami, Pedro Ruiz, University of Miami, Charles B. Nemeroff, University of Miami
-
- Book:
- A Concise Guide to Understanding Suicide
- Published online:
- 05 October 2014
- Print publication:
- 18 September 2014, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Turbulence measurements using a nanoscale thermal anemometry probe
- SEAN C. C. BAILEY, GARY J. KUNKEL, MARCUS HULTMARK, MARGIT VALLIKIVI, JEFFREY P. HILL, KARL A. MEYER, CANDICE TSAY, CRAIG B. ARNOLD, ALEXANDER J. SMITS
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Fluid Mechanics / Volume 663 / 25 November 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 September 2010, pp. 160-179
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A nanoscale thermal anemometry probe (NSTAP) has been developed to measure velocity fluctuations at ultra-small scales. The sensing element is a free-standing platinum nanoscale wire, 100 nm × 2 μm × 60 μm, suspended between two current-carrying contacts and the sensor is an order of magnitude smaller than presently available commercial hot wires. The probe is constructed using standard semiconductor and MEMS manufacturing methods, which enables many probes to be manufactured simultaneously. Measurements were performed in grid-generated turbulence and compared to conventional hot-wire probes with a range of sensor lengths. The results demonstrate that the NSTAP behaves similarly to conventional hot-wire probes but with better spatial resolution and faster temporal response. The results are used to investigate spatial filtering effects, including the impact of spatial filtering on the probability density of velocity and velocity increment statistics.
Political Ideologies and Social Movements: A Report on the 1994 Organization of American Historians Conference
- Gary M. Fink, Gary L. Bailey, Donna Gabaccia
-
- Journal:
- International Labor and Working-Class History / Volume 47 / Spring 1995
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 December 2008, pp. 101-105
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
PEG-mediated and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation in the mycopathogen Verticillium fungicola
- Richard C. AMEY, Anna ATHEY-POLLARD, Claire BURNS, Peter R. MILLS, Andy BAILEY, Gary D. FOSTER
-
- Journal:
- Mycological Research / Volume 106 / Issue 1 / January 2002
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 February 2002, pp. 4-11
- Print publication:
- January 2002
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Verticillium fungicola, a severe mycopathogen of the cultivated mushroom Agaricus bisporus, was successfully transformed using both PEG-mediated and Agrobacterium-mediated techniques. PEG-mediated co-transformation was successful with hygromycin B resistance (hph), uidA (β-glucuronidase GUS), and green fluorescent protein (GFP) genes. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation was successful with the hph gene. Transformation frequencies of up to 102 transformants per μg DNA and 4068 transformants per 105 conidia were obtained for PEG-mediated and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation respectively. Expression of integrated genes in co-transformants was stable after 18 months of successive sub-culturing on non-selective medium, and following storage at −80 °C in glycerol. Molecular analysis of PEG-mediated transformants showed integration of the transforming genes into the target genome. Molecular analysis of Agrobacterium-mediated transformants showed integration of transforming DNA as single copies within the target genome. Co-transformants exhibited symptoms of disease in inoculation experiments and were at least as virulent as the wild-type fungus. GFP and GUS expression were observed in-vivo with the GFP-tagged strain showing great potential as a tool in epidemiological and host-pathogen interaction studies. The development of transformation systems for V. fungicola will allow in-depth molecular studies of the interaction of this organism with A. bisporus.