Recent Submissions

  • Voices of child care providers: an exploratory study on the impact of policy changes

    Shdaimah, C.; Palley, E.; Miller, A. (Springer, 2018)
    In debates about child care and early education, the voices of providers are often missing. In this article, we report findings from a study exploring child care provider perspectives on how regulation and policy changes impact their ability to provide care. Data were collected from interviews and focus groups with home-based providers and center-based administrators (N = 55) in rural, urban and suburban New York counties. Four overarching themes emerged: undervaluation of child care providers, challenges faced by providers and the parents of the children they serve, regulatory disconnect, and discretionary implementation of laws and regulations. These findings suggest that without input from providers in the creation of legislation and regulations, policies may have unforeseen, inefficient, or even harmful results, such as an inability to match providers with open slots to families whose children are eligible for and in need of care. Based on these findings, we recommend developing mechanisms to enable and encourage participation of providers in the policymaking process, assisting providers in complying with regulations and providing quality care, and standardizing regulation enforcement and oversight to better align with the needs of families and the day-to-day realities of providing quality care. © 2018, The Author(s).
  • Exploring the Use of an Emancipation Checklist for Older Youth (18-21) Exiting Foster Care

    Summers, Alicia; Shdaimah, Corey S.; Knoche, Victoria A. (2018-12)
    This paper examines the efforts of a court to improve outcomes for older youth who are exiting foster care by implementing an Emancipation Checklist (EC) to guide discussion around 12 stability indicators thought to improve youth transition to adulthood (e.g., education, employment). Over 90% of youth had medical insurance, all personal documents, a permanent connection, and could identify their core values. Less than half had employments or were engaged in educational or vocational training. Youth who exited when they were older and who attended more of their court hearings had more stability indicators. Implications and future research directions are discussed.
  • Whose Knowledges? Moving Beyond Damage-Centred Research in Studies of Women in Street-Based Sex Work

    Shdaimah, Corey S.; Leon, Chrysanthi S. (Brussel, Belgium: Vrije Universiteit, 2018)
    Recent scholarship across disciplines reflects renewed interest in making social science relevant to social and policy change (Burawoy, 2005; Flyvbjerg, 2001). At the same time, professional organizations have struggled to articulate ethical obligations towards research participants. In this article we draw on our own research with street-based sex workers to explore the implications for scholarship and policy when researchers allow their studies to be guided by the voices of study participants rather than their own assumptions and hypotheses (Capous-Desyllas & Forro, 2014). We describe how our interpretation evolved upon adopting a feminist, qualitative stance that recognizes the agency and authority of respondents to guide the analysis. We join a growing group of scholars who draw attention to the multidimensionality of sex workers’ identities, goals, and daily lives to provide a fuller picture of their lives and experiences (Cheng, 2013; Hail-Jares, Shdaimah, & Leon, 2017). Such a picture inevitably shifts from the options of repair, rescue, or repression as women talk back. Intentional engagement also works against the tendency to “other” the objects of our research and illuminates the systemic factors that shape women’s choices and lives. Our insights apply to research with vulnerable or stigmatized populations across criminological and socio-legal contexts and to criminal justice policy.
  • Foster Parent and Caregiver Engagement in the Court Process

    Shdaimah, Corey S.; Benjamin, Amanda, M.S.W. (2016)
  • Prostitution/Human Trafficking Courts: Policy Frontline as Fault Line

    Shdaimah, Corey S. (Texas Law Review Online, 2018)
  • Embedding IPE: It's Easier Than You Think

    Guerin, Toby Treem; Hammersla, Margaret; Shdaimah, Corey S. (2017)
  • Exploring Social Justice in Mixed/Divided Cities: From Local to Global Learning

    Shdaimah, Corey S.; Lipscomb, Jane; Strier, Roni; Postan-Aizik, Dassi; Leviton, Susan; Olsen, Jody (2016)
  • The Perils of Low-Income Homeowning: Home Repair Problems and Policies in Philadelphia

    Shdaimah, Corey S.; Stahl, Roland W. (Bryn Mawr, PA: Bryn Mawr College. Center for Ethnicities, Communities and Social Policy., 2005-03)
  • Change Research

    Shdaimah, Corey S. (2017-01-03)
  • Lawyers and the Power of Community: The Story of South Ardmore

    Shdaimah, Corey S. (Chicago : John Marshall Law School, 2009)
  • People With Secrets: Contesting, Constructing, and Resisting Women’s Claims About Sexualized Victimization

    Corrigan, Rose; Shdaimah, Corey S. (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 2016-06-22)
  • Taking a Stand in a Not-So-Perfect World: What's a Critical Supporter of Problem-Solving Courts to Do?

    Shdaimah, Corey S. (Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland, Baltimore. School of Law, 2010)
  • The Community Justice Task Force: Assessing Progress and Looking forward: A Report prepared for the University of Maryland School of Law Community Justice Initiative

    Shdaimah, Corey S. (2008-07-15)
    Executive Summary The University of Maryland's School of Law's Community Justice Initiative (CJI) sought community members' perceptions of the impact of its work. This was explored in three focus groups held on February 26, April 10 and April 14 2008 with members of the Community Justice Task Force (CJTF), a broad group of community stakeholders. Specifically, focus group participants were asked to reflect on their: 1. Understanding of community justice and what this looks like "on the ground" 2. Assessment of the work of the CJI thus far. 3. Expectations for the CJI in the future Focus groups were conducted and analyzed by Corey S. Shdaimah, Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Social Work. Main Findings All of the findings reported here are drawn from the focus groups and thus represent the varied perceptions, understandings and goals of participants. 1. Focus group participants believed that current approaches to poverty, community strife, and struggles of Baltimore families and communities are ineffective. They expressed opinions that: a. Healthy communities are communities that do not stifle differences or conflict but rather engage in dialogue. b. Baltimore communities face many different challenges. The wealth of experience and expertise that is shared via the CJTF1 benefits everyone and increases the impact and reach of any one member or group. 2. Most participants believed that the University of Maryland School of Law is uniquely positioned to lead the CJTF. It has the resources, the stature, the connections, and the perception of academic neutrality to serve in this role. 3. Law students reported that they learned a great deal from work with the CJTF. They identified the most significant contributions to their education as follows: a. It helped them evaluate their career goals. b. They gained a better understanding of Baltimore. c. They gained a better understanding of working with clients and communities. 4. Law students also reported frustration with a lack of clarity in several aspects of their work with the CJTF: a. They indicated that there was a mismatch between expectations derived from the course description and their work. b. They were unsure of their roles. c. They had difficulty balancing CJTF work with other Community Development Clinic2 requirements. 5. Focus group participants felt that broader community participation is necessary to the success of CJTF initiatives, particularly the participation of those who live and work in the areas where CJTF initiatives will be implemented. Participants highlighted the following: a. Such participation must engage community members as full partners and leaders in the CJTF. They should determine the agenda and what they would like to see in their communities. b. Coordination, capacity building at the community level, and additional resources can ensure the continuation of CJTF work and implementation of CJTF initiatives. 6. All focus groups emphasized the urgent need for action while continuing to reflect upon and assess CJTF initiatives. Recommendations The focus groups yielded a number of concrete recommendations for addressing the concerns regarding the CJTF and its goals outlined above. I. It is necessary to explore and encourage community justice-informed approaches. a. People should not have to enter into the criminal justice system in order to access services or as a first intervention. b. It is important to identify and address problems and needs as early as possible c. CJTF efforts should be geographically based. 2. The CJTF should continue to serve as a model of healthy and open dialogue for members and for others. CJTF initiatives should: a. Foster participation and engagement. b. Strive for inclusion and fairness. c. Foster "hospitality zones" where different groups within and among communities can listen to each other and work together. 3. The CJTF should continue to work with professionals from a wide variety of agencies with a variety of skill sets. a. It should consider engaging a variety of professionals or students in CJTF leadership or coordinating roles, possibly with funding b. Social workers or community organizers will most likely provide the desired skills and expertise 4. The Community Development Clinic should continue to place law students in the CJTF. a. Modifications can be made to course descriptions to enhance the likelihood of a good match between students and CJTF work. b. Additional theoretical and conceptual groundwork in class meetings would frame the rich discussion around roles and responsibilities of (community) lawyers. 5. The CJTF must prioritize engagement of a broader group of community stakeholders. a. This requires building community capacity to allow participation and to sustain the work of the CJTF. b. Logistical arrangements, such as meeting times/places, should cater more to people who are not "paid to be at the table." c. The CJTF should create institutional memory to ensure continuity even if individuals are unable to sustain long-term participation 6. In addition to funding, the CJTF should seek in-kind services. a. These might include identifying locations to meet and goods and services that businesses would be willing to share. b. The CJTF should also consider how existing public resources can (and should) be reallocated. 7. Limited resources should not prevent the work of the CJTF to move forward. The CJTF should move to a more active phase with the knowledge and resources currently available to ensure continued interest in, and engagement with, CJTF stakeholders.

View more