Answer:
Thank you for the free points!
Explanation:
A careful reading of the history of the “idea” of family preservation as well as an appraisal of the recent policy context for its adoption—as illuminated by Berry (1997), Schorr (1997), McCroskey and Meezan (1997), and others—suggests that all three explanations—dissensus on values, practice lacunae, and organizational complexities—may to a degree be valid. At a minimum, these and other trenchant commentaries such as those provided recently by Littell and Schuerman (1999) and Halpern (1999) suggest that any discussion of the “practice” of family preservation absent its historical/valuative roots and current organizational and policy context will be incomplete.
That said, this present paper will focus on some of the most vexing challenges of implementing family preservation practice, some of its enduring legacies as a practice modality, and some of the longer range problems in developing practice theory and application that it has illuminated
According to the Northwest Ordinance of 1785, a township was the basic unit of land grant.
You can't explain behavior by merely focusing on internal characteristics of a person such as being sadistic and cruel. Such behaviors were not exactly predisposition. They were heavily influenced by external factors like commands from a legitimate power such as Adolf Hitler. The Milgram experiment was actually inspired by the harsh acts of Germans during the WWII. People can actually go to extreme lengths, even if such acts are an attack of one's personal conscience, since they believe the legitimacy of a higher power, consequently making their actions legal or morally right even when it is not.
