RESUMO
Policing in the United States is irrefutably a component of systemic racism. The history of police brutality against the Black community can be found in our amendments, laws, and cultural practices-it is an infrastructure of oppression. Though police brutality is not a new development, it has reached a fever pitch with the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Recent calls to defund the police put law enforcement agencies squarely, and rightly, in the spotlight of social justice movements and reform. Current issues operating within law enforcement agencies ensure the perpetuation of a system that reinforces the status quo and gives nothing back to the communities that have been victims of brutality. A philosophical restructuring of how law enforcement agencies interact with the communities they serve is paramount. The purpose of this article is to propose a behavior-scientific model aimed at both the individual and organizational levels of law enforcement agencies using elements of acceptance and commitment training and Elinor Ostrom's core design principles, called Prosocial. The Prosocial model promotes the clarification of values within organizations and the communities they serve and reinforces values-consistent action. The model therefore has the potential to be a useful tool to combat systemic racism and police brutality within law enforcement agencies. The proposed model will be discussed in the context of who created it (White academicians), who will be implementing it (law enforcement), and ultimately who should benefit from it above and beyond the cessation of police brutality and without psychological or financial cost (Black communities).
RESUMO
This study determined the percentage of presentations at the annual conference of the Association for Behavior Analysis in 2005 with the autism (AUT) and developmental disabilities (DDA) codes (N=880) that (a) provided continuing education credits (CEs) for Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) and Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts (BCaBAs) and (b) included content that was published in a peer-reviewed outlet. Results indicate that only 77 (8.8%) presentations were ultimately published. Although posters were not eligible for CEs, posters accounted for 57.1% of the published presentations. Specifically, posters presented by a university-affiliated presenter accounted for 44.2% of presentations with published content. As a whole, only 10.4% of AUT and DDA presentations offering CEs contained data sets that were published. Considered together, these results suggest that the content provided to BCBAs and BCaBAs for CEs may not be adequately measured or sufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practices.
