Search results

The physical environment of correctional facilities promote infectious disease transmission and outbreaks. The purpose of this study is to compare the COVID-19 burden between the correctional facility (incarcerated individuals and staff members) and non-correctional facility population in Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic.

All individuals in Ontario with a laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 between 15 January 2020 and 31 December 2022 and entered into the provincial COVID-19 data were included. Cases were classified as a correctional facility case (living or working in a correctional facility) or a non-correctional facility case. COVID-19 vaccination status was obtained from the provincial COVID-19 vaccine registry. Statistics Canada census data were used to calculate COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates for incarcerated cases and the non-correctional facility population.

Between 15 January 2020 and 31 December 2022, there were 1,550,045 COVID-19 cases in Ontario of which 8,292 (0.53%) cases were reported in correctional (63.8% amongst incarcerated individuals, 18.6% amongst staff and 17.7% amongst an unknown classification) and 1,541,753 (99.47%) were non-correctional facility cases. Most cases in correctional facilities were men (83.8%) and aged 20–59 years (93.1%). COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates were generally higher among incarcerated individuals compared to the non-correctional facility population throughout the study period. COVID-19 incidence peaked in January 2022 for both the correctional facility population (21,543.8 per 100,000 population) and the non-correctional facility population (1915.1 per 100,000 population). The rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations peaked for the correctional facility population aged 20–59 in March 2021 (70.7 per 100,000 population) and in April 2021 for the non-correctional facility population aged 20–59 (19.8 per 100,000 population). A greater percentage of incarcerated individuals (73.0%) were unvaccinated at time of their COVID-19 diagnosis compared to the non-correctional facility population (49.3%). Deaths amongst correctional facility cases were rare (0.1%, 6 / 8,292) compared to 1.0% of non-correctional facility cases (n = 15,787 / 1,541,753).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals incarcerated in correctional facilities in Ontario had higher COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates compared to the non-correctional facility population. These results support prioritizing incarcerated individuals for public health interventions to mitigate COVID-19 impacts in correctional facilities.

Independence is the cornerstone of the auditing profession. Even so, it is often assumed that acquiescing to the audit client when a disagreement occurs is more beneficial to the auditor-client relationship than asserting one’s independence (e.g., see Wang & Tuttle, 2009). We look more closely at the issue in the context of auditor-client management disagreements as recalled by experienced auditors.

We find that for most disagreements in which the auditor did not make any concession at all, the auditor-client relationship was either unaffected or strengthened. We find that a client’s use of pressure tactics did not appear to influence whether or not the auditor made a concession, but that a client’s use of pressure tactics, was associated with damage to the auditor-client relationship. The importance of the issue causing a disagreement was positively associated with the likelihood of the auditor staying with his/her initial position.

This paper provides a research-based approach for evaluating resources for transitioning to teaching online.

This paper uses Davies’ (2011) discussion of technological literacy; Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK); Leacock and Nesbit’s (2011) Learning Object Review Instrument; and Reynolds and Leeder’s (2018) expanded notion of “technology stewardship” to underpin an approach that educators can use to evaluate educational resources for transitioning to teaching online.

This paper introduces and applies an approach focused on evaluating the source of a given educational resource, as well as how it can be implemented.

This paper synthesizes frameworks relating to qualities of educational technologies and frameworks relating to qualities of educators, and introduces two criteria for evaluating resources for transitioning to distance learning.

This paper provides readily applicable criteria for evaluating resources in a time of emergency distance learning.

This approach enables educators to evaluate resources in a time of emergency distance learning.

The synthesis of four approaches to evaluating educational technologies, and applying the approach to four resources that have emerged to address COVID-19-related instructional needs.

The purpose of this paper is two fold: educate investors about hedge fund managers' activities prior to the fraud recognition by the authorities and to help investors and other stakeholders in the hedge fund industry identify red flags before fraud is actually committed.

The paper investigates fraud committed by the Bayou Funds, Beacon Hill Asset Management, Lancer Management Group (LMG), Lipper & Company and Maricopa investment fund. The fraud activities took place during 2000 and 2005.

The five cases alone cost the hedge fund investors more than $1.5 billion. Investors may have had a good opportunity for avoiding the irrecoverable costs of the fraud had they carefully vetted the backgrounds of the hedge fund managers and/or continuously monitored the funds activities, especially during turbulent market environments.

This is the first research paper to identify and extensively investigate fraud committed by hedge funds. In spite of the size of the hedge fund industry and relatively substantial level and inevitably recurring fraud, academic journals are to yet address this issue. The paper is of great value to hedge funds and their individual and institutional investors, asset managers, financial advisers and regulators.

The purpose of this paper is to offer case studies of hedge fund fraud, solutions that could mitigate hedge fund fraud risk, and a proposal for the industry to establish a hedge fund information depository (HFID) where participants/stakeholders could provide information on any hedge fund on regular basis.

Four major hedge fund fraud cases, Bayou Funds, Lipper Holdings, Manhattan Investment Fund and Maricopa Investment Corporation are used as examples of the complete absence of independent oversight and the application of HFID.

The paper finds that investors in the four funds lost more than $1.3 billion. In all four fraud cases, independent oversight and compliance function were conspicuously missing. In each fraud case there was at least one serious alert (warning) that took place at least 14 months prior to SEC first filing against the fund.

Some hedge fund industry stakeholders may reluctantly join HFID due to concern over possibly disclosing information deemed crucial for their own competitive advantage.

Had third parties become aware of the alerts, they could have made a different investment or business decision. Most importantly, this depository would allow all hedge fund industry stakeholders (accountants, administrators, auditors, investors, marketers, prime brokers, custodians and regulators) to communicate with one another regularly.

The paper makes two proposals: the founding of a hedge fund information depository; and outsourcing of the compliance function for hedge funds where it is more cost effective.

It is undoubtedly the case that advertising plays a significant part in modern economic life in most societies and many view it as an essential part of the operation of a free market system. Yet it is also the case that our knowledge of how exactly it works and whether the vast amounts spent on it are justified is still uncertain. Lord Leverhulme, the founder of Lever Brothers, is credited with the famous aphorism — ‘one half of advertising does not work but nobody knows which half’ and that perhaps sums up the situation very well. One thing that is generally accepted is that some protection must be provided both to consumers and trade competitors from false or misleading advertising which can lead to market distortions and economic loss to purchasers. Increasingly controversial, however, is the scope and extent of legal and voluntary controls on advertising. In the advertising industry fears are rising about the volume of both national and EEC proposals to restrict or limit advertising and as we move from the '80s, a decade of conspicuous consumption in which advertising flourished, to the caring '90s where environmental issues are to the fore, the advertising industry faces major challenges. Advertising as a whole is facing severe economic and legal challenges after the massive expansion of the 1980's — it is estimated that there was a 4% fall in real terms in UK advertising expenditure in the first quarter of 1990 and an estimated 5% fall in the second quarter. Clients are becoming more demanding and the cosy cartel arrangement whereby advertising agencies made a 15% standard commission on a client's expenditure has gone — commissions are down to 12%‐13% or being replaced by fixed fees. It has been estimated by the Advertising Association that proposed legal restrictions could lead to a loss of £1 bn in revenue for the industry. Multi‐farious pressure groups are campaigning against drink advertising, cigarette advertising and sexism in adverts. The advertising industry's concerns are reflected in a recent report by the Advertising Association — ‘A Freedom Under Threat — Advertising in the EC’. The report indicates a number of areas where legislative controls have been introduced or are proposed to be introduced over the next few years and expresses the fear that controls may be going too far in limiting freedom of ‘commercial speech’. Martin Boase, chairman of the Advertising Association writes in his introduction to the report: