This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The urgency of a study of rapport problem between a penitentiary psychologist and a juvenile convict is due to the fact that interpersonal contact has a significant impact on the success of the professional activity of a penitentiary psychologist, and helps to build trusting relationships with an adolescent. The study involved 50 psychologists in educational colonies of Russia. A specially designed questionnaire “Problem-psychological content of interpersonal contacts of a psychologist with a minor convict” was used. The study confirmed that the ability to build rapport with a minor convict depends primarily on the developed communicative and moral qualities of a psychologist. The specialists use a wide range of methods and techniques for building rapport, however, they have fragmented notion on the stages of establishing interpersonal contact, their specificity and sequence.

Public land plays a central role in contemporary urban planning struggles. Using a comparative case study approach focused on the north-eastern US cities of Newark and New York City, we uncover patterns of land acquisition and dispossession that fit five broad and often overlapping periods in planning history: City Beautiful, metropolitan reorganization, deindustrialization, and devaluation, followed by hyper-commodification in New York City and redevelopment amidst disinvestment in Newark. Through this periodization, we find that accumulation and alienation of urban public land has largely taken place through two modes of municipalization (targeted and reactive) and two modes of privatization (community-led and capital-led). Uncovering these complex and contradictory processes strengthens the case for a more intentional approach to public land than either city's leadership is currently pursuing, but which social movements have persistently demandedone which prioritizes democratic decision-making in long-term land management, as well as public access, use and purpose.