scholarly journals Evaluation of US state pollinators using 3 evidence-based policymaking frameworks

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaitlin Stack Whitney ◽  
Briana Burt Stringer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Conservation Policies ◽  
The Us ◽  
State Policymaking ◽  
Us Federal Government

After the US federal government created a national pollinator protection plan in 2015, many states followed with their own. Since their goal is to promote pollinating insect conservation, we wanted to know whether the state plans are using best practices for evidence-based science policy. In early 2019 we found and downloaded every existing, publicly available US state pollinator protection plan. We then used content analysis to assess the goals, scope, and implementation of state-level pollinator protection plans across the US. This analysis was conducted using three distinct frameworks for evidence-based policymaking: US Department of Interior Adaptive Resources Management (ARM), US Environmental Protection Agency management pollinator protection plan (MP3) guidance, and Pew Trusts Pew-MacAthur Results First Project elements of evidence-based state policymaking (PEW) framework. Then we scored them using the framework criteria, to assess whether the plans were using known best practices for evidence based policymaking. Of the 31 states with a state pollinator plan, Connecticut was the state with the lowest total score across the three evaluation frameworks. The state with the highest overall scores, across the three frameworks, was Missouri. Most states did not score highly on the majority of the frameworks. Overall, many state plans were lacking policy elements that address monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment. These missing elements impact the ability of states to achieve their conservation goals. Our results indicate that states can improve their pollinator conservation policies to better match evidence-based science policy guidance, regardless of which framework is used.

scholarly journals Voting Rights for Non-Citizens: The European Multilevel and the US Federal Constitutional Systems Compared

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 392-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini
Keyword(s):  
State Level ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Federal System ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
The Us ◽  
Comparative Methodology ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Regulatory Models

Voting rights – Citizens and aliens – European multilevel architecture – US federal system – Comparative methodology – Different regulatory models for non-citizens suffrage at the state level in Europe – Impact of supranational law – Challenges and tensions – Analogous dynamics in the US constitutional experience – Recent European legal and jurisprudential developments in comparative perspective – What future prospects for citizenship and democracy in Europe?

scholarly journals Crisis Standards of Care Implementation at the State Level in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 599-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colton Margus ◽  
Ritu R. Sarin ◽  
Michael Molloy ◽  
Gregory R. Ciottone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Pediatric Care ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
The Us

AbstractIntroduction:In 2009, the Institute of Medicine published guidelines for implementation of Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) at the state level in the United States (US). Based in part on the then concern for H1N1 pandemic, there was a recognized need for additional planning at the state level to maintain health system preparedness and conventional care standards when available resources become scarce. Despite the availability of this framework, in the years since and despite repeated large-scale domestic events, implementation remains mixed.Problem:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rejuvenates concern for how health systems can maintain quality care when faced with unrelenting burden. This study seeks to outline which states in the US have developed CSC and which areas of care have thus far been addressed.Methods:An online search was conducted for all 50 states in 2015 and again in 2020. For states without CSC plans online, state officials were contacted by email and phone. Public protocols were reviewed to assess for operational implementation capabilities, specifically highlighting guidance on ventilator use, burn management, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, pediatric standards, and reliance on influenza planning.Results:Thirty-six states in the US were actively developing (17) or had already developed (19) official CSC guidance. Fourteen states had no publicly acknowledged effort. Eleven of the 17 public plans had updated within five years, with a majority addressing ventilator usage (16/17), influenza planning (14/17), and pediatric care (15/17), but substantially fewer addressing care for burn patients (9/17).Conclusion:Many states lacked publicly available guidance on maintaining standards of care during disasters, and many states with specific care guidelines had not sufficiently addressed the full spectrum of hazard to which their health care systems remain vulnerable.

Bosnia's paralysed institutions add to sense of chaos

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Crisis ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Local Elections ◽  
State Budget ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Level Government ◽  
Political Disputes

Significance Intensified political disputes between the main parties are holding up the state budget for 2020, including funding for local elections in November. They also threaten to weaken the response to the looming socio-economic crisis from the COVID-19 pandemic. Impacts The US entry ban on former senior SDA member Amir Zukic is seen as an attempt to persuade the party to behave more responsibly. The EU is in a contest with China, Russia and Turkey to retain influence in the region. Pre-election positioning may explain the defection of Fahrudin Radoncic’s Union for a Better Future party from the state-level government.

scholarly journals Heterogeneous Monetary Policy Transmission in the US Housing Market

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-96
Author(s):  
Maria Christidou ◽  
Panagiotis Theodore Konstantinou ◽  
Costas Roumanias
Keyword(s):  
Monetary Policy ◽  
House Prices ◽  
National Level ◽  
Property Tax ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Tax Rates ◽  
Housing Investment ◽  
Policy Transmission ◽  
The Us

We assess the effects of monetary policy on real house prices and housing investment across the US states during the period 1983-2008. We find that an expansionary monetary shock generates higher housing investment and house prices at the national level. At the state level, however the responses of housing investment and house prices differ from the nation-wide responses. We relate this heterogeneity to various observable factors such as property tax rates, howeownership, income inequality, poverty and demographic factors. All these factors are crucial in explaining the heterogeneity of the state-level responses.

US Economic Development Policies: Current Trends and Reasons of Variations on the State Level

2010 ◽  
pp. 133-143
Author(s):  
A. Tsvetkova
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Regional Economic Development ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Regional Economic ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
The Us ◽  
Entrepreneurial Strategies

The article looks into the dynamics of the US regional economic development policies in the last decades and tracks the transition from so-called "locational" to "entrepreneurial" strategies. It also documents existing variations in state economic development programs and explains the differences in approaches and current tendencies from both theoretical and practical standpoints.

The Role of Governmental Organizations in Communicating About Regulating Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffery Morris
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Regulatory Science ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
The Public ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
Us Federal Government

Governments rely on regulatory science to support decisions related to the protection of human health and the environment. Not only is regulatory science produced and used differently than discovery-driven science practiced outside the government, but it also has its own means of being communicated within democratic societies and has its own challenges for public engagement. This chapter examines how regulatory science is communicated within the US federal government, principally by the US Environmental Protection Agency, using nanotechnology and biotechnology as case studies to illustrate the challenges of, and opportunities for, engaging the public on the use of scientific information to inform decisions on the introduction and use of emerging technologies into society.

Policy analysis in the states

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary VanLandingham
Keyword(s):  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Nonprofit Organizations ◽  
State Level ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Policy Innovation ◽  
The State ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
State Governments ◽  
State Policymaking ◽  
High Level

State governments have been called the ‘laboratories of democracy’ due to their high level of policy innovation. A great deal of policy analysis occurs at the state level to support this experimentation, including internal legislative and executive branch research offices, university think tanks, and private and nonprofit organizations that generate studies to influence state policymaking. Given the diversity among the states, it is not surprising that their policy analysis organizations and activities also vary widely. While state-level policy analysis has grown rapidly, it has also fragmented, and many policy analysis organizations face important challenges. This chapter discusses these trends and the future of policy analysis in the states.

scholarly journals Advancing the state-level tracking of evidence-based practices: a case study

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Cusworth Walker ◽  
Georganna Sedlar ◽  
Lucy Berliner ◽  
Felix I. Rodriguez ◽  
Paul A. Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Practices

Implementing Evidence-Based Psychosocial Practices: Lessons Learned from Statewide Implementation of Two Practices

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 926-936,942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna L. Moser ◽  
Natalie L. DeLuca ◽  
Gary R. Bond ◽  
Angela L. Rollins
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Treatment ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Health Agency ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Dual Disorders

AbstractObjective: As part of this national project, we examined barriers and strategies to implementation of two evidence-based practices (EBPs) in Indiana.Background: Despite many advances in the knowledge base regarding mental health treatment, the implementation of EBPs in real-world setting remains poorly understood. The National EBP Project is a multi-state study of factors influencing implementation of EBPs.Methods: Over a 15-month period we observed eight assertive community treatment (ACT) programs and six integrated dual disorders treatment (IDDT) programs and noted pertinent actions taken by the state mental health agency influencing implementation. We created a database containing summaries of monthly visits to each program and interviews with key leaders. Using this database and clinical impressions, we rated barriers and strategies at each site on seven factors: Attitudes, Mastery, Leadership, Staffing, Policies, Workflow, and Program Monitoring.Results: At the site level, the most frequently observed barriers were in the areas of leadership, staffing and policies for ACT, and mastery and leadership for IDDT. Overall, barriers were more evident for IDDT than for ACT. Strategies were less frequently noted but generally paralleled the areas noted for barriers. However, our central finding was that ACT was generally more successfully implemented than IDDT throughout the state, and that this difference could be traced in large part to state-level factors relating to historical preparation for the practice, establishment of standards, formation of a technical assistance center, and funding.Conclusion: In this case study, both state-level and site-specific factors influenced success of implementation of EBPs. To address these factors, the field needs systematic strategies to anticipate and overcome these barriers if full implementation is to be realized.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document