scholarly journals Using Two Government Food Waste Recognition Programs to Understand Current Reducing Food Loss and Waste Activities in the U.S.

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 2760 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Chen ◽  
Rachel Chen
Keyword(s):  
Food Waste ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Waste Reduction ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Waste Prevention ◽  
Source Reduction ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The U.S

Food waste mitigation is a critical means of addressing current and future economic, social and environmental concerns, to ensure enough food to feed the world’s growing population in a sustainable way. U.S. federal, state, and local governments have recognized the importance of food waste issues. A variety of policies associated with food waste management, food reduction, and food donation are set to allow and incentivize individuals, organizations and businesses to reduce their food waste. This study focuses on investigating current food waste prevention and diversion activities using data drawn from two U.S. waste reduction recognition programs, the U.S. Food Waste Challenge (FWC) and the EPA Food Recovery Challenge (FRC). Participants involved in these two programs follow the EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy to prevent and divert their food waste. Descriptive statistics, crosstabs, and content analysis were used to analyze the data. The results indicated that a majority of participants were in the food store category, and that Region 9 had the highest participation rate; the top three food waste prevention and diversion activities were food donation, source reduction, and collaboration/partnership. Different strategies used in different categories by FRC awardees were identified. The results of this study can be used to identify changes and strategies needed in practices, programs, and policies. The outcomes of the study provide a clear picture regarding what has been done and what needs to be done more in the future.

Guns on Campus: Surveying a rugged post-Heller/ McDonald landscape

2013 ◽  
Vol 45 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leif Magne Lervik
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Public Colleges ◽  
Concealed Weapons ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Academic History ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Public Colleges And Universities ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Two years later, this decision was also made applicable to state and local governments. Today, seven U.S. states have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on their public senior high school campuses. This article, introduced by a brief comment on the Second Amendment’s legal and academic history, traces several recent developments of legal change. It discusses relevant arguments and attitudes towards guns on campus, and explores issues of future concern for public colleges and universities within the realm of firearms and campus safety.

Whose money matters in public education: A “public” good that parents purchase

2021 ◽  
pp. 147821032110343
Author(s):  
Eunju Kang
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School Districts ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
New York State ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Education Funding ◽  
Funding Policy ◽  
State And Local

Instead of asking whether money matters, this paper questions whose money matters in public education. Previous literature on education funding uses an aggregate expenditure per pupil to measure the relationship between education funding and academic performance. Federalism creates mainly three levels of funding sources: federal, state, and local governments. Examining New York State school districts, most equitably funded across school districts among the 50 states, this paper shows that neither federal nor state funds are positively correlated with graduation rates. Only local revenues for school districts indicate a strong positive impact. Parents’ money matters. This finding contributes to a contentious discourse on education funding policy in the governments, courts, and academia with respect to education funding and inequality in American public schools.

scholarly journals A Framework for Rigorous Qualitative Research as a Component of Mixed Method Rapid-Cycle Evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Skillman ◽  
Caitlin Cross-Barnet ◽  
Rachel Friedman Singer ◽  
Christina Rotondo ◽  
Sarah Ruiz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Rapid Assessment ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Annual Reporting ◽  
Multiple Cycles ◽  
State And Local

As federal, state, and local governments continue to test innovative approaches to health care delivery, the ability to produce timely and reliable evidence of what works and why it works is crucial. There is limited literature on methodological approaches to rapid-cycle qualitative research. The purpose of this article is to describe the advantages and limitations of a broadly applicable framework for in-depth qualitative analysis placed within a larger rapid-cycle, multisite, mixed-method evaluation. This evaluation included multiple cycles of primary qualitative data collection and quarterly and annual reporting. Several strategies allowed us to be adaptable while remaining rigorous; these included planning for multiple waves of qualitative coding, a hybrid inductive/deductive approach informed by a cross-program evaluation framework, and use of a large team with specific program expertise. Lessons from this evaluation can inform researchers and evaluators functioning in rapid assessment or rapid-cycle evaluation contexts.

Within Source Diversification When the Going Gets Tough: Examining Alterations to Human Service Nonprofit Funding by Levels of Government

2021 ◽  
pp. 45-66
Keyword(s):  
Nonprofit Organizations ◽  
Human Service ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
Federal State ◽  
The Great Recession ◽  
Nonprofit Funding ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The Government

Government increasingly relies on nonprofit organizations to deliver public services, especially for human services. As such, human service nonprofits receive a substantial amount of revenue from government agencies via grants and contracts. Yet, times of crises result in greater demand for services, but often with fewer financial resources. As governments and nonprofits are tasked to do more with less, how does diversification within the government funding stream influence government-nonprofit funding relationships? More specifically, we ask: How do the number of different government partners and the type of government funder—federal, state, or local—influence whether nonprofits face alterations to government funding agreements? Drawing upon data from over 2,000 human service nonprofits in the United States, following the Great Recession, we find nonprofit organizations that only received funds from the federal government were less likely to experience funding alterations. This helps to illustrate the economic impact of the recession on state and local governments as well as the nonprofit organizations that partner with them.

The Contours of Repression

2019 ◽  
pp. 184-208
Author(s):  
David M. Struthers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Industrial Workers ◽  
World War One ◽  
International Borders ◽  
The World ◽  
Sedition Act ◽  
State And Local

This chapter examines the World War One period in which the federal, state, and local governments in the United States, in addition to non-state actors, created one of the most severe eras of political repression in United States history. The Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, changes to immigration law at the federal level, and state criminal syndicalism laws served as the legal basis for repression. The Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM), Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), and other anarchists took different paths in this era. Some faced lengthy prison sentences, some went underground, while others crossed international borders to flee repression and continue organizing. This chapter examines the repression of radical movements and organizing continuities that sustained the movement into the 1920s.

Geospatial Resource Integration in Support of Homeland Defense and Security

2019 ◽  
pp. 342-352
Author(s):  
David Foster ◽  
Christopher Mayfield
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Geospatial Data ◽  
Federal State ◽  
September 11Th ◽  
Geospatial Information ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
Federal Response ◽  
Homeland Defense ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has faced numerous challenges within the realm of Geospatial Information Systems and Science in fostering a Common Operational Picture suitable to homeland defense and security. This paper details the challenges and successes since September 11th, 2001 to build common ground for all federal, state, local governments, and non-government organizations that depend on geospatial data to provide for the safety and security of the Nation. An analysis of the protracted integration of commercial GIS technologies within the DoD and the speed, openness, and scale this expertise can bring is discussed as an issue for the Federal response to disasters. Finally, distinct successes of collaboration and integration of common standards and data currently in use at military commands is discussed as a robust path to improve future geospatial efforts.

There Is No Such Thing as Academic Freedom (For Professors): The Rise and Fall of the Tenure System

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Ginsberg
Keyword(s):  
Academic Freedom ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Federal State ◽  
University Administrators ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Arts ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Campus Activities ◽  
American Society

Many Academics Who are troubled by the growing power of administrators on their campuses believe that their jobs are protected by tenure and their campus activities by academic freedom. Hence, they believe that they, personally, have little to fear from the advent of the all-administrative university. Yet, these unworried professors might do well to fret just a bit. Tenure does not provide absolute protection, and at any rate only about 30 percent of the current professorate is tenured or even on the tenure track. The remaining 70 percent are hired on a contingent basis and can be dismissed at any time. The question of academic freedom is more complex and more dispiriting. In recent years, the federal courts have decided that deanlets, not professors, are entitled to academic freedom. This proposition may be surprising to academics, who, usually without giving the matter much thought, believe they possess a special freedom derived from the German concept of Lehrfreiheit, which they think protects their freedom to teach, to express opinions, and to engage in scholarly inquiry without interference from university administrators or government officials. It certainly seems reasonable to think that professors should possess Lehrfreiheit. Academics play an important part in the production, dissemination, and evaluation of ideas, and a free and dynamic society depends on a steady flow of new ideas in the sciences, politics, and the arts. The late Chief Justice Earl Warren once opined that American society would “stagnate and die” if scholars were not free to inquire, study, and evaluate. Accordingly, he said, academic freedom “is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.” Despite Chief Justice Warren’s endorsement, professors’ ideas and utterances do not have any special constitutional status. Like other Americans, professors have free speech rights under the First Amendment. In a number of cases decided during the 1950s and 1960s, the Supreme Court made it clear that the First Amendment offered professors considerable protection from the efforts of federal, state, and local governments to intrude on their freedom of speech and association.

Managing waterway health in the Goulburn Broken Catchment, Victoria, Australia

2001 ◽  
Vol 43 (9) ◽  
pp. 29-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Tennant ◽  
J. Sheed
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
Community Involvement ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Environmental Flows ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Murray Darling Basin ◽  
Effective Delivery ◽  
Improvement Programs ◽  
State And Local

Historically within most catchments, resource management programs have been planned and implemented in isolation of one another. This was once the case in the Goulburn Broken Catchment, a major catchment of the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. Although only 2% of the Murray Darling Basin's land area, the catchment generates 11% of the basin's water resources. Learning from the past, a cooperative and collaborative approach to natural resource programs has developed. This approach is the envy of many other catchment communities and agencies. Through a combination of “Partnership Programs”, “Operational Initiatives” and community involvement, significant programs have been implemented within the catchment, which will benefit not only the local community but communities further afield. The outcomes of the waterway health program highlight the benefits provided through the establishment of cooperative and partnership resource improvement programs. These programs were founded on the ability of the community to recognise the need for integration, base management decisions on best available science and an ability to work together. Their effective delivery has been provided through the resources provided, to the local community, by the Natural Heritage Trust with matching and State and local allocations. While programs have shown success, challenges still face the community. These challenges include verification and implementation of environmental flows, storage of the catchment's vital water resources, and maintaining community involvement and participation in on-going works programs. The Goulburn Broken Catchment community, with the support of Federal, State and Local Governments, is looking at opportunities for continued improvements in waterway health.

Inter-Governmental Relations in the Provision of Local E-Services

2011 ◽  
pp. 1120-1124
Author(s):  
R. Kelso
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
The State ◽  
Federal State ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Political Commentary ◽  
Commonwealth Government ◽  
State And Local

Australia is a nation of 20 million citizens occupying approximately the same land mass as the continental U.S. More than 80% of the population lives in the state capitals where the majority of state and federal government offices and employees are based. The heavily populated areas on the Eastern seaboard, including all of the six state capitals have advanced ICT capability and infrastructure and Australians readily adopt new technologies. However, there is recognition of a digital divide which corresponds with the “great dividing” mountain range separating the sparsely populated arid interior from the populated coastal regions (Trebeck, 2000). A common theme in political commentary is that Australians are “over-governed” with three levels of government, federal, state, and local. Many of the citizens living in isolated regions would say “over-governed” and “underserviced.” Most of the state and local governments, “… have experienced difficulties in managing the relative dis-economies of scale associated with their small and often scattered populations.” Rural and isolated regions are the first to suffer cutbacks in government services in periods of economic stringency. (O’Faircheallaigh, Wanna, & Weller, 1999, p. 98). Australia has, in addition to the Commonwealth government in Canberra, two territory governments, six state governments, and about 700 local governments. All three levels of government, federal, state, and local, have employed ICTs to address the “tyranny of distance” (Blainey, 1967), a term modified and used for nearly 40 years to describe the isolation and disadvantage experienced by residents in remote and regional Australia. While the three levels of Australian governments have been working co-operatively since federation in 1901 with the federal government progressively increasing its power over that time, their agencies and departments generally maintain high levels of separation; the Queensland Government Agent Program is the exception.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document