Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book is about the effort to improve governmental policy-making through the development, beginning in the 1950s, of a new profession of advisors and public managers trained in public policy analysis and strategic public management. The use of such professionals has become commonplace at all levels of government within the United States and in many other countries around the world. A central question that we examine is this: what have we learned about the effects of this new profession on public policies and on policy making? Does policy analysis matter? Closely related to this central question is another one: does what we have learned offer lessons for whether and how policy analysis can be improved? Each of the essays in this book is designed to make us think better and harder about how to improve the practice and use of policy analysis. We consider what we have learned so far about whether and how policy analysis matters, how this learning helps to generate ideas for improving practice, and why learning more about this is an important agenda for future research.\" - Provided by publisher

Recent directives from the US Office of the President have detailed the need for resilience in the face of increased security threats and natural disasters. While these documents call for resilience improvements, no guiding framework for the assessment of resilience exists. Federal agencies are then deriving individual ways to address resilience, resulting in a series of parallel efforts instead of one national cohesive effort. This paper summarizes the portfolio of current efforts implemented by agencies to guide the integration of resilience assessment across the federal government. We present a critical overview on the state of resilience science within seven federal agencies and our perspective on the consistencies and disparities on how each agency is enacting presidential orders. The resulting analysis identifies differences in approaches to resilience and common ground upon which federal agencies can use to support more effective programs.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards additional funds for extramural research to support research infrastructure and administration, such that the total cost of a given research project depends on where it is conducted. We sought to understand whether greater indirect rates were associated with a greater scientific impact of NIH-funded work. The NIH RePORTER database was queried to retrieve all R01, R21, or R03-funded research proposals for which National Institute of Mental Health was listed as the primary funding source for proposals funded between 2012 and 2023. We applied multivariable regression to examine the association between indirect rate and measures of scientific impact, including number of publications, their citation impact in terms of H-index per grant and total citations, and the number of patents associated with each grant. Of 5,143 projects, reflecting $9.85 billion, mean indirect rate was 47.9% (SD 16.2%). Greater indirect rate was associated with modest but statistically significantly greater number of publications (+0.30 per 10% increase in indirect rate, 95% CI 0.08–0.51); H-index at 5 years (+0.25 per 10% increase in indirect rate, 95% CI 0.18–0.33; Fig. 1); and total citations (+29.71 per 10% increase in indirect rate, 95% CI 17.86–41.57). Each 10% increase in indirect rate was associated with a 20% increase in odds of patent filing (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05–1.37). The results suggest modest but statistically significantly greater benefits from conduct of research at institutions with higher indirect costs and provide data for policymakers to consider in weighing the costs against potential benefits of work at such institutions.

The USA has experienced one large-scale nuclear incident in its history. Lessons learned during the Three-Mile Island nuclear accident provided government planners with insight into property damage resulting from a low-level release of radiation, and an awareness concerning how to prepare for future occurrences. However, if there is an incident resulting from detonation of an improvised nuclear device or state-sponsored device/weapon, resulting casualties and the need for medical treatment could overwhelm the nation’s public health system. After the Cold War ended, government investments in radiation preparedness declined; however, the attacks on 9/11 led to re-establishment of research programs to plan for the possibility of a nuclear incident. Funding began in earnest in 2004, to address unmet research needs for radiation biomarkers, devices and products to triage and treat potentially large numbers of injured civilians. There are many biodosimetry approaches and medical countermeasures (MCMs) under study and in advanced development, including those to address radiation-induced injuries to organ systems including bone marrow, the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, lungs, skin, vasculature and kidneys. Biomarkers of interest in determining level of radiation exposure and susceptibility of injury include cytogenetic changes, ‘omics’ technologies and other approaches. Four drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with other licensures being sought; however, there are still no cleared devices to identify radiation-exposed individuals in need of treatment. Although many breakthroughs have been made in the efforts to expand availability of medical products, there is still work to be done.

In the last few years, an increasing number of articles, reports, websites, and official documents have been published with narratives that link Fulani pastoralists to insecurity in West and Central Africa. In this article, we critically analyse one of these documents: a legislation factsheet from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) titled Factsheet: Fulani Communities that was published in September 2020. We focus our analysis on this factsheet because it is an official document from a US government entity that aims to inform policy-makers, it contains problematic narratives that are emblematic of larger discourses about Fulani pastoralists, and it links to a number of questionable sources. We critically reviewed the narratives in the factsheet and the linked sources. We found that even though it aims to be fair and balanced, the factsheet is biased against Fulani pastoralists, primarily because it links one single group to violence and religious tension and its use of problematic sources. In conclusion, we find that the factsheet perpetuates a single story or stereotype about Fulani pastoralists and thereby fuels existing inflammatory rhetoric that will likely increase insecurity, rather than contribute to peace and stability in the region.

The purpose of the present study was to examine Iranian university students' attitudes toward the US government and the English language in the Trump era. For this purpose, 359 Iranian university students who were taking general English courses took part in the study and completed two questionnaires measuring their attitudes toward the US government and the English language in the Trump era. The results of the study indicated that Iranian university students did not have favorable attitudes toward the US government in the Trump era, while their attitudes toward the English language were more positive. Furthermore, we found that demographic information, including gender, field of study, educational level, and economic status could affect the attitudes toward the US government and the English language. We also found that participants with higher English language proficiency levels had more positive attitudes toward the English language. Finally, findings were discussed, and directions for future research were recommended.

PurposeThe US federal government requires auditors to follow governmental auditing standards when performing audits of entities expending significant federal government dollars. This study explores stakeholder participation during the comment letter phase of government auditing standard setting to determine if participation is symbolic or substantive.Design/methodology/approachResearchers conduct an analysis of the 179 comment letters submitted to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) and received for their 2010 and 2017 exposure drafts of government auditing standards.FindingsThe distribution of stakeholder participation groups in the government auditing standard-setting process differs from the distribution in the private company auditing standard-setting process. On average, participants submit letters that are greater than two pages in length. Participants also contribute feedback on topics that the GAO directly solicits. Taken together, the results demonstrate stakeholder behaviors that are consistent with a substantive rather than symbolic due process involvement for government auditing standards.Research limitations/implicationsStakeholder beliefs are inferred based on the observed behavior of comment letter submissions. Also, there is a subjective element to the classification of the comment letters for the study.Practical ImplicationsGiven the far-reaching implications of Yellow Book auditing standards on public, private and nonprofit entities, the findings are relevant to a heterogeneous audience. This study reveals opportunities for users of government auditing standards, practitioners and academics for greater involvement in due process standard setting to bring additional legitimacy to the GAO and its standard-setting activities.Originality/valueBeyond the current study, little empirical research examines Yellow Book auditing standards or the due process through which these standards are established. This is the first study to examine the complete set of comment letters for the 2010 and 2017 exposure drafts of government auditing standards.

How well can democratic decision making incorporate the knowledge and expertise generated by public policy analysts? This book examines the historical development of policy analysis, as well as its use in legislative and regulatory bodies and in the federal executive branch. The essays show that policy-analytic expertise effectively improves governmental services only when it complements democratic decision making. When successful, policy analysis fosters valuable new ideas, better use of evidence, and greater transparency in decision processes.

In recent decades, bold steps taken by the government of Nepal to liberalise its abortion law and increase the affordability and accessibility of safe abortion and family planning have contributed to significant improvements in maternal mortality and other sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes. The Trump administration's Global Gag Rule (GGR) - which prohibits foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from receiving US global health assistance unless they certify that they will not use funding from any source to engage in service delivery, counselling, referral, or advocacy related to abortion - threatens this progress. This paper examines the impact of the GGR on civil society, NGOs, and SRH service delivery in Nepal. We conducted 205 semi-structured in-depth interviews in 2 phases (August-September 2018, and June-September 2019), and across 22 districts. Interview participants included NGO programme managers, government employees, facility managers and service providers in the NGO and private sectors, and service providers in public sector facilities. This large, two-phased study complements existing anecdotal research by capturing impacts of the GGR as they evolved over the course of a year, and by surfacing pathways through which this policy affects SRH outcomes. We found that low policy awareness and a considerable chilling effect cut across levels of the Nepali health system and exacerbated impacts caused by routine implementation of the GGR, undermining the ecology of SRH service delivery in Nepal as well as national sovereignty.

Movies beyond the scope of Hollywood and entertainment have shaped notions of race in American culture since the early decades of cinema. A range of nontheatrical sponsors and creators in the US made films to serve practical functions in society—to inform, to organize, to persuade, to promote, etc. The US federal government was a major sponsor of many of these films, which provided American and foreign audiences depictions of race that differed considerably from popular commercial images. For example, Men of the Forest, a film made in 1952 by the United States Information Service focuses on the Hunters, a Black family who owns land and a forestry business in rural Georgia. A documentary of sorts, the film highlights Black life, work, and land ownership in the South in ways not seen in popular feature films of the day. Yet, in the film and others like it, histories of institutional racism are woven into cinematic form and content in ways that are distinct from the entertainment industry. The creators of Men of the Forest omit details of segregation in the South to emphasize the Hunter family as examples of American democracy, a choice suited to the film’s Cold War purpose: to counter the anti-American message of Soviet propaganda for foreign audiences. On one hand, by producing and distributing the film, the federal government acknowledged Black farmers and landowners in the Jim Crow South. On the other hand, it avoided the structural inequality surrounding the Hunters to frame their reality as an example of American democratic progress for international circulation. Today, government films like Men of the Forest prompt contemporary reflection on the institutional histories they represent and their evolution into the present. The film and many others are available online due to the digitization of collections from the National Archives, Library of Congress, and elsewhere. With this increase in access, contemporary scholars have the ability to investigate how the federal government and its various internal entities mediated racial ideologies with moving image technologies. As an example of such research, this essay examines Men of the Forest by focusing on the past and present contradictions that arise from its depiction of a Black family with land and an agricultural business in rural Georgia. Two recent events shed light on the histories reflected in the film and their contemporary significance. In 2018, Descendants of Men of the Forest, The Legacy Continues—a documentary created by family members of the film’s original participants—contextualized the original production as evidence of the Hunter family’s legacy in the community of Guyton, Georgia. Underlying this local effort, Men of the Forest serves as an important historical event and record of the family and the community. On a broader scale, in March 2021, Congress passed a large relief package for disadvantaged minority farmers, intended to help alleviate decades of systemic racism in government agricultural programs. Lawsuits from white farmers and conservative organizations followed quickly, challenging the provision of government aid based on race. In this federal context, Men of the Forest exposes an institutional image of individual success that downplays the structural racism facing people of color, especially those with agricultural livelihoods. Even as politics and legislation evolve, this vision of democracy once exported by the federal government has widespread currency and accumulating effects. The connections between Men of the Forest and these recent events reveal the racial politics at play in government films and the ways in which they take shape in the real world beyond the screen.