Accessing Social Statistics

published or submitted for publicatio

Coordination of infrastructure development : some international comparisons

This report presents the findings from a desktop review into how governments across a selection of countries coordinate infrastructure development by working with the industry. The selected countries included the UK (Northern Ireland was examined separately from mainland UK), Canada, Germany, Japan and South Korea. The goal is to identify alternative means of coordinating infrastructure development at the government level, with a view to assist the Institution of Civil Engineers to make the case for a more strategic approach to planning and delivery of infrastructure. The need for this report derives from growing complexity in the way infrastructure development programmes are procured, and the shifting role of government from provider of infrastructure development to enabler of the process of delivery. Thus, an opportunity arose to compare alternative arrangements of government coordination. There were similarities of political governance landscape between the investigated countries regarding strategies of infrastructure delivery. Differences exist however in the way resources are allocated and decisions made regarding infrastructure development. A potential for greater transparency and collaboration between public and private sector was identified. In Germany, for example, local governments enjoy a great deal of autonomy in defining infrastructural requirements, even though the definition of requirements has to align with high-level planning principles at the regional, national and European levels. Delivery of infrastructure development is devolved to the local governments working with a range of stakeholders from both the public and private sectors with funding provided by regional allocations. By contrast, infrastructure development is coordinated by a single high-level government department Canada, Japan and South Korea. The make-up of this department varies across the three countries, with subtle differences in the roles and responsibilities of each constituent part. Nonetheless, the benefits of such an approach include a whole-systems view in decision-making and a somewhat simpler, more transparent way of funding allocation. Furthermore, in the case of Japan and South Korea, resources can be more effectively channelled towards advancing research and development related to infrastructure development capacity and more clarity in terms of skills development. The UK, on the other hand, has a fragmented approach in addressing infrastructure development, with a continuously evolving system of government departments and agencies having some form of influence on determining infrastructural requirements. In order to redress some of the challenges with such fragmentation, the situation in Northern Ireland differs slightly with the formation of a Strategic Investment Board Limited charged with overseeing infrastructure programmes, making delivery more transparent

U.S. Government Manual 2008-2009 Edition (Appendix B): Terminated and Transferred Agencies

233AA354d01.pdf: 85 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Understanding Nevada\u27s Higher Education Governance for Two-Year Colleges: Challenges and Solutions

State governance of colleges and universities is an indicator of the state’s relationship with key stakeholders, such as business leaders, elected officials, policy makers, and local residents. Accordingly, a state’s college governance structure shapes two-year public colleges’ institutional priorities and how these vital institutions respond to local workforce needs. Around the country, an important function of two-year colleges is to provide training and skills for regional workforces that align to local business and industry needs. This brief examines the origins of two-year colleges and compares Nevada’s college outcomes with those of similar states through

The Update, September 7, 2009

The Update is a bi-weekly web newsletter published by the Iowa Department of Public Health's Bureau of Family Health. It is posted the second and fourth week of every month, and provides useful job resource information for departmental health care professionals, information on training opportunities, intradepartmental reports and meetings, and additional information pertinent to health care professionals

Synthesized technical and socio-economic efficient evaluation of water quality improving devices and technologies: an example of the lake Kasumigaura Basin

In this study, we analyze an optimal policy and evaluate new devices and technologies to improve the water quality of Lake Kasumigaura, considering both - the total ecological system in and around the lake and the socio-economic situational changes over a certain period of time. The optimal policies are derived so as to maximize the objective function (GRP) subject to the structural equations, which describe both the ecosystem and socio-economic system.

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

[Excerpt] This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Table A-1, at the end of the report, enumerates the objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus

Iowa Health Focus, July 2005

Monthly newsletter for the Iowa Department of Public Healt

Immigration Enforcement Within the United States

[From Introduction] An estimated 11 million unauthorized aliens reside in the United States, and this population is estimated to increase by 500,000 annually. Each year, approximately 1 million aliens are apprehended trying to enter the United States illegally. Although most of these aliens enter the United States for economic opportunities and family reunification, or to avoid civil strife and political unrest, some are criminals, and some may be terrorists. All are violating the United States’ immigration laws