IMPLEMENTING PRIVATE SECTOR STRATEGIES IN EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

This paper examines efforts to increase the role of the private sector in employment and job training programs mandated by the Private Sector Initiative Program (PSIP) and the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). In particular it will examine whether the emphasis on the private sector participation has led to a greater development of and reliance upon private sector strategies for training and placing the unemployed, as well as an exploration o f the relationship between public and private sector officials involved in program implementation.     

Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC) methods in the 1990s: national and regional developments and policy implications

The Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFCs) were established to implement a devolved higher education funding policy. Over the 1990s, HEFC funding methods evolved to reflect government aims of expanding student places and reducing unit costs, while increasing equity, access and competition as well as teaching and research quality. This analysis tests the achievement of Funding Council methods and resulting block grant allocations against these goals. While research funding became more influenced by Research Assessment Exercise scores, student numbers continued to be a main force in the allocation of teaching grants. Despite variations in allocations between regions and institutional types, HEFC funding methods reinforced research and teaching funding differences between institutions.     

What gets done and why: Implementing the recommendations of public inquiries

Abstract: Public inquiries are often the instrument of choice when governments decide to re‐think their approach to large issues, yet there has been little empirical research on how effective they are. This article is an evidence‐based look at what affects the implementation of recommendations made by public inquiries. It considers eleven inquiries, examining how they operated, their political and administrative setting, and what action was taken on the recommendations. The central hypothesis is that governments do implement the recommendations of public inquiries under certain conditions. Such implementation extends not only to technical, incremental recommendations but also to recommendations involving systemic changes. The findings point to the role of judges who head and preside over inquiries as policy influencers. Often buffered by inquiry counsel or policy staff, judges may test potential recommendations with governments and other interested parties. The impact of inquiry hearings suggests that public inquiries do not necessarily serve a government's wishes to delay action. If inquiry hearings are the top item in the news, it is hard to see how that furthers a government agenda to bury the issues. Sommaire: Les enquêtes publiques sont souvent l'instrument de choix auquel ont recours les gouvernements lorsqu'ils décident de repenser leur manière d'envisager les grandes questions, or peu de recherches empiriques ont été entreprises pour déterminer de leur efficacité. Le présent article est un examen fondé sur les données probantes de ce qui influe sur la mise en œuvre des recommandations résultant d'enquêtes publiques. Il passe en revue onze enquêtes publiques, examinant comment elles ont fonctionné, quel était leur cadre politique et administratif, et quelles mesures ont été prises à propos des recommandations. L'hypothèse principale est que les gouvernements mettent effectivement en œuvre les recommandations des enquêtes publiques dans certaines conditions. Une telle mise en œuvre couvre non seulement les recommandations techniques croissantes, mais aussi les recommandations concernant les changements systémiques. Les résultats attirent l'attention sur le rôle joué par les juges qui dirigent les enquêtes par l'influence qu'ils exercent sur les politiques. Les juges, souvent utilisés comme tampons par les avocats des enquête publiques ou le personnel chargé des politiques, peuvent tester les recommandations potentielles auprès des gouvernements et autres parties intéressées. L'impact des audiences des enquêtes publiques laisse entendre que les audiences publiques ne servent pas nécessairement à retarder les mesures à prendre comme pourrait le souhaiter le gouvernement. Si les audiences d'une enquête publique font la une des médias, il est difficile de voir comment un programme gouvernemental peut progresser en étouffant les questions.     

Work-Product Protection and Experts' Documents: The Ninth Circuit Strengthens the “Because of” Standard and Extends Protection to Dual Purpose Documents

Since the Supreme Court applied the work-product privilege to documents created by an attorney's representatives, so long as the documents were created in anticipation of litigation, the lower courts have attempted to interpret this application. The various circuit courts have addressed this issue as it relates to documents serving both litigation and nonlitigation purposes. Most recently, in November 2003 the Ninth Circuit joined the First, Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits when it adopted the rule that an expert's documents may be protected when they are prepared “because of the prospect of litigation.” In contrast, the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits, Tenth and D.C. District Courts have constructed a stricter interpretation. Further, the Ninth Circuit's recent holding in United States v. Torf (In re: Grand Jury Subpoena) 350 F. 3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2003) sheds some more light on the scope of the work-product protection as it applies to environmental consultant's documents created in anticipation.