Use Of Advisory Committees Research Articles

Examining Collaboration within U.S. National Park Service Advisory Committees

This study develops an evaluative tool for assessing collaboration within U.S. National Park Service (NPS) Federal Advisory Committees. Advisory committees are one of the mechanisms the NPS uses for active community participation. However, questions concerning the effective use of advisory committees have arisen in recent years, and because of this, a mass review of these committees, ordered by the Trump Administration, has led to questions about the efficacy and success of advisory committees. While a traditional metric that is used to judge success of these committees is the percent of recommendations that are implemented by the NPS, this metric does not recognize the synergistic benefits these forums provide for interaction, discussion, and collaboration. Drawing on an index of nine indicators that are extracted from the body of literature on collaborative governance, such as leadership and openness, a novel tool was created to measure collaboration within advisory committees. Through an analysis of committee meeting minutes spanning six cases, this paper finds that advisory committees tend to be collaborative and demonstrate that these committees are more than just a veil of participation or simply filling a required part of the public participation process. Committees were also found to play a valuable partnership role in the parks, acting as a liaison for the local communities and increasing transparency of NPS decision making. From the information presented, formal federal advisory committees offer a means to build greater collaborative partnerships with local representatives and experts. While members of the public did play an active role in a few of the committees analyzed, greater attention should be given to inclusion of members of the local populace during committee meetings, if one of the primary purposes of the specific committee is to garner the support of the local communities and strengthen the recommendations for adoption. The index and tool developed in this paper provides a method for management officials to further evaluate their committees, and their interactions with representatives and the local populace more generally, to better understand the collaborative role their committees can play. Although this paper focused on committees with ties to local communities, the tool and the insights garnered on key collaborative indicators, could be applied too national-level committees and non-FACA committees. Subscribe to JPRA

Regulatory Process, Regulatory Reform, and the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analysis

Numerous regulatory reform proposals would require federal agencies to conduct more thorough economic analysis of proposed regulations or expand the resources and influence of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which currently reviews executive branch regulations. Such reforms are intended to improve the quality of economic analysis agencies produce when they issue major regulations. We employ newly gathered data on variation in current administrative procedures to assess the likely effects of proposed regulatory process reforms on the quality of agencies’ regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). Our results suggest that greater use of advance notices of proposed rulemakings for major regulations, advance consultation with regulated entities, use of advisory committees, and expansion of OIRA’s resources and role would improve the quality of RIAs. They also suggest pre-proposal public meetings with stakeholders are associated with lower quality analysis.

EPA scientific integrity policy draft

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its draft scientific integrity policy on 5 August. The draft policy addresses scientific ethical standards, communications with the public, the use of advisory committees and peer review, and professional development. The draft policy was developed by an ad hoc group of EPA senior staff and scientists in response to a December 2010 memorandum on scientific integrity from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The agency is accepting public comments on the draft through 6 September; comments should be sent to osa.staff@epa.gov. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/stpc/pdfs/draft‐scientific‐integrity‐policy‐aug2011.pdf.

Financing Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: National Vaccine Advisory Committee Recommendations

Financing Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: National Vaccine Advisory Committee Recommendations

Toward best practice and innovation in independent living training: Experiences from the multi-site evaluation of federally-funded projects

This article describes a cluster of child welfare training projects focused on assisting foster youth with transition to independent living. The article examines the extent to which the projects used best practice principles and, in cases where best practices were lacking, the factors that impeded such practices. The article provides a picture of training practice in child welfare, identifying innovative activities and recommending ways that gaps can be filled to achieve better training outcomes. The sites conducted careful needs assessments, developed learning objectives based on competencies, did systematic curricula pilot testing, and presented state-of-the-art concepts. Recommendations include that sites conduct a more rigorous context analysis to understand challenges in transferring learning to the workplace, make more creative use of advisory committees, ensure that content experts/consultants are integrated into projects from the outset, focus more on skill development, and provide sufficient curriculum structure so that training can be repeated in a consistent way as well as adapted to meet varied learner needs.

FDA use of advisory committees not optimum

FDA use of advisory committees not optimum

Considering a multisite study? How to take the leap and have a soft landing

AbstractAlthough most policymakers agree that a fundamental goal of the mental health system is to provide integrated community‐based services, there is little empirical evidence with which to plan such a system. Studies in the community mental health literature have not used a standard set of evaluation methods. One way of addressing this gap is through a multisite program evaluation in which multiple sites and programs evaluate the same outcomes using the same instruments and time frame. The proposition of introducing the same study design in different settings and programs is deceptively straightforward. The difficulty is not in the conceptualization but in the implementation. This article examines the factors that act as implementation barriers, how are they magnified in a multisite study design, and how they can be successfully addressed. In discussing the issue of study design, this article considers processes used to address six major types of barriers to conducting collaborative studies identified by Lancaster or Lancaster's six Cs—contribution, communication, compatibility, consensus, credit, and commitment. A case study approach is used to examine implementation of a multisite community mental health evaluation of services and supports (case management, self‐help initiatives, crisis interventions) represented by six independent evaluations of 15 community health programs. A principal finding was that one of the main vehicles to a successful multisite project is participation. It is only through participation that Lancaster's six Cs can be addressed. Key factors in large, geographically dispersed, and diverse groups include the use of advisory committees, explicit criteria and opportunities for participation, reliance on all modes of communication, and valuing informal interactions. The article concludes that whereas modern technology has assisted in making complicated research designs feasible, the operationalization of timeless virtues such as mutual respect and trust, flexibility, and commitment make them successful. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Carvedilol and the Food and Drug Administration Approval Process: An Introduction

We discuss briefly the new drug carvedilol (Coreg®), a beta-blocker, alpha-blocker, and antioxidant. This drug was developed for congestive heart failure in a series of trials, four in the United States and one in Australia and New Zealand, briefly summarized in this document. We also summarize the classical paradigm of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for drug approval and the FDA’s use of advisory committees. This document serves as background to the discussion of carvedilol’s approval.

Marine nature reserves in France: Legal framework, management, and comparative notes for the U.S. marine sanctuary program

This study evaluates a method used by the Republic of France to protect discrete marine areas of shoreline and adjacent coastal waters through designation of sites as marine nature reserves. Although much smaller in size than many national marine sanctuaries in the United States, the reserves in France represent successful efforts to protect and manage coastal marine areas. This is due in part to a high amount of local involvement during the designation process; the use of advisory committees at the reserves as well as scientific committees, which develop and conduct research projects within the sites; and the use of core areas, in which almost all human activities are prohibited or restricted, to promote repopulation of fish communities and to increase species diversity. The initiative for creating the reserves begins at the local level and is coordinated among local officials, user groups, environmental organizations and the national government. This study describes the legal framework in which the rese...

Medical innovation duels cost containment.

The nation's commitment to health cost control will potentially conflict with its deeper commitment to innovation in medical technology--drugs, medical devices, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and administrative infrastructure. Medical technology is implicated in increasing health care costs because, on a net basis, it increases the capabilities of medicine. Conceptual, methodological, institutional, and political factors limit the ability to address the potential conflict; these limits must be confronted and addressed if we are to formulate sound policy responses.

The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process

America's governing system is unique in the extent to which scientists and other outside experts participate in the policy process. No other nation has used these experts as extensively - not merely for advice on the allocation of resources to science but in broad policy issues. This wide-ranging study traces the rise of scientists in the policy process and shows how outside experts interrelate with politicians and administrators to produce a unique and dynamic policy process. It also shows how the very openness of American government creates the potential for unusual conflicts of interest. Bruce Smith focuses on the experiences of agency and presidential-level advisory systems over the past several decades. He chronicles the special complexities and challenges resulting from the Federal Advisory Committee Act - the open meeting law - to provide a better understanding of the role of advisory committees and offers valuable lessons to guide their future use. He looks at science advice in the Departments of Defence, State, and Energy; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the Environmental Protection Agency; then focuses on how science advisory mechanisms have worked at the White House. Rather than simply providing a description of structures and institutions, Smith shows the advisory systems in action - how the committees work or fail to work in practice. He analyzes how the advisory mechanisms influence the policymaking process and affect the life of the agencies they serve. Smith concludes with an assessment of the relationship between science advice and American democracy. He explains that the widespread use of advisory committees clearly reflects America's preference for pluralism. By scrutinizing agency plans, goals, and operations, these committees serve a variety of functions and attempt to strike a balance between citizen access to government and the need for sophisticated expertise. The challenge to the nation is to reconcile the integrity of science with the norms of democracy.

Use of Advisory Committees, Consultants, and Academic Reviewers by Drug Regulatory Authorities

This article provides a brief review of the control of medicines in the United Kingdom. The structure of the Medicines Commission and Statutory Advisory Committees is described as well as the procedure for reviewing applications for a New Drug Licence. The system of using Advisory Committees, Consultants and Academic Reviewers in the approval process is also discussed.

The Use of Advisory Committees in the Public Sector

The Use of Advisory Committees in the Public Sector

Advisory Committees in OSHA and EPA: Their Use in Regulatory Decisionmaking

Federal agencies regulating the production and use of toxic substances increasingly have utilized citizen advisory committees to help shape the form of that regulation. Both the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) turn to such committees for recommendations on a variety of subjects, and the advisory committee has become an especially important source of federal policy on toxic substances. Recently, the discovery of a Reagan administration hit list naming many members of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) whose views were no longer acceptable raised concern about questionable political manipulation of government advisory committees in general.' This article examines the creation and use of advisory committees in the regulation of toxic substances in manufacturing, and suggests mechanisms to insure and improve the effectiveness and public service functions of of these and similar committees.

The Management of Advisory Committees: An Assignment for the '70's

Public interest in and use of advisory committees* continues to grow apace. One finds them at all levels of government: federal, state, and local, performing the most startling variety of tasks: in school systems, universities, hospitals, and churches; in research centers, labor unions, and legislatures; as advisors to presidents, publishers, and police departments; and, most recently of all, in private industry. There are advisory committees which adviseand those which never meet and probably do nothing at all. There are those which make decisions, those which give support, those which hear appeals, and those which administer. There are even advisory committees to advisory committees. Surely they must have something important to offer to deserve such popularity. And they have.

Use of Advisory Committees in Environmental Health

Use of Advisory Committees in Environmental Health