View Research by Author - E. Blaine Liner

Citation URL: http://www.urban.org/EBlaineLiner

In 1984, VOCA established the Crime Victims’ Fund (CVF) to supplement states’ victim compensation and assistance programs, and has disbursed over $3.2 billion. As part of an ongoing project evaluating these programs, the Urban Institute and SANDAG surveyed state administrators regarding current policies, practices, contentious issues, and areas for program improvements. Findings indicate that state programs are generally functioning well but could improve operations in several areas: planning, training, outreach, and coordination. Further development of responses to fluctuations in expenditures from the CVF and development of policies for future uses of funds currently held for victim-related spending are also needed.

The purpose of the study was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of victim compensation and VOCA assistance programs at helping to deliver a seamless web of support to assist victims in their struggle to recover from the financial, emotional, physical, and psychological effects of criminal victimization. We approached this task through telephone surveys, site visit interviews, and focus groups with state administrators; members of oversight bodies; victim advocacy groups; VOCA-funded local service providers; victims who claimed compensation; and victims who accessed VOCA-funded direct service programs.

The purpose of this report is to identify good practices and lessons learned by states that have moved ahead in governing-for-results and to provide recommendations for improving those efforts. This document is a compilation of findings about the state of the art and the practice of governing-for-results.

The Urban Institute's Governing–for–Results and Accountability Project team conducted extensive discussions and interviews with elected and appointed officials in Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, and with a number of agency directors from other states. Additionally, focus groups and small discussion sessions were held with citizens and citizen representatives in all five study states.

Localities are where priorities must be set and solutions owned and implemented. State-initiated efforts need to consciously encourage localities to adopt or adapt statewide measures of progress and to incorporate these measures in their own strategic planning. States have the resources and bear the full burden of accountability; they also have the capacity to resolve policy barriers that may impede local progress. Wherever they are initiated, results-and-indicators frameworks can provide the glue to create—not mandate—equitable state and local partnerships.

This brief, the first in its series, defines the practice of governing-for-results and lists the factors that compelled state governments to implement it. It cites successful private-sector management practices, the devolution of responsibility from the federal level to the state and local, the push for citizen involvement in government, and assorted technological breakthroughs as the primary impetus for more results-focused state governing. Also, the authors present the proven benefits of governing-for-results: improved accountability and resource allocation, enhanced effectiveness of government services, increased flexibility for service managers, and better technical training.

This report consists of an outline of recommendations for the leaders of Kutno, Poland, as they pursue an economic development strategy. The strategy builds upon five principles, which the report describes.

This report provides an overview of the current state of groundwater protection at federal, state, and local levels. It also details the coverage and scope of local protection programs, including zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, site plan reviews, design standards, operating standards, source controls, and wellhead protection ordinances. It identifies a number of issues important to groundwater protection and a number of unresolved issues. Also included is a section on groundwater programs and protection methods that work and an in-depth look at protection measures in six U.S. communities.

Return to list of authors