Kenneth (Kenny) White on LinkedIn: The US Sup Ct will take up a case this week that may have major… (2025)

🌟 Thank you for sharing! From my DSP perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is a great step in the right direction.I'd like to share some of my views on these issues below:🌟 Advocating for Industry-Specific Well-Defined Service Standards in Human Services 🌟🇺🇸OMB Circular A-119 https://lnkd.in/eGP8T7Ei promotes voluntary consensus standards in various sectors, focusing mainly on technical standards. These principles of efficiency, transparency, and reducing regulatory redundancy can benefit the human services industry too.🔹By developing Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) https://lnkd.in/ea3TXsQ3, https://lnkd.in/e2wvhSuZ, https://lnkd.in/eMCQQRbw for human services, we can create industry-specific well-defined service standards based on the SOC. These service standards follow the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) https://lnkd.in/eW9RnJK8 can unify language in relevant laws and regulations, and avoid redundant and excessive regulations.🇺🇸OIRA https://lnkd.in/e-ZD5GVt oversees the implementation of A-119, ensuring compliance with these standards.🗽📜The recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo emphasizes the need for clear and consistent standards. Overturning the Chevron doctrine, the ruling limits agencies' powers of statutory interpretation, placing more responsibility on the courts. This change highlights the importance of industry-specific well-defined service standards based on the SOC to guide regulations and ensure fair and effective practices.🔹Developing and implementing consensus voluntary well-defined service standards based on the SOC in the human services industry can help address these challenges. It provides a foundation for the OMB to create a similar circular to A-119, tailored for human services, ensuring best practices and consistent terminology across the sector.🗽Let’s advocate for the development of these well-defined service standards to improve regulations and support the human services industry, ultimately benefiting those we serve. 💪#HumanServices #StandardsDevelopment #PolicyReform #SOC #InclusiveCare #IDD

Another stab in the heart of democracy from the Maga Supreme Court. The Chevron doctrine was created by the Reagan-era Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984 and has since become the most cited Supreme Court decision in administrative law.Under Chevron deference, courts would defer to how to expert federal agencies interpret the laws they are charged with implementing provided their reading is reasonable — even if it's not the only way the law can be interpreted.It allowed Congress to rely on the expertise within the federal government when implementing everything from health and safety regulations to environmental and financial laws.In the wake of the court's ruling, it's expected that more federal rules will be challenged in the courts and judges will have greater discretion to invalidate agency actions.Think of challenges to abortion pills, clean air laws, health law - anything that helps big business, big polluters to roll back administrative laws that restrict their ability to do harm ...More challenges to medications can now be heard by right wing Judges bought by superpac money ....their is already an example of that The Koch network successfully attracted Clarence For Sale Thomas, who voted against the doctrine, to speak at at least one of its donor events in 2018, ProPublica reported last year.It's unclear who purchased Thomas' flight to the 2018 event, as he never reported it in his annual financial disclosure form. Thomas has attended at least two of such events in past years.Essentially this is more power for vested interests, more incentive to buy judges and also the age of idiots continue - demonisation of experts and devaluation of experts. The roll back to the dark ages continues, meanwhile let is continue business as usual ...https://lnkd.in/gpzCt8wh

1

An illuminating post here on the ridiculous process of Parliamentary "wash up" when a general election is called. I read this while logging in to comment on this very issue.When the Prime Minister decides to call an election, Bills which have been worked on for years, including ones which have cross-party support, suddenly fall. The priority is given to the ones the governing party think will win them most votes - and, as they want to distinguish their position from the opposition, these can be the most contentious.Often, very promising legislation that is lost at this point never makes it to the statute books. A classic example is the Local Government Finance Bill which was lost when Theresa May called a general election in 2017. While this may have been imperfect, there were so many good, helpful measures in it - which had the backing of local government, central government and MPs from across the House of Commons. Local government finance has never recovered from this setback.If the incoming government in July wants to do one single thing to improve governance in this country, fixed term Parliaments would be a great help. Apart from exceptional circumstances, everybody would know when Parliament is to be dissolved for the next general election. Parliamentary business could be planned with far greater certainty on that basis, doing away with this ridiculous and harmful rushed process of wash-up.And if the incoming government wants to do one single thing to help councils struggling with unmanageable budgets get on a path to long term financial sustainability, they could bring back the Local Government Finance Bill - just as it was before the 2017 election.

The Evidence Act turns 5️⃣ in January 2024!Signed into law in January 2019, the bipartisan Foundations for the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (the “Evidence Act”) created a new paradigm for the Federal Government to rethink how it builds and uses evidence to support decision making. It required Federal agencies to: 🔍 Strategically plan evidence building activities, and post those plan publicly.🔍 Identify the priority questions where evidence is needed to deliver on mission and improve operations.🔍 Designate senior officials to oversee implementation of the Act: Evaluation Officers, Chief Data Officers, and Statistical Officials. 🔍 Collaborate and coordinate across evidence-building functions.🔍 Elevate program evaluation as a key agency function.As we approach the 5th anniversary, we’ll be sharing more about Evidence Act implementation and the impact the Act is driving evidence building and use around the Federal Government!Evaluation.gov, Office of Management and Budget #EvidenceAct #EvidenceActTurns5 #FedCDO

19

2 Comments

Some helpful insights here, Peter Tompkins

Specialistshttps://lnkd.in/ew2_wNQTSo what does a democracy do when it indicates a broad course of action in particular parts of law that deal with the environment, labor conditions in the workplace, the safety of our food products and the medications we take? Lawmakers spell out their intent and then leave the details to the specialists in the executive branch agencies that are in charge of implementation. So what happens when those in charge of implementation--the specialists--make decisions that large employers and manufacturers do not like? Well, traditionally, there are multiple options available including court challenges and seeking corrections through the budget authorization process of Congress where specialists and politicians fight it out.But the US Supreme Court has short-cut all this and given big businesses a win this week in its "Chevron Ruling" over specialists that is literally earth shaking. This one ruling has the potential of gutting any and all environmental, healthcare, agriculture, and safety regulations created by specialists and given that power to lobbyists representing big business. Feel safer now? Neither do I.

1

An impending ruling by the United States Supreme Court is expected to impact the regulatory interpretation standard established by 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑣𝑟𝑜𝑛 𝑣. 𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑙, and the deference it affords to federal administrative agencies' interpretations of federal statutes.Although the cases before the Court involve environmental matters, the impact on the 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑣𝑟𝑜𝑛 doctrine could affect multiple industries. In this article, we focus on the ruling's potential impacts on the health care industry, including eight key areas that may face significant disruption if the Supreme Court overturns or modifies 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑣𝑟𝑜𝑛 deference: https://lnkd.in/gpKej3jaBy McKenna Stone Cloud and Thomas Barnard

1

Helping a fellow component in DHS recently, I was asked a series of questions about why terms such as "Learning Agenda" were used in explaining the tenets of Evidence-Based Policymaking. Beyond the fact that, of course, they are part of the law and guidance, it reminded me of the constant need to explain to those not immersed in this work what these terms represent. A recent oral history of GPRA and GPRA-MA reminds us, that, a generation ago, other terms were not so familiar. Outcomes????"I remind myself of the survey of over 100 federal components that John Kamensky did while at GAO before GPRA. He asked a series of questions about the existence of plans, goals, performance measures, etc. He got back generally positive results but when he went to verify the responses, he found many were overblown. The internal GAO reaction was that the agencies lied on the survey. John (Kamensky, then Director of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government) said actually it is much worse—they do not know the difference between a strategic plan and an annual work plan, or the difference between an output and an outcome. This finding contributed to the decision to include pilots in GPRA and to have a long lead time for government-wide implementation—to give agencies time and experience to build the capacity to manage for results.—J. Christopher Mihm, managing director, strategic issues, GAO"https://lnkd.in/eq85q2YW

27

This Nondegree Credential State Policy Framework contains a wealth of information ranging from defining nondegree credentials to metrics for evaluation and funding. Make time to explore the embedded links!Great read for those of us working in the #credentialsofvalue #nondegreecredential #careerpathways #workforcedevelopment #highered #policy space.National Conference of State Legislatures https://lnkd.in/e8WGQ4DU

24

Parliamentary scrutiny of regulators is inconsistent. Some, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and other economic regulators, are often called before select committees; others, notably in health and social care, are not called before MPs at all. This key finding from an Institute for Government report on regulators was discussed at an Institute of Regulation event today where it was also noted that there's no definitive list of regulators in the UK. The House of Lords, in their recent Industry and Regulators Committee report, think there are 'about 100'. The IFG settles on a figure of 116.This state of affairs is unfortunate. Parliamentary scrutiny matters. It enables regulators to be held to account for their work, which is often publicly funded and involves making evidence-based judgments to balance the interests of producers, consumers, providers and users in ways that are proportionate and fair, and within the laws that Parliament itself sets. The IFG recommends better support to parliamentarians and ways which regulators themselves can help MPs to understand their objectives, performance and plans so that scrutiny doesn't only happen when something goes wrong. Important and helpful work.You can read the IFG report here: https://lnkd.in/ehfZ-bEk

40

4 Comments