Using data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the “crime clock” for 2022 indicates the frequency of various serious crimes reported across the nation.

According to the latest data (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2023):

A violent crime occurred every 26.3 seconds

• A murder occurred every 32.1 minutes.
• A rape occurred every 3.8 minutes.
• A robbery occurred every 2.0 minutes.
• An aggravated assault occurred every 38.5 seconds.

A property crime occurred every 4.6 seconds

• A burglary occurred every 28.3 seconds.
• A larceny-theft occurred every 6.2 seconds.
• A motor vehicle theft occurred every 43.8 seconds.

While crime rates — both reported to the authorities and crime victimization — can vary from year to year, these are disturbing numbers and are an indication of the enormous challenge and burden facing state and local government criminal justice systems.  Not only are the human costs of these crimes enormous — such as loss of life and long-term debilitating effects — but the monetary costs are great as well, not only for the victims but also for state and local government budgets.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, local jails are locally-operated correctional facilities that primarily hold individuals awaiting trial or sentencing, those serving short sentences (typically less than one year), or individuals who are being held for other authorities, such as federal or state facilities. These jails also manage temporary custody for individuals following arrest and pending arraignment, conviction, or sentencing. They are distinct from prisons, which are operated by state or federal governments and typically house individuals serving longer sentences following conviction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023a).

The majority of inmates in both prisons and local jails in the United States continue to be disproportionately Black and Latino. According to the Sentencing Project, Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans, and Latinx individuals are incarcerated at a rate 1.3 times higher than whites. In fact, in 12 states, over half of the prison population is Black. These disparities highlight the systemic issues and racial biases present within the criminal justice system (Nellis, 2021; Prison Policy Initiative, 2024). Additionally, inmates often face multiple socio-economic challenges. Many have limited educational or vocational skills, making legitimate employment difficult to secure. There is also a significant prevalence of chronic drug use and a background of poverty among the incarcerated population, which exacerbates their marginalization. These factors collectively contribute to the cycle of incarceration and hinder reintegration into society (Nellis, 2021; Prison Policy Initiative, 2024). In fact, in one of the first most comprehensive studies on the “prevalent handicaps” among prison inmates, Albert Roberts identified five characteristics common to most institutional correctional facility inmates (Roberts, 1994):  (1) The first is “character disorder,” which means antisocial behavior due to inappropriate socialization as a child; (2)  “unemployability,” the lack of job- related skills and work motivation; (3) “relationship hang-ups,” lack of constructive interpersonal relationships and support with family and friends; (4) “social stigma,” being labeled a felon or socially undesirability; and,  (5) “immaturity,” inability to take appropriate responsibility for one’s own actions and to make socially acceptable life choices.  These same five characteristics are as relevant today as they were in the early 1970s when Roberts did his pioneering research.

Remedies:  As discussed previously, there are differing theories concerning the causes of crime, and as a consequence there are different remedies offered by the advocates each theory.  The three main countermeasures to crime advocated are punishment, rehabilitation and treatment; in many instances a combination of all three approaches is being attempted in state and local settings across the country.  Punishment has been a very popular approach to crime in the U.S., as evidenced by historically popular support for the death penalty; large majorities of citizens support its use in cases of murder and other heinous crimes.

Public support for the death penalty for a person convicted of murder in the United States has shown significant fluctuations over the years, reflecting changing societal attitudes and legal contexts. In the late 20th century, support for the death penalty was relatively high. For instance, a Gallup poll in 1988 recorded support at 79%, which peaked at 80% in 1994. However, since the mid-1990s, there has been a gradual decline in support. By 2001, support had decreased to 68%, and further fell to 60% in 2016. This trend continued into the 2020s, with a Gallup poll in 2020 indicating that support had dropped to 55%, the lowest level since 1972 (Gallup, 2020).

Several factors have contributed to this decline in support. Increasing awareness of wrongful convictions, racial disparities in the application of the death penalty, and the availability of life without parole as an alternative have all influenced public opinion. For example, in 2021, Gallup reported that 54% of Americans favored the death penalty for a person convicted of murder, highlighting ongoing skepticism and debate about its use (Gallup, 2020; Pew Research Center, 2021).

Support for the death penalty also varies significantly across different demographic groups and regions. Republicans tend to support the death penalty more than Democrats, with 77% of Republicans supporting it compared to 39% of Democrats in 2020. Additionally, men and older adults generally show higher levels of support than women and younger adults. Regional variations are also evident, with Southern states typically showing stronger support compared to states in the Northeast and West (Gallup, 2020). When presented with the option between the death penalty and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, public opinion tends to be more divided. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 60% of Americans favored life imprisonment without parole over the death penalty (36%) when both options were presented (Gallup, 2020).

The popularity of punishment among citizens and elected officials has led to the adoption in most states of mandatory sentencing laws, including three-strikes laws.  These state statutes are aimed at deterring potential offenders and incapacitating convicted criminals through long-term prison terms.  One of the unfortunate results of mandatory sentencing and the punishment approach in general is that many new state and local correctional facilities have had to be constructed to house an increasing number of prisoners where that investment of public funds could be afforded.  Where that investment was not possible, existing correctional facilities have been filled to capacity or over filled.  In this connection, several states continue to face significant challenges with prison overcrowding. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), at the end of 2021, there were approximately 5,444,900 persons under the supervision of adult correctional systems in the United States, marking a slight decline from the previous year. However, the incarceration rate saw an increase for the first time since 2005, rising from 660 per 100,000 U.S. residents in 2020 to 680 per 100,000 in 2021 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023b). Overcrowding remains particularly acute in certain states. For instance, Nebraska and Iowa lead the nation with high rates of prison overcrowding relative to their rated operational capacities, with Nebraska’s prison population at 156.9% of its design capacity and Alabama even higher at 175.7% (Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, 2022) . This persistent issue underscores the continuing strain on correctional facilities and the broader criminal justice system.

Efforts to mitigate overcrowding through “justice reinvestment” initiatives and reforms have shown some progress, but these measures have not been uniformly successful across all states. The complexity of the problem is compounded by varying definitions and measures of capacity, making consistent national comparisons challenging (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023b; Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, 2022). In conclusion, prison overcrowding continues to be a significant challenge in the United States, with several states operating well beyond their intended capacities, posing ongoing concerns for the justice system and public safety.

As costs and the number and nature of participants in the overwhelmingly punishment-based criminal justice systems have dramatically increased, many scholars and practitioners believe the current system is neither economically, nor socially, nor institutionally sustainable. Alternatives to punishment and imprisonment include new community-based policing procedures, juvenile aftercare programs, community service and residential centers, fines, restitution, intensive probation, and shock incarceration-boot camps, among others (Bondeson, 1994). For example, due to prison overcrowding and the high costs of incarceration, many state and local governments have moved to the use of “intermediate sanctions” for nonviolent offenders.  One such intermediate sanction is intensive probation supervision, a conditional release program which features strict curfews, routine and random (unscheduled) drug testing, community service, and restitution to victims. While this is not the approach taken for violent or habitual offenders, it is much less costly and provides an opportunity for rehabilitation for the first-time offender.  In this manner of program, offenders are both held accountable for their actions and are given the opportunity to act responsibly in the community to make proper amends.

Other approaches to building sustainable criminal justice systems include community policing.  In general, community policing can involve the following activities: police officers being assigned to specific neighborhoods rather than being on call for responding to 911 calls citywide; the creation and maintenance of neighborhood police stations or “storefronts” in high crime areas; participation in neighborhood meetings and the making of home visits by police officers, etc.  All of these activities are undertaken in an attempt to connect police with citizens in their respective neighborhoods and communities instead of just performing drive-by patrols in their cars.  Community policing also emphasizes “problem-solving methodologies” and partnership building policies, where police agencies work closely with community groups and local businesses to identify current and future problems and then work together collaboratively to address those problems.  The federal government’s U.S. Department of Justice established the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in the 1994 Crime Bill to provide federal resources to local communities so that they could train their officers in community policing and implement these programs designed to sustain safe and crime-free communities wherein the police and the citizens they serve are involved in an active partnership to preserve public order and promote public safety.

Many innovations in dealing with crime as well as new programs reflect the values of sustainability, and some of these successful approaches should be noted.  One example includes: “…designing, implementing, and monitoring sentencing guidelines that balance several goals of crime response; establishing mandatory drug treatment instead of prison for first- and second-time drug possession,” providing in prison “…basic schooling and drug and alcohol treatment to those offenders who can benefit from those services,” to help prisoners “graduate” to freedom at the end of their term.  Prison and jail programs that can provide job training and job placement at the end of prison terms have also been found to reduce recidivism (Ruth and Reitz, 2003). In addition, some programs that target at-risk youth — such as early intervention programs including counseling, organized constructive activities, and out-of-home placement for serious offenses — have been found to be effective as well (Mooradian, 2003).  While there is no one single approach or combination of approaches that will completely eradicate crime, many states and communities have been trying new and different approaches to criminal justice that represent alternatives to incarceration and move toward the goal of sustainability.

Education

Provision of public education is typically one of the largest expenditures and entails the most visible service provided by state and local governments.  As of the 2020-2021 academic year, the United States had approximately 49.5 million students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools across more than 98,000 schools. There were over 3.2 million full-time teachers and about 3 million additional support staff and administrators involved in K-12 education. Public education significantly impacts state and local budgets, local economies, and the socioeconomic fabric of communities. Add to this set of totals the 1,720 4-year public universities, the 2,516 2-year public colleges, and their respective professors, administrators and staff, the effects of public education on society are even greater (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021; U.S. Department of Education, 2021).  The connection of public education to the effective promotion of sustainability is clear and direct as schools, colleges and universities are a key part of the visible services experienced by virtually all citizens.  How the education system teaches about and models behavior regarding sustainability is a matter of great importance to contemporary professional educators and education policy makers.

The history of education policy in the United States reflects the nation’s steady transformation from a rural natural resource-based and agricultural economy in the 1700s and 1800s to the development of a postindustrial society in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (see Table 13.1).  The first public school in the U.S. was established in Boston in 1635 to educate the sons of the city’s wealthy elites.  Elite access to education was primarily the norm until the period of industrialization in the mid 1800s. At this time there was an expansion of educational opportunities — especially in the growing cities — for students of middle and working class families.  This is the period when mandatory attendance laws began to be enacted by state legislatures in recognition of the fact that an industrial workforce and economy require adequate levels of literacy. In the twentieth century, as the U.S. was developing into a postindustrial economy, many efforts were made by the federal and state governments alike to insure better education opportunities for all races and for disadvantaged students as well.

Table 13.1 Key Dates in U.S. Education Policy History

State governments are primarily responsible for the provision of educational services in our country, although the federal government has passed many laws concerning access and quality of state school systems (e.g., the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act and its replacement the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act).  Every state has established a department of education of some type and enacted laws regulating curriculum, teacher qualifications, school finance, student attendance, and the like.  The almost 13,500 local school districts operating in the U.S. today oversee the day-to-day administration of schools.  Many school districts are heavily supported by local taxes, a fact which ties schools closely to their communities and can influence the types of programs and curriculum offered as well as affect the quality and quantity of educational infrastructure and school personnel.   However, here are significant differences among U.S. states in how school funding is provided and the amount spent per pupil. In fiscal year (FY) 2022, the average spending per pupil in public schools was $15,633, marking an 8.9% increase from the previous year, which is the largest year-to-year percentage increase in over two decades. New York had the highest average spending per pupil at $29,873, followed by the District of Columbia at $27,425, New Jersey at $25,099, Vermont at $24,608, and Connecticut at $24,453. On the other end of the spectrum, Utah spent the least at $9,552 per pupil, with Idaho ($9,670), Arizona ($10,315), Oklahoma ($10,890), and Mississippi ($10,984) also among the states with the lowest spending. Higher education tuition also varies widely, with Massachusetts having an average cost for resident public university students at $40,761 compared to Idaho at $6,006. This variation highlights the disparities in funding and cost of education across different states (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023; U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).

Importance of education:  Education is one of the most important factors underlying the promotion of sustainable communities.  Higher levels of education have been associated with a wide range of individual, social and economic lifelong benefits; similarly, communities and taxpayers derive a multitude of benefits when citizens have access to education.  In fact, most research concerning resilience and sustainable communities identifies education as a pivotal variable for the simultaneous achievement of economic vitality, a civil society, healthy families, low rates of crime and environmentally sensitive practices.  The following facts about education translate into individual and societal benefits (Baum and Payea, 2013):

• There is a correlation between levels of education and higher earnings for all racial/ethnic groups, and for both men and women.
• Higher levels of education correspond to lower levels of unemployment and poverty, so in addition to contributing more to tax revenues than others do, adults with higher levels of education are less likely to depend on social safety-net programs, generating decreased demand on public budgets.
• Higher levels of education are associated with lower smoking rates, more positive perceptions of personal health, and lower incarceration rates.
• Higher levels of education are correlated with higher levels of civic participation, including volunteer work, voting, and blood donation.

Politics and education:  While the benefits of education are recognized among most segments of society, education policy, like criminal justice policy, has historically been a battleground for different value systems and ideologies.  For example, supporters of the religious right and many conservatives have objected to content taught in public schools, from Darwinian evolution theory in biology to the contemporary emphasis on contributions by minority groups to American history and the writing of women in literature. In response, many highly religious conservatives have withdrawn their children from public schools and engage in home schooling.  In some states these people use a voucher system to enroll their children in religious schools. Supporters of a voucher system argue that such educational systems provide parents more freedom in deciding what schools their child may attend.  This choice to parents comes in the form of a voucher, which has — depending on the state — a predetermined amount of money to cover student tuition.  However, while many conservatives strongly support such systems, liberal and pro-public education groups, such as the National Education Association (NEA), strongly oppose voucher systems for the following reasons (2021a):

The next step for those opposed to public schools, for a variety of reasons, has been the establishment of a large number of charter schools as alternatives to traditional public schools in 45 states and the District of Columbia (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2023).  Charter schools are public schools that can operate with fewer regulations than apply to traditional public schools.  The “charter” that establishes such schools is a contract detailing the desired curriculum, mission, goals, and methods used to assess achievement of educational outcomes and student performance.  Each state has different legislation concerning the length of time charters are granted, but most are issued for 3-5 years with the possibility of renewal.  Charter schools are accountable to either a local school district or a state agency.  Charter schools are granted increased autonomy in return for enhanced accountability.  The main reasons often given for charter schools are: they can serve a special population, they allow for more innovative teaching methods, and they can specialize in certain areas of academic study.  Similar to the use of voucher systems, pro-public school organizations and advocates such as the NEA have been opposed to the creation of charter schools for a variety of reasons, including concerns about the quality of instructional facilities, the content of the curriculum and the credentials of teachers (National Education Association, 2021b).

Another area where there has been much political conflict in public education concerns the issue of busing children to achieve racially and ethnically integrated schools.  The desegregation of public facilities preceded the desegregation of public schools.  In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that “separate but equal” public facilities provided for in public policy were consistent with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Court’s ruling meant that racial segregation was acceptable so long as the services provided by government for different races were basically comparable.  In this case Homer Plessy, who was 7/8 white and 1/8 African American, lost his lawsuit to be treated equally based on his attempt to sit in a “whites-only” railroad passenger car instead of a racially segregated car provided for blacks.  This decision wasn’t overturned until nearly 60 years later in 1954 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case Brown v Board of Education, ruled that separate schools for blacks and whites were unconstitutional.  In upholding the decision in 1955 in Brown v Board of Education II, the Court held that (National Archives, 1955):

Since this time, many school districts and subsequent state and local government court decisions supported the busing of racial and ethnic minorities to schools that were predominantly white.  In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education that local education districts across the nation use mandatory busing as a policy to achieve racial integration in their schools. This decision led to the development of court-supervised desegregation busing plans in cities during the 1970s and 1980s.  Much turmoil and conflict occurred among contending groups in many U.S. communities.  Conflict was intense in many locations in the South and North alike, including Boston, Massachusetts, where police had to escort African American school children bused into white neighborhoods in 1974.  There are still those who ardently support or strongly oppose busing for racial integration in many communities today, and some observers continue to note the extreme inequality that continues among school districts.  For example, Jonathan Kozol, author of many books detailing inequality in America’s schools (including Savage Inequalities), has argued (2005):

President Johnson’s 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) represents the first major effort made by the federal government to provide aid to low income and disadvantaged children through the distribution of federal funds to state and local educational systems.  The assumption underlying ESEA was that children from low-income homes required more educational resources and services than children from higher income households.  As part of the ESEA, Title I allocated billions of federal dollars every year to schools with high concentrations of low-income children.  Several programs emerged from ESEA over time, including the Head Start program.  This is a pre-school program for young disadvantaged children with the stated purpose of getting these children ready for the rigors of the first grade.  However, as Hess notes: “Over time, critics of both the left and right expressed concerns about the failure of Title I to improve achievement visibly among low-income students” (Hess, 2006).  The slowly emerging consensus among liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans like was that ESEA, as well as state and local education efforts of similar design and purpose, were not working for all children.  This consensus led in time to the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act in 2002.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaced NCLB in 2018. President Obama signed the bipartisan ESSA into law on December 10, 2015. Below are a few of the key provisions of the law according to the U.S. Department of Education (2015):

• Advances equity by upholding critical protections for America’s disadvantaged and high-need students.
• Requires—for the first time—that all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers.
• Ensures that vital information is provided to educators, families, students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that measure students’ progress toward those high standards.
• Helps to support and grow local innovations—including evidence-based and place-based interventions developed by local leaders and educators.
• Sustains and expands this administration’s historic investments in increasing access to high-quality preschool.
• Maintains an expectation that there will be accountability and action to effect positive change in our lowest-performing schools, where groups of students are not making progress, and where graduation rates are low over extended periods of time.

Higher Education:  So far we have discussed the role of the states and their local governments in the K-12 education arena.  States are also heavily involved in providing higher education opportunities to their citizens — such as community colleges, trade schools, four-year colleges and research universities — as well.  As of 2024 there are 4,298 higher education institutions in the United States, with 1,625 public 4-year schools, 1,070 2-year public schools, 1,985 private 4-year schools and 618 private 2-year schools (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2024). Many states have coordinating boards that set out broad policy for public universities.  For example, the State of Washington has the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, a state agency governed by a 10-member citizen board.  The charge of the board is to represent the “broad public interest” in higher education and to review and approve all degree programs at the state’s public four-year universities and colleges.  Also common in many states, Washington also has a Board for Community and Technical Colleges that plays a similar role with respect to the state’s 2-year community and technical colleges.  Some states also have a chief executive officer for the entire state public university system who serves as the leader of the higher education board.

In most states there have been three major issues facing public higher education in recent years:  access, affordability, and accountability.  With more than 80 percent of all undergraduates in the United States attending public colleges and universities, discussions on higher education frequently center around issues such as affordability, access, and quality of education (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2024). Public institutions play a critical role in providing higher education to a large segment of the population, making these discussions pivotal for policymakers, educators, and students alike. This significant enrollment in public institutions underscores the importance of state funding, tuition policies, and financial aid programs in shaping the landscape of higher education in the U.S.  And as Chapter 11 on state and local budgeting describes, state budgets have been severely strained by the increasing costs of providing services while revenue sources have not kept up with the pace of inflation and growing demand.  Often public higher education budgets suffer the adverse consequences of constrained revenues as other essential services, such as K-12 education, criminal justice and health care, are given higher priority.

Higher education access:  Education is one of the most crucial elements in building sustainable communities, as it significantly impacts various aspects of an individual’s life and the overall well-being of the community. Higher education, in particular, is associated with numerous benefits. Research consistently shows that individuals with higher levels of education are less likely to experience poverty and more likely to secure higher incomes. They are also more inclined to participate in civic activities, such as voting and community engagement, which contribute to the democratic process and social cohesion (Baum and Payea, 2013). Moreover, higher education correlates with better health outcomes, greater employment stability, and higher levels of life satisfaction. Educated individuals tend to possess more policy-relevant and civic knowledge, making them more informed citizens who can effectively contribute to public discourse and policy-making (Ross and Mirowsky, 1999). For instance, the National Skills Coalition emphasizes that “a skilled workforce is critical to a competitive economy,” and continuous education is necessary for workers to adapt to evolving job requirements and technological advancements (National Skills Coalition, 2022). Similarly, a report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce highlights that most future job opportunities will require some form of postsecondary education or training, and many of these jobs will be filled by adults who are already in the workforce (Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2024).

However, there are significant disparities in access to higher education across different states and demographic groups. These disparities can exacerbate social and economic inequalities, highlighting the need for policies that promote inclusive and affordable higher education for all (Goldrick-Rab, 2016). For example, a comprehensive study by the College Board found that among students with the top 10% SAT scores, almost all from the top half of the household income level enroll in some form of higher education, while only 80% of those in the lowest fifth of household income do so. Moreover, participation rates in higher education vary significantly by race and ethnicity, with whites and Asians more likely than African Americans and Hispanics to enroll in higher education institutions. Additionally, students whose parents attended college are significantly more likely to attend college themselves compared to those with similar incomes whose parents do not have a college education (College Board, 2023).

One approach that many states over the years have pursued to increase diversity and enhance the number of under-represented racial and ethnic minorities in public higher education has been through the use of affirmative action — specifically with respect to admission policies.  The idea of affirmative action was first promoted by President Kennedy in 1961 as a policy for redressing historical discrimination in both education and employment. Affirmative action policies have typically required active measures to ensure that African Americans, Hispanics and other racial and ethnic minorities receive the same educational opportunities as whites for admissions, scholarships and financial aid.  While affirmative action was originally justified as a temporary remedy until equal opportunities for minorities and non-minorities could be secured, it has been a highly controversial policy from the outset and continues to be controversial, leading to ongoing complaints of “reverse discrimination” among some disadvantaged whites and conservatives in general.

In 1978, Allan Bakke, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by the University of California-Davis medical school.  The medical school in both years had admitted less qualified minority applicants through its affirmative action program (16 out of 100 places were reserved for minority applicants). Bakke sued the medical school on the grounds of reverse discrimination (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke).  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that inflexible quota systems in affirmative action were not permissible under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the constitution; however, in the same decision the Court also upheld the legality of affirmative action in general so long as the remedies applied were carefully tailored to the situation at hand, contributed to the quality of education for all students, and were temporary in nature. Eventually, a citizen’s initiative—Proposition 209—passed in 1996, banned all forms of affirmative action in California.

Another important case following the Bakke decision was that of Grutter v. Bollinger heard in 2003.  In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy, deciding as it did in the Bakke case that race can be one of several factors considered when making admission decisions because it furthers “…the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”  However, the Court also ruled that the university’s undergraduate admission program, which used a formula that awarded extra points to minority students, was not constitutional and ordered the original trial court to work on appropriate modification to pass muster on equal treatment.

The most recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on college admissions after Grutter v. Bollinger is the 2023 case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Harvard University’s use of race in its admissions process. The Court found that Harvard’s policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using racial preferences to achieve student body diversity. This ruling significantly impacted affirmative action policies across the United States, making it unlawful for higher education institutions to consider race as a factor in admissions decisions. This decision marked a substantial shift in the legal landscape regarding affirmative action in college admissions, emphasizing a more stringent interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and curtailing the ability of universities to implement race-based considerations in their efforts to foster diverse educational environments.

Recent data on higher education affordability indicates that access and affordability continue to be significant challenges in the United States. According to a report by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (2023), many state flagship universities are unaffordable for low- and middle-income students. Only six state flagship universities are deemed affordable for these students, highlighting a growing financial burden on families and students from less affluent backgrounds. The report underscores that high costs of attendance, declining state investment, and inadequately targeted financial aid policies are major barriers to affordability (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2023).

Moreover, the College Board’s findings align with these concerns, indicating that the cost of attending public colleges and universities has continued to rise, making it increasingly difficult for students from low-income households to afford higher education. This trend exacerbates existing social and economic inequalities and stresses the need for policies that promote inclusive and affordable higher education for all students (Penn GSE IRHE, 2024). These studies suggest that addressing the issue of affordability requires a comprehensive approach, including increased state funding, better-targeted financial aid, and policies that prioritize access for underrepresented and low-income students.

Since the 1980s, the cost of college tuition and fees has increased at a rate far outpacing the rise in other economic sectors, including health care. During this period, median family income grew by 127%, while college tuition and fees surged by 375% (The College Board, 2023; U.S. Department of Education, 2023). This dramatic increase in higher education costs has made college less affordable for many families, further highlighting the need for policies aimed at reducing the financial burden on students and making higher education more accessible. While there are several factors involved in state support of higher education, such as regional and state differences in the cost of doing business (e.g., Alaska and Hawaii) as well as the health and size of the state budget, there are still enormous differences between the states in this area.

Besides having states increase higher education budgets to keep tuition costs down and therefore provide more student access, several reforms have been suggested to enhance the capacity of higher education.  These reforms include, but are not limited to: (1) improving the quality of K-12 education, thereby eliminating the need for remedial courses (e.g., writing, foreign language) offered at the university for unprepared students; (2) allowing high school students to take more advanced placement (AP) courses to earn college credit; (3) encouraging more collaboration between community colleges and universities so that the transition from 2-year to 4-year institutions is more efficient; (4) encouraging more students to attend lower cost community colleges, thereby creating greater efficiencies in the state higher education systems; (5) and improving retention and graduation rates at universities to ensure greater efficiency and student success.

Higher education accountability:  In recent years, there has been an increasing demand for accountability in higher education from policymakers, business leaders, college administrators, and the public. This push for accountability is driven by concerns that the U.S. higher education system may be losing its competitive edge internationally. For example, studies such as those conducted by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2008) highlight issues such as the rising cost of tuition and declining affordability, which can impact accessibility and quality of education. Additionally, reports from organizations like the American Council on Education (2021) and the Lumina Foundation (2019) emphasize the need for higher education institutions to demonstrate their effectiveness in preparing students for the workforce and contributing to the economy. These discussions focus on assessing the value and outcomes of higher education, ensuring that institutions are delivering quality education that meets the needs of students and society.

Recent trends show that higher education institutions are increasingly adopting accountability standards to ensure educational quality and student success. These standards involve setting minimum learning outcomes and using appropriate assessment processes to measure these outcomes. Universities and colleges often specify learning outcomes at various levels, including the institution, individual colleges, departments, and specific courses (American Council on Education 2019; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2008).

Several states have already established robust accountability programs. For instance, Arizona (Arizona Board of Regents, 2023), Florida (Florida Board of Governors, 2023), North Carolina (University of North Carolina System, 2023), and the University of Wisconsin system (University of Wisconsin System, 2023) have well-established accountability reporting procedures . These programs require institutions to demonstrate their effectiveness in achieving educational goals and preparing students for the workforce. For example, Arizona’s public universities use the Arizona Board of Regents’ performance metrics to assess their progress in key areas such as graduation rates and research expenditures. Florida’s State University System has an accountability framework that includes metrics on student retention, graduation rates, and post-graduation employment outcomes. North Carolina employs a comprehensive accountability plan through the University of North Carolina System, which tracks various performance indicators. The University of Wisconsin system publishes annual accountability reports that provide detailed data on institutional performance, including student outcomes and institutional efficiency. These accountability measures reflect a broader national trend towards ensuring that higher education institutions not only provide access to education but also deliver measurable outcomes that benefit students and society.

The National Governors Association (NGA) has also weighed in on enhanced accountability systems for higher education. The NGA has taken the position that effective accountability systems should include five goals that are very closely attuned to increasing affordability: (1) increasing the number of high school graduates who go on to college; (2) reducing the number of high school students needing remedial courses in college; (3) increasing retention and five-year graduation rates; (4) increasing the number of community college transfers to four-year schools; and (5) increasing the amount of resources spent on instruction as opposed to other uses such as administration, research, and faculty salaries (National Governors Association, 2023a). Given the importance of higher education to state economic and social development in a postindustrial, knowledge-based society, it is likely that the issue of higher education accountability will remain an important issue for U.S. state governments for years to come.

Higher education, technology and sustainability:  Advances in technology over the last decade and a half have created new ways of educating that have potentially enormous benefits for higher education’s role in the states and their respective communities.  Virtual education, distance education and asynchronous learning offer new forms of course and program delivery, which may well enhance the sustainability of higher education systems (e.g., Oregon State University’s Ecampus programs). As Heller has argued (2001), “The impact of Technology cannot be overstated.  It is becoming ubiquitous in all aspects of university life: teaching, learning, research, administration, service.” He further identifies various potential benefits of enhanced use of information and communication technology, including: (1) the ability to overcome geographic boundaries and offer courses and programs to place-bound students, such as someone living in an isolated rural community; (2) the opportunity for students to overcome “temporal boundaries,” allowing them to take classes when the time is convenient for them, such as after work in the evening; (3) depending on the college or university, distance education courses that can reduce the cost of delivering education (e.g., not needing a physical classroom space reduces infrastructure and energy costs, and the use of computer simulations can reduce the cost of using expensive experiments); (4) a reduction of library costs by the use of electronic versions of materials; (5) and more effective, interesting, stimulating and visually appealing materials, exercises, and simulations that are available through technology.

Transportation

As discussed in previous chapters, one very visible service that some citizens take for granted — until a disaster strikes such as the 2024 collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge due to a container ship collision — is the transportation system, which involves a complicated and extensive system of public and private roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, railroads, subways, light-rail, ferries, airports, bicycle and pedestrian lanes, waterways and ports.  The transportation system is used by millions of individuals, by thousands of businesses and by hundreds of government agencies every day and affects the delivery of numerous services such as health care, education, business transactions, jobs, housing, etc.  All levels of government — including the federal, state, county, municipal, and even special districts — are involved in the building and maintenance of the transportation infrastructure.  It should be noted, however, that the transportation system is not the same in each state.   For example, in many states in the East such as Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont county governments are not involved in road building and maintenance, which are the prerogative of state and municipal governments.  In stark contrast, in other regions of the country such as the West and Midwest and South, county governments are likely to build and maintain more roads than state governments. Nationally, state governments control approximately 780,000 miles of roads and local governments manage about 3.2 million miles of roads (Federal Highway Administration, 2021). This division highlights that local governments are responsible for the vast majority of road miles, including minor arterials, collectors, and local roads, which are essential for providing access within communities. State governments, on the other hand, typically oversee the major highways and interstates that facilitate long-distance travel and commerce.

All 50 states have either a department of transportation, roads or highways that is responsible for designing, planning, and operating the streets, highways, transit systems, ports, airports, and railroads under state control to provide for the safe movement of people, goods and services.  These state-level departments also work with and oversee local county government road departments as well, often sharing financial and regulatory responsibilities with local government.  In comparison to the U.S. federal government, state and local governments play the largest role in terms of financing and managing the nation’s transportation systems.  In recent years, public funds spent on transportation in the United States have shown a notable distribution between federal, state, and local governments. In 2023, the federal government spent $44.8 billion on infrastructure and transferred an additional $81.5 billion to states for various transportation projects. State and local governments significantly contribute to transportation funding, spending $218.5 billion on transportation and infrastructure in 2021, which accounted for 56% of all government transportation and infrastructure spending that year (Urban Institute, 2021; USAFacts, 2024).

Most federal transportation aid to states is financed through collections from the federal gasoline tax, which currently is 18.4 cents per gallon. However, the U.S. Department of Transportation has documented a steady decline in the Highway Trust Fund in recent years. This decline has been noted since 2017 and 2018, indicating that states will likely be responsible for an ever-increasing share of transportation funding in future years (Federal Highway Administration, 2023; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2023). As the federal government does, U.S. states also levy gas taxes to fund their transportation services. State gas taxes are levied in various ways, including a flat rate per gallon, a tax similar to a sales tax that applies to the cost of the gasoline sold, and in some states, local governments are allowed to levy gasoline taxes in addition to state taxes (e.g., Florida). With federal grant funding for transportation systems declining, states will face many challenges to find additional revenues.

The National Governors Association (2023b) has also reiterated concerns about the sustainability of the current transportation finance structure. They note that while the public was historically supportive of taxes to build the national transportation system over the last five decades, there is now significantly less support for funding the ongoing needs of system reconstruction, maintenance, operation, and integration. This shift in public sentiment complicates state and regional proposals to increase gas, sales, property, or other taxes to meet future transportation funding requirements. Recent updates highlight the ongoing challenges state governments face in securing necessary funds amid declining federal contributions to transportation infrastructure.

Although increased state and local financing of the transportation system will be needed in the future, there will be competition for resources from such services as education, criminal justice, health care, and a host of other services provided by state and local governments.  This situation has led some groups, such as the National Governors Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Government Accountability Office to advocate some new approaches, including the use of toll roads and bridges, road-pricing strategies such as paying a premium to drive in less congested lanes or locations, the increased use of debt financing, and new strategies to reduce the growth of travel demand or even increased use of mass transit systems, especially in metropolitan areas. These last two strategies — reducing travel demand and mass transit — have been advocated by organizations and policy-makers interested in smart growth and sustainable transportation systems.

Sustainable transportation systems:  In 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report addressing the sustainability of the U.S. transportation finance system (2019)h. The report indicated that the current system of transportation finance, primarily funded through the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, remains inadequate to reduce traffic congestion and address long-term infrastructure needs. The Highway Trust Fund has faced declining balances, exacerbated by increased fuel efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles, which contribute less to the gas tax revenue base (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2021). Consequently, states are increasingly shouldering a larger portion of transportation funding responsibilities.

The GAO report emphasized the need for innovative funding mechanisms and policy shifts to ensure the sustainability of the transportation system. It highlighted the environmental, social, and economic challenges associated with the current car-centric infrastructure, including issues such as habitat loss, air and water pollution, and social inequities in transportation access. Furthermore, the report called for a rethinking of how taxes are collected to support transportation services, advocating for user-based fees, such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) taxes, which could more accurately reflect road usage and incentivize efficient transportation choices.

The National Governors Association (NGA) echoed these recommendations, stressing that the present transportation finance structure is unsustainable (2017). They highlighted the decreasing public support for traditional funding methods, such as increases in gas, sales, and property taxes, to finance transportation needs. The NGA underscored the importance of exploring alternative funding strategies to maintain and expand transportation infrastructure in the face of evolving economic and environmental challenges.

Other sustainability-oriented reforms could include congestion pricing, a practice used in cities abroad which tries to influence driver behavior by charging drivers higher fees to use public roads during peak congestion hours.  An example of this approach can be found in London where drivers of private vehicles must pay 5 pounds (about $10 dollars) to drive in London’s central city between 7:00 a.m. and 6.30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.  This sanction has been successful in discouraging private car traffic and congestion in the inner city by taxing drivers.  The GAO and NGA also suggest the increased use of tolls to finance road and bridge maintenance and improvements as well as other types of user fees.  They also call for more public-private partnerships in transportation to reduce costs and leverage resources.

Many advocates of sustainable transportation system suggest a comprehensive paradigm shift in how local communities think about transportation.  For example, these advocates suggest that walking and the use of bicycles — where feasible — will greatly reduce costs, pollution and congestion while promoting public health and wellness among citizens.  It follows that planning for bike lanes and paths is important, along with the development of urban “hubs” that have commercial space for jobs and stores and restaurants located nearby to high density residential areas to encourage walking and biking.  Recent state and local sustainable transportation policies in the U.S. highlight several innovative approaches aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving public transportation infrastructure, and promoting alternative fuel vehicles. Here are some examples from California:

• California’s Investments: California has been proactive in sustainable transportation with significant investments in various projects. For instance, California’s Sustainable Communities Competitive Grants fund local and regional projects to improve transportation and land use planning. The state also supports the development of electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure and climate adaptation planning (Streetsblog California, 2023).
• Climate Action Plans: Numerous states have developed comprehensive climate action plans which include targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These plans often integrate strategies for enhancing public transit systems, promoting zero-emission vehicles, and improving energy efficiency in transportation. For example, the California Transportation Commission recently allocated substantial funds for public transit and passenger rail service improvements (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2023).
• Regional Initiatives: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which includes 11 states, and California’s cap-and-trade program are key examples of state-level policies aimed at reducing emissions through economic incentives. These programs encourage the reduction of carbon emissions by setting caps and allowing the trading of emission permits (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2023).
• Local Projects: Specific projects funded by California’s Sustainable Communities grants include the Noyo Harbor Multimodal Circulation Plan and the Fresno Council of Governments’ study on regional mobility hubs. These projects aim to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit access, thereby reducing reliance on personal vehicles and promoting sustainable transportation modes (Streetsblog California, 2023).

These examples illustrate the range of policies and projects that U.S. states and local governments are implementing to create more sustainable and resilient transportation systems.

Other modes of urban transportation considered sustainable in terms of less pollution, less congestion and perhaps more feasibility for those people with longer commutes are light rail and/or metro elevated rail and subway systems.  The Metrorail and Metrobus transit services in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) in the San Francisco-Oakland metropolitan area, the New York Subway system, and Chicago’s Metra Railroad and integrated bus system all provide relatively cheap, rapid and reliable service for millions of citizens every day.  In addition, some cities — most notably Portland, Oregon, Salt Lake City, Utah and Seattle, Washington — have been building light-rail systems similar to what an American tourist might find in many European cities.  Metropolitan Area Express (i.e., “MAX”) is integrated with “Trimet” public bus services that provide mass transit to most of the three-country Portland metropolitan area. While there are some opponents of adopting such systems due to initial construction and operating costs, as well as by the urban neighborhoods that might be affected or displaced due to the location of lines, light rail and other urban rail systems do offer a sustainable alternative to congestion and the automobile-based urban society.

Emergency Management

Emergency management is the process of how governments prepare to protect citizens from perceived threats, and how they seek to prevent, respond to, and recover from natural and man-made disasters.  These threats to the public health and safety can include natural disasters, terrorist actions, political crises, and public health emergencies. Preparedness planning focuses on events beyond a minimum calculated probability that could have potentially catastrophic results for a community. Government preparedness efforts embody collective security ideals achieved by unifying local governments and relevant state and federal agencies to thoughtfully prepare for potential emergencies.

Because different emergencies require different responses, decisions must be made about which particular risks to prioritize.  State and local agencies often prepare for the catastrophes which are most feared rather than those that are more probable (Lakoff, 2007). Often the potential depth of a catastrophe guides collective pre-emptive actions, regardless of how remote the likelihood of occurrence. Government emergency planners from federal, state and local governments work to determine which potential disasters could be lessened by institutional response, and they make subjective consensus judgments based on a combination of experience, specialized training and political agenda-setting influences.  Emergency management is a way of anticipating surprises, coordinating plans for collective action, educating the public on steps they can take to promote preparedness and resilience while calming public fears.

Planning for emergency management collectivizes individual risk instead of securing the population at large.  Emergency management can be examined by the protection of individuals and groups, as well as by the preservation of critical infrastructures.  Government institutions help vulnerable communities during a crisis because of a collective dependence on infrastructure, such as health care, communication, and transportation systems.  In large part, emergency management is the process of formalizing an institutional response to a wide array of crises.

Emergency management strategies:  Emergency management prepares communities to maintain order during a catastrophe, regardless of how likely that crisis is to happen.  Emergency preparedness differs from risk avoidance because it is a strategy of how to respond after a major event rather than how to avoid contingent harm.  External, largely unpredicted danger is then the basic premise of emergency management (Collier et al., 2004).  Because major emergencies affecting large numbers of people can range widely from political to environmental events, diverse strategies are required to deal with potential crises.  Establishing an emergency plan serves to coordinate response efforts and assists with procuring relief resources from outside the area immediately affected by the disaster.

Emergency management systems in the U.S. are coordinated at local, state, and federal levels. Professional responders include over 30,000 local fire departments and 18,000 local police departments, working alongside 30,000 local government agencies and 3,031 county governments. Two key institutional response strategies are the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS). These systems are federally initiated but heavily reliant on state and local response efforts during emergencies. They facilitate complex inter-governmental relationships, essential for collecting, evaluating, and disseminating emergency management information and coordinating relief efforts during disasters (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2023a; U.S. Fire Administration, 2023).

Emergency simulation training is used extensively in all levels of government to expose institutional vulnerabilities and strengthen response capabilities.  By engaging in a staged crisis, first responder and emergency management administrative personnel learn to execute efficient decision-making strategies and prioritize multiple sub-crises.  Government agencies simulate different scenarios periodically to improve their communication, increase their speed of response, and enhance their ability to limit the scope of various threats.

Immediately after an emergency management event has occurred, government agencies utilize community networks to foster efficient response efforts.  Strategies to maximize social capital (mutual sentiments of concern and capacity for effective collection action) within communities and fortify regional networks of information sharing and trust do indeed increase the sense of collective efficacy among community residents (Jaeger et al., 2007). In order to reinforce social capital, technology is needed to connect professional emergency responders to civilians. Strategies to unite these often-disparate groups include the Internet and mobile communication devices such as cell phones and PDA’s.  Reverse 911 texts and calls from emergency managers to residents help disseminate critical information needed by citizens in order to be helpful in disaster recovery.  Cellular telephone and other portable wireless devices need to be integrated in order to serve as an uninterrupted channel of high level of communication during a crisis. Access, affordability, and training for various web-based interfaces are key elements of effective utilization of response technology.  Improved networks of communication allow civilians to help each other and aid in more effective emergency response (Jaeger et al., 2007).

Utilizing technological innovations and community response networks also connects government efforts with many non-governmental, community-based organizations.  Key emergency management volunteer organizations include the American Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, and the Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters.  These organizations serve a critical role in disseminating services and resources to citizens in times of dire need, simply because public trust can be higher with non-governmental organizations than with governmental agencies in some circumstances. The perceived objectivity and noble motivations of these groups allows them to gain greater penetration within some local social networks.

Political crisis preparedness:  An important facet of emergency management is civil defense, which is relying on military mobilization (National Guard) to maintain political peace and public order and to protect human life.  To prepare for wide-scale attacks involving either conventional weapons or nuclear or biological weapons, state and local governments depend on the ability of government acting collectively to deploy appropriate military forces immediately.  Civil defense aims to protect the population against war and terrorism, and minimize the devastating impacts of either form of man-made disaster.

As a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the power centers of U.S. government, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created to bolster the nation’s domestic security efforts (Mabee, 2007).  DHS utilized an ‘all-hazards’ approach to enhance emergency management capabilities across the country.  Preparedness in this context is the measurable relation of capabilities to vulnerabilities, given a selected range of threats.   DHS examines the relative likelihood for crisis, as compared to other government efforts, which are guided by the greatest fear and not the greatest probability.  Agencies such as DHS have changed the expectations of Americans regarding government response to political crisis. By centralizing emergency management planning efforts, first-responder agencies and major political leaders can strengthen their efforts at cooperation and collaboration.

Natural disaster preparedness:  Natural disasters are unplanned geographical and environmental events affecting human populations; natural disasters include earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and wildfires, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves (tsunami) and droughts.  Natural disasters are managed both through preventative measures and pre-planned recovery efforts.  The effect of floods can be mitigated through levees, fires may be prevented through forest management, and earthquake damage can be reduced by building codes.  However, not all emergencies can be prevented or fully anticipated as to scope and scale of damage and harm to humans, and as a result proper reactive actions need to be planned in anticipation of possible engagement in the case of a disaster.

At the interface between human populations and vulnerable landscapes, the increasing probability that extreme natural events will impact life and property is a significant concern with a vastly changing climate (Banholzer et al., 2014; Govind and Verchick, 2015). As the U.S. population grows and expands beyond urban boundaries, more people are living within floodplains, dense forests, coastlines, and high desert areas prone to seasonal fires. Here are some recent examples:

• California Wildfires: The wildfires in California have been particularly destructive, with the Camp Fire in 2018 being the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California’s history. It destroyed the town of Paradise and resulted in 85 fatalities. The combination of climate change, forest management practices, and increased human development in wildfire-prone areas has exacerbated the impact of these fires (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2021).
• Hurricane Harvey: In 2017, Hurricane Harvey caused unprecedented flooding in Houston, Texas, and surrounding areas. The storm brought over 40 inches of rain to some areas, leading to extensive damage to homes and infrastructure. This event highlighted the risks associated with living in flood-prone areas, especially as urban development reduces natural water absorption and increases runoff (National Hurricane Center, 2018).
• Midwest Floods: In 2019, the Midwest experienced significant flooding due to a combination of heavy rainfall and rapid snowmelt. The flooding affected states like Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri, causing billions of dollars in damage. The floods underscored the vulnerability of agricultural and rural communities to extreme weather events and the need for improved flood management practices (NOAA, 2019).
• California’s Drought: Ongoing drought conditions in California have led to severe water shortages, affecting agriculture, communities, and ecosystems. The drought has exacerbated the risk of wildfires and has had significant economic impacts on the state’s agriculture sector (California Department of Water Resources, 2021).

Preparation for natural disasters in many ways mimics strategies of civil defense. While both efforts rely on the anticipatory mobilization in the event of a possible catastrophe, the governing structures for the two types of emergency management situations have differed traditionally.  Civil defense relies on a hierarchical command structure, but natural disaster management utilizes a decentralized system within many levels of the government (Lakoff, 2007). The creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1979 was a result of combining these previously disparate management strategies.  FEMA consolidated “federal emergency management and civil defense functions under the rubric of ‘all-hazards planning” (Lakoff, 2007).  Combining federal strategies and local efforts to manage natural disasters led to new collaborations and funding opportunities for emergency management personnel at all levels of government.  Despite the efforts of FEMA officials, tensions exist between civil defense and natural disaster planning largely because of the disparity in the required scale of government response.

Health Emergency Preparedness:  Public health preparedness is a wide-ranging process intended to mitigate the effects of bioterrorism, infectious disease outbreaks, and attacks upon citizens.  Public health crises may also entail shortages in food, water, medicine and medical staff.  Health preparedness involves many federal, state and local agencies dedicated to protecting human health in both normal times and times of crisis.

Table 13.2 State Emergency Management and Homeland Security

Health care providers and hospitals, particularly, can be challenged during an emergency because of limited resources to expand pre-existing capacity.  Health care systems may be limited in space, staffing, and by competing priorities within each regional system.  Innovative solutions are based on collaborations between public health systems and emergency management response teams, such as local police and fire departments.

The threat against the nation’s biosecurity is a significant concern within public health professions. Biosecurity efforts aim to prevent the development and deployment of biological weapons and germ warfare using pathogens such as bacteria or viruses to attack human populations. After the Cold War, access to biological agents increased significantly due to reduced safeguards and changes in the geopolitical balance of power. Advances in genetic technology have also improved access to some of the most virulent weapons. To ensure biosecurity, U.S. public health professionals require robust communication systems with emergency management responders, immunized and trained staff, and the ability to accurately interrupt likely attack patterns.

After the events of September 11, 2001, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) was bolstered to enhance state preparedness programs (2023). State government budgets have been adjusted to reflect greater preparedness efforts in compliance with federal guidelines from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Despite the clear evidence of increased investment in this area, it remains uncertain whether current preparations for emergency management are adequate (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2023; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2023a).

Sustainability in preparedness efforts:  Fostering sustainability within emergency management involves supporting the governments’ ability to respond to a variety of crises.  To maintain effective response, organizational and communication infrastructure needs to be supported through adequate funding, targeted training, and ongoing agency collaborations.  Coordination between locally-based public health, law enforcement and emergency response teams can also foster a strong response to crisis (Katz et al., 2006).  Planned preparedness activities and periodic “table top exercises” simulating extreme events increase response capacity through the interagency collaboration they generate.

Mobilizing communities effectively during a crisis involves creating an “emergency community” by reinforcing existing infrastructures such as schools, churches, and community centers. This approach establishes a base for disseminating information and distributing aid. Emergency management encompasses preparing for various threats, including natural disasters, environmental crises, and terrorist attacks. This field of government is driven by the fear of catastrophic events, which are inherently unpredictable, making perfect knowledge for guiding government intervention impossible. Even with improved forecasting, there is no consensus on prioritizing risks (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2023b; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2023b).

Current Trends in Traditional and Visible Services

In recent years, state and local governments across the United States have been navigating a landscape of evolving priorities and emerging challenges. This has spurred significant trends in key public service areas such as criminal justice, education, transportation, and emergency management. Criminal justice reforms are focusing on reducing mass incarceration and increasing police accountability through measures such as sentencing reform, diversion programs, and enhanced oversight mechanisms. In the education sector, there is a heightened emphasis on equity and inclusion, driven by efforts to address disparities in funding and resources, alongside a rapid integration of technology in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Transportation policies are increasingly geared towards sustainability, with investments in public transit and green infrastructure aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting environmentally friendly alternatives. Lastly, emergency management practices are being strengthened through improved disaster preparedness and climate resilience initiatives, addressing the growing impact of natural disasters exacerbated by climate change. These trends highlight the proactive steps being taken by state and local governments to ensure more equitable, sustainable, and resilient communities. Here are some examples:

Criminal Justice:

• Sentencing Reform and Alternatives to Incarceration: There is an increasing focus on reducing mass incarceration through sentencing reforms, particularly for non-violent offenses. States are exploring alternatives to incarceration, such as diversion programs, drug courts, and restorative justice practices (The Sentencing Project, 2023).
• Police Reform and Accountability: In response to public demand for greater police accountability, many states and localities are implementing body camera requirements, revising use-of-force policies, and establishing civilian oversight boards (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2023a).

Education:

• Equity and Inclusion Initiatives: There is a growing emphasis on addressing educational disparities by increasing funding for schools in underserved communities, implementing inclusive curricula, and promoting diversity among teachers and staff (EdWeek, 2023).
• Remote Learning and Technology Integration: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of remote learning technologies. Schools are investing in digital infrastructure and providing training for teachers to effectively use technology in education (U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

Transportation:

• Sustainable and Public Transit: Many states and cities are investing in sustainable transportation options, including expanded public transit systems, bike lanes, and pedestrian pathways. Efforts are focused on reducing carbon emissions and promoting greener alternatives (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2023).
• Infrastructure Funding and Maintenance: States are grappling with aging infrastructure and the need for substantial investment to maintain and upgrade roads, bridges, and public transit systems. Funding challenges are being addressed through various means, including gas taxes and public-private partnerships (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2023).

Emergency Management:

• Disaster Preparedness and Response: Enhancing disaster preparedness is a priority, with states updating emergency response plans, investing in early warning systems, and conducting regular disaster drills (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2023c).
• Climate Resilience Initiatives: With increasing climate-related disasters, states are focusing on resilience initiatives, including flood defenses, wildfire mitigation, and climate adaptation strategies (National Association of State Energy Officials (2023b).

These trends illustrate the evolving priorities and strategies in state and local government services, reflecting the need for innovation, equity, and sustainability in addressing contemporary challenges.

Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed some of the most visible services provided by state and local government, and some of the largest items found in state budgets and in county and city budgets.  For example, 35.8 percent of the average state operating budget in 2023 went to K-12, followed by 10.1 percent for higher education, 7.8 percent for transportation, and 3.4 percent for corrections (National Association of State Budget Officers, 2023).  All of the services discussed are central to the building and maintenance of sustainable states and sustainable local communities within those states.  Lower crime rates and less recidivism, higher levels of educational attainment, reliable, safe and energy-efficient transportation systems, and efficacious and responsive emergency services are pivotal for resilient states and communities as they adapt to the many changes coming their way in modern America.  As we noted throughout this chapter, many of these vital services currently are not adequately funded or managed properly, potentially limiting how public officials adapt to changes as well as the long-term viability of each and every state and local government.  Given these circumstances, the “laboratories of democracy” provided by the American federal system will have to provide the framework for the creation of best practices and innovations in funding schemes which will give rise to the essential services to be disseminated across state and local governments in the U.S.  Just as biodiversity is an asset to ecosystem sustainability and resilience, so should the diversity of approaches taken to solve common problems prove to be of lasting value in the pursuit of sustainability in American state and local government.

References

American Council on Education (2021). The American college president study 2017. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/Research-Insights/Pages/American-College-President-Study.aspx

American Council on Education (2019). Understanding accountability in higher education. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Understanding-Accountability-in-Higher-Education.pdf

American Society of Civil Engineers (2023). 2021 Infrastructure report card. Retrieved from https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Arizona Board of Regents (2023). Performance metrics. Retrieved from https://www.azregents.edu/our-universities/performance-metrics

Banfield, E. (1974). The unheavenly city revisited. Boston: Little, Brown.

Banholzer, S., Kossin, J., and Donner, S. (2014). The impact of climate change on natural disasters. Reducing disaster: Early warning systems for climate change, 21-49.

Baum, S. and Payea, K. (2013). Education pays: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=eD572537

Bondeson, U. (1994). Alternatives to imprisonment: Intentions and reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2023a). Local jails. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/survey-inmates-local-jails-silj

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2023b). Correctional populations in the United States, 2021. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/cpus21st.pdf

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2021). Fire statistics. Retrieved from https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events/

California Department of Water Resources (2021). Drought information. Retrieved from https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Drought

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (2023). State climate policy maps. Retrieved from https://www.c2es.org/content/state-climate-policy/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023). Emergency preparedness and response. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/phpr/

Clark, R. (1970). Crime in America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

College Board (2023). Trends in college pricing and student aid 2023. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/Trends%20Report%202023%20Updated.pdf

Collier, S., Lakoff, A., and Rabinow, P. (2004). Biosecurity: Toward an anthropology of the contemporary. Anthropology Today, 20(5), 3-7.

Congressional Budget Office (2017). Spending on infrastructure and investment. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52463

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (2023). About CSTE. Retrieved from https://www.cste.org/page/about-cste

EdWeek (2023). K-12 education trends. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2023). Crime data explorer.  Retrieved from https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/documents?url=documents

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2023a). National response framework. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/frameworks/response

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2023b). Preparedness information. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/preparedness-information

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2023c). Emergency Management Policies. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/

Federal Highway Administration (2023). Status of the highway trust fund. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/

Florida Board of Governors (2023). Performance-based funding model. Retrieved from https://www.flbog.edu/board/office/performance-based-funding/

Gallup (2020). Support for death penalty lowest in a half-century. Gallup. Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-public-support-for-the-death-penalty-lowest-in-a-half-century

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (2024). Progress interrupted: Evaluating a decade of demographic change at selective and open-access institutions. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu

Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. University of Chicago Press.

Government Accountability Office (2019). Highway trust fund: DOT should fully implement call for stewardship to ensure sustainable solvency. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-327

Govind, P. J., and Verchick, R. R. (2015). Natural disaster and climate change. International Environmental Law and the Global South, 491-507.

Heller, D. (2001). The states and public higher education. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press.

Hess, F. (2006). No Child Left Behind: Trends and issues. In The book of the states, 2006. Lexington, Kentucky: The Council of State Governments.

Institute for Higher Education Policy (2023). IHEP analysis finds the majority of state flagship universities fall short of their promise of an affordable education for students. Retrieved from https://www.ihep.org/

Jaeger, P., Shneiderman, B., and Fleischmann, K. (2007). Community response grids: E-government, social networks, and effective emergency management. Telecommunications Policy, 31, 592-604.

Katz, A., Stati, A., and McKenzie, K. (2006). Preparing for the unknown, responding to the unknown: Communities and public health preparedness. Health Affairs, 25, 946-957.

Kozol, J. (2005). Still unequal: America’s educational apartheid, Harper’s Magazine, 311, 41-54.

Lakoff, A. (2007). Social life of risk: Preparing for the next emergency. Public Culture, 19, 247-271.

Lumina Foundation (2019). A stronger nation: Learning beyond high school builds American talent. Retrieved from https://www.luminafoundation.org/our-work/stronger-nation/

Mabee, B. (2007). Re-imagining the borders of US security after 9/11: Security, risk, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Globalizations, 4, 385-397.

Mooradian, J. (2003). Disproportionate confinement of African-American juvenile delinquents. New York: LFB Publishers.

National Archives (1955). Brown v Board of Education II. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education#:~:text=In%20this%20milestone%20decision%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled,forth%20in%20the%201896%20Plessy%20v.%20Ferguson%20case

National Center for Education Statistics (2024). Digest of education statistics, 2020. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/

National Center for Education Statistics (2023). Revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary education: FY 21. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

National Center for Education Statistics (2021). Digest of education statistics, 2020. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2008). Measuring Up: The National Report Card on Higher Education. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503494

National Conference of State Legislatures (2023a). Policing and Public Safety. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/policing.aspx

National Association of State Energy Officials (2023b). State Energy Policies. Retrieved from https://www.naseo.org/

National Education Association (2021a). Vouchers. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/action-center/our-issues/vouchers

National Education Association (2021b). Charter school accountability. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/action-center/our-issues/charter-school-accountability

National Governors Association (2023a). Higher education accountability. Retrieved from https://www.nga.org/policy-positions/higher-education-accountability/

National Governors Association (2023b). Current trends and future challenges in transportation funding. Retrieved from https://www.nga.org/center/publications/current-trends-future-challenges-transportation-funding

National Governors Association (2017). State policy options for funding transportation. Retrieved from https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/State-Policy-Options-for-Funding-Transportation.pdf

National Hurricane Center (2018). Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Harvey. Retrieved from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL092017_Harvey.pdf

National Skills Coalition (2022). The Importance of a skilled workforce. Retrieved from https://nationalskillscoalition.org

Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (2022). Annual report 2021-2022. Retrieved from https://nebraskalegislature.gov/pdf/reports/public_counsel/2022_annual_report.pdf

Nellis, A. (2021). The color of justice: Racial and ethnic disparity in state prisons. The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons-the-sentencing-project/

NOAA (2019). 2019 Spring flooding. Retrieved from https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-predicts-major-spring-flooding

Penn GSE Institute for Research on Higher Education (IRHE). (2024). College affordability. Retrieved from https://irhe.gse.upenn.edu/research/college-affordability

Pew Research Center (2021). Shrinking majority of Americans support death penalty Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/03/28/shrinking-majority-of-americans-support-death-penalty/

Prison Policy Initiative (2024). Tenth-anniversary edition of the Whole Pie Report. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/03/14/pie-2024/

Roberts, A. (1994). Critical issues in crime and justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ross, C. E., and Mirowsky, J. (1999). Refining the association between education and health: The effects of quantity, credential, and selectivity. Demography, 36(4), 445-460.

Ruth, H., and Reitz, K. (2003). The challenge of crime: Rethinking our response. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shah, S. A., and Roth, L. H. (1974). Biological and psychophysiological factors in criminality. Handbook of criminology, 101-173.

Streetsblog California (2023). More money for sustainable transportation. Retrieved from https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/08/31/more-money-for-sustainable-transportation

The Sentencing Project (2023). Criminal justice facts. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/criminal-justice-facts/

University of North Carolina System (2023). Annual accountability report. Retrieved from https://www.northcarolina.edu/impact/accountability/

University of Wisconsin System (2023). Accountability dashboard. Retrieved from https://www.wisconsin.edu/accountability/

Urban Institute (2021). Highway and road expenditures. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org

U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Annual survey of school system finances. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/school-finances.html

U.S. Department of Education (2023). Education statistics and research. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/

U.S. Department of Education (2021). The Condition of education 2021. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/

U.S. Department of Education (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2023a). Biosecurity. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/biosecurity

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2023b). Emergency Preparedness and Response. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/emergency-preparedness-response

U.S. Department of Transportation (2023). Federal transportation funding and Highway Trust Fund. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/highway-trust-fund

U.S. Department of Transportation (2021). Status of the Highway Trust Fund. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/

U.S. Fire Administration (2023). National Incident Management System. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/nims

USAFacts. (2024). Current state of the union: U.S. transportation and infrastructure. Retrieved from https://usafacts.org

Wilson, J.Q. (1985). Thinking about crime. New York: Random House.