Experts Matter. Find Yours.

What is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)?

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), one of the most controversial federal agencies in the United States, plays a central role in enforcing immigration laws and maintaining national security. Created in the aftermath of 9/11 as part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE was established to consolidate and streamline immigration enforcement. Over the past two decades, it has become a lightning rod for political and ethical debate—raising urgent questions about border control, civil liberties, and immigration reform. As the national conversation around immigration intensifies, understanding the origins, structure, and impact of ICE remains critically important. Key story angles include: The Origins of ICE Post-9/11: Tracing the agency’s creation in 2003 under DHS and its intended role in counterterrorism and immigration enforcement. How ICE Operates Today: Breaking down ICE’s structure, including Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Controversies and Public Backlash: Investigating high-profile incidents, including family separations, detention center conditions, and deportation raids that have sparked widespread protest. The Politics of Immigration Enforcement: Exploring how ICE has become a partisan issue, with calls for its reform, defunding, or abolishment emerging from activists and lawmakers. The Human Impact of ICE Actions: Highlighting stories of immigrants, asylum seekers, and communities affected by ICE policies and practices. Future of Immigration Enforcement: Examining policy proposals for reforming ICE, improving transparency, and addressing legal and ethical concerns in a changing demographic landscape. As immigration remains one of the most urgent and divisive issues in American politics, ICE stands at the heart of the debate—making its history, purpose, and evolving role a vital topic for journalists and the public to understand. Connect with our experts about the origins and role of ICE : Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com

In the News: School Choice and Vouchers

A Trump administration proposal to use the federal tax code to offer vouchers that students could use to attend private secular or religious schools has reignited public debate over school choice. David Figlio, a professor of economics and education at the University of Rochester whose research on vouchers has been widely cited, is available to offer insight on the matter. A recent study he co-authored on a school choice program in Ohio showed that low-income children in the program were likely to realize significant and positive academic benefits. Figlio warned in an interview with National Public Radio, though, that the results need to be taken “with a grain of salt.” “This program was a highly targeted program that bears little resemblance to the statewide, universal vouchers that are being rolled out today,” he said. Figlio’s research spans a wide range of education and health policy issues, from school accountability and standards to welfare policy and the intersection between education and health. Contact Figlio by clicking on his profile.

Why Simultaneous Voting Makes for Good Decisions

How can organizations make robust decisions when time is short, and the stakes are high? It’s a conundrum not unfamiliar to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Back in 2021, the FDA found itself under tremendous pressure to decide on the approval of the experimental drug aducanumab, designed to slow the progress of Alzheimer’s disease—a debilitating and incurable condition that ranks among the top 10 causes of death in the United States. Welcomed by the market as a game-changer on its release, aducanumab quickly ran into serious problems. A lack of data on clinical efficacy along with a slew of dangerous side effects meant physicians in their droves were unwilling to prescribe it. Within months of its approval, three FDA advisors resigned in protest, one calling aducanumab, “the worst approval decision that the FDA has made that I can remember.” By the start of 2024, the drug had been pulled by its manufacturers. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight and data from the public’s use of aducanumab, it is easy for us to tell that FDA made the wrong decision then. But is there a better process that would have given FDA the foresight to make the right decision, under limited information? The FDA routinely has to evaluate novel drugs and treatments; medical and pharmaceutical products that can impact the wellbeing of millions of Americans. With stakes this high, the FDA is known to tread carefully: assembling different advisory, review, and funding committees providing diverse knowledge and expertise to assess the evidence and decide whether to approve a new drug, or not. As a federal agency, the FDA is also required to maintain scrupulous records that cover its decisions, and how those decisions are made. The Impact of Voting Mechanisms on Decision Quality Some of this data has been analyzed by Goizueta’s Tian Heong Chan, associate professor of information systems and operation management. Together with Panos Markou of the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, Chan scrutinized 17 years’ worth of information, including detailed transcripts from more than 500 FDA advisory committee meetings, to understand the mechanisms and protocols used in FDA decision-making: whether committee members vote to approve products sequentially, with everyone in the room having a say one after another; or if voting happens simultaneously via the push of a button, say, or a show of hands. Chan and Markou also looked at the impact of sequential versus simultaneous voting to see if there were differences in the quality of the decisions each mechanism produced. Their findings are singular. It turns out that when stakeholders vote simultaneously, they make better decisions. Drugs or products approved this way are far less likely to be issued post-market boxed warnings (warnings issued by FDA that call attention to potentially serious health risks associated with the product, that must be displayed on the prescription box itself), and more than two times less likely to be recalled. The FDA changed its voting protocols in 2007, when they switched from sequentially voting around the room, one person after another, to simultaneous voting procedures. And the results are stunning. Tian Heong Chan, Associate Professor of Information Systems & Operation Management “Decisions made by simultaneous voting are more than twice as effective,” says Chan. “After 2007, you see that just 3.4% of all drugs and products approved this way end up being discontinued or recalled. This compares with an 8.6% failure rate for drugs approved by the FDA using more sequential processes—the round robin where individuals had been voting one by one around the room.” Imagine you are told beforehand that you are going to vote on something important by simply raising your hand or pressing a button. In this scenario, you are probably going to want to expend more time and effort in debating all the issues and informing yourself before you decide. Tian Heong Chan “On the other hand, if you know the vote will go around the room, and you will have a chance to hear how others’ speak and explain their decisions, you’re going to be less motivated to exchange and defend your point of view beforehand,” says Chan. In other words, simultaneous decision-making is two times less likely to generate a wrong decision as the sequential approach. Why is this? Chan and Markou believe that these voting mechanisms impact the quality of discussion and debate that undergird decision-making; that the quality of decisions is significantly impacted by how those decisions are made. Quality Discussion Leads to Quality Decisions Parsing the FDA transcripts for content, language, and tonality in both settings, Chan and Markou find evidence to support this. Simultaneous voting or decision-making drives discussions that are characterized by language that is more positive, more authentic, and more even in terms of expressions of authority and hierarchy, says Chan. What’s more, these deliberations and exchanges are deeper and more far-ranging in quality. We find marked differences in the tone of speech and the topics discussed when stakeholders know they will be voting simultaneously. There is less hierarchy in these exchanges, and individuals exhibit greater confidence in sharing their points of view more freely. Tian Heong Chan “We also see more questions being asked, and a broader range of topics and ideas discussed,” says Chan. In this context, decision-makers are also less likely to reach unanimous agreement. Instead, debate is more vigorous and differences of opinion remain more robust. Conversely, sequential voting around the room is typically preceded by shorter discussion in which stakeholders share fewer opinions and ask fewer questions. And this demonstrably impacts the quality of the decisions made, says Chan. Sharing a different perspective to a group requires effort and courage. With sequential voting or decision-making, there seems to be less interest in surfacing diverse perspectives or hidden aspects to complex problems. Tian Heong Chan “So it’s not that individuals are being influenced by what other people say when it comes to voting on the issue—which would be tempting to infer—rather, it’s that sequential voting mechanisms seem to take a bit more effort out of the process.” When decision-makers are told that they will have a chance to vote and to explain their vote, one after another, their incentives to make a prior effort to interrogate each other vigorously, and to work that little bit harder to surface any shortcomings in their own understanding or point of view, or in the data, are relatively weaker, say Chan and Markou. The Takeaway for Organizations Making High-Stakes Decisions Decision-making in different contexts has long been the subject of scholarly scrutiny. Chan and Markou’s research sheds new light on the important role that different mechanisms have in shaping the outcomes of decision-making—and the quality of the decisions that are jointly taken. And this should be on the radar of organizations and institutions charged with making choices that impact swathes of the community, they say. “The FDA has a solid tradition of inviting diversity into its decision-making. But the data shows that harnessing the benefits of diversity is contingent on using the right mechanisms to surface the different expertise you need to be able to see all the dimensions of the issue, and make better informed decisions about it,” says Chan. A good place to start? By a concurrent show of hands. Tian Heong Chan is an associate professor of information systems and operation management. he is available to speak about this topic - click on his con now to arrange an interview today.

Hiring More Nurses Generates Revenue for Hospitals

Underfunding is driving an acute shortage of trained nurses in hospitals and care facilities in the United States. It is the worst such shortage in more than four decades. One estimate from the American Hospital Association puts the deficit north of one million. Meanwhile, a recent survey by recruitment specialist AMN Healthcare suggests that 900,000 more nurses will drop out of the workforce by 2027. American nurses are quitting in droves, thanks to low pay and burnout as understaffing increases individual workload. This is bad news for patient outcomes. Nurses are estimated to have eight times more routine contact with patients than physicians. They shoulder the bulk of all responsibility in terms of diagnostic data collection, treatment plans, and clinical reporting. As a result, understaffing is linked to a slew of serious problems, among them increased wait times for patients in care, post-operative infections, readmission rates, and patient mortality—all of which are on the rise across the U.S. Tackling this crisis is challenging because of how nursing services are reimbursed. Most hospitals operate a payment system where services are paid for separately. Physician services are billed as separate line items, making them a revenue generator for the hospitals that employ them. But under Medicare, nursing services are charged as part of a fixed room and board fee, meaning that hospitals charge the same fee regardless of how many nurses are employed in the patient’s care. In this model, nurses end up on the other side of hospitals’ balance sheets: a labor expense rather than a source of income. For beleaguered administrators looking to sustain quality of care while minimizing costs (and maximizing profits), hiring and retaining nursing staff has arguably become something of a zero-sum game in the U.S. The Hidden Costs of Nurse Understaffing But might the balance sheet in fact be skewed in some way? Could there be potential financial losses attached to nurse understaffing that administrators should factor into their hiring and remuneration decisions? Research by Goizueta Professors Diwas KC and Donald Lee, as well as recent Goizueta PhD graduates Hao Ding 24PhD (Auburn University) and Sokol Tushe 23PhD (Muma College of Business), would suggest there are. Their new peer-reviewed publication* finds that increasing a single nurse’s workload by just one patient creates a 17% service slowdown for all other patients under that nurse’s care. Looking at the data another way, having one additional nurse on duty during the busiest shift (typically between 7am and 7pm) speeds up emergency department work and frees up capacity to treat more patients such that hospitals could be looking at a major increase in revenue. The researchers calculate that this productivity gain could equate to a net increase of $470,000 per 10,000 patient visits—and savings to the tune of $160,000 in lost earnings for the same number of patients as wait times are reduced. “A lot of the debate around nursing in the U.S. has focused on the loss of quality in care, which is hugely important,” says Diwas KC. But looking at the crisis through a productivity lens means we’re also able to understand the very real economic value that nurses bring too: the revenue increases that come with capacity gains. Diwas KC, Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management “Our findings challenge the predominant thinking around nursing as a cost,” adds Lee. “What we see is that investing in nursing staff more than pays for itself in downstream financial benefits for hospitals. It is effectively a win-win-win for patients, nurses, and healthcare providers.” Nurse Load: the Biggest Impact on Productivity To get to these findings, the researchers analyzed a high-resolution dataset on patient flow through a large U.S. teaching hospital. They looked at the real-time workloads of physicians and nurses working in the emergency department between April 2018 and March 2019, factoring in variables such as patient demographics and severity of complaint or illness. Tracking patients from admission to triage and on to treatment, the researchers were able to tease out the impact that the number of nurses and physicians on duty had on patient throughput. Using a novel machine learning technique developed at Goizueta by Lee, they were able to identify the effect of increasing or reducing the workforce. The contrast between physicians and nursing staff is stark, says Tushe. “When you have fewer nurses on duty, capacity and patient throughput drops by an order of magnitude—far, far more than when reducing the number of doctors. Our results show that for every additional patient the nurse is responsible for, service speed falls by 17%. That compares to just 1.4% if you add one patient to the workload of an attending physician. In other words, nurses’ impact on productivity in the emergency department is more than eight times greater.” Boosting Revenue Through Reduced Wait Times Adding an additional nurse to the workforce, on the other hand, increases capacity appreciably. And as more patients are treated faster, hospitals can expect a concomitant uptick in revenue, says KC. “It’s well documented that cutting down wait time equates to more patients treated and more income. Previous research shows that reducing service time by 15 minutes per 30,000 patient visits translates to $1.4 million in extra revenue for a hospital.” In our study, we calculate that staffing one additional nurse in the 7am to 7pm emergency department shift reduces wait time by 23 minutes, so hospitals could be looking at an increase of $2.33 million per year. Diwas KC This far eclipses the costs associated with hiring one additional nurse, says Lee. “According to 2022 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average nursing salary in the U.S. is $83,000. Fringe benefits account for an additional 50% of the base salary. The total cost of adding one nurse during the 7am to 7pm shift is $310,000 (for 2.5 full-time employees). When you do the math, it is clear. The net hospital gain is $2 million for the hospital in our study. Or $470,000 per 10,000 patient visits.” Incontrovertible Benefits to Hiring More Nurses These findings should provide compelling food for thought both to healthcare administrators and U.S. policymakers. For too long, the latter have fixated on the upstream costs, without exploring the downstream benefits of nursing services, say the researchers. Their study, the first to quantify the economic value of nurses in the U.S., asks “better questions,” argues Tushe; exploiting newly available data and analytics to reveal incontrovertible financial benefits that attach to hiring—and compensating—more nurses in American hospitals. We know that a lot of nurses are leaving the profession not just because of cuts and burnout, but also because of lower pay. We would say to administrators struggling to hire talented nurses to review current wage offers, because our analysis suggests that the economic surplus from hiring more nurses could be readily applied to retention pay rises also. Sokol Tushe 23PhD, Muma College of Business The Case for Mandated Ratios For state-level decision makers, Lee has additional words of advice. “In 2004, California mandated minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals. Since then, six more states have added some form of minimum ratio requirement. The evidence is that this has been beneficial to patient outcomes and nurse job satisfaction. Our research now adds an economic dimension to the list of benefits as well. Ipso facto, policymakers ought to consider wider adoption of minimum nurse-to-patient ratios.” However, decision makers go about tackling the shortage of nurses in the U.S., they should go about it fast and soon, says KC. “This is a healthcare crisis that is only set to become more acute in the near future. As our demographics shift and our population starts again out, demand for quality will increase. So too must the supply of care capacity. But what we are seeing is the nursing staffing situation in the U.S. moving in the opposite direction. All of this is manifesting in the emergency department. That’s where wait times are getting longer, mistakes are being made, and overworked nurses are quitting. It is creating a vicious cycle that needs to be broken.” Diwas Diwas KC is a professor of information systems & operations management and Donald Lee is an associate professor of information systems & operations management. Both experts are available to speak about this important topic - simply click on either icon now to arrange an interview today.

ExpertSpotlight: Queen Victoria and Why Canada Celebrates Her Legacy Today

Victoria Day, celebrated annually on the Monday preceding May 25, marks the birthday of Queen Victoria and serves as the unofficial start of summer in Canada. While often recognized as a festive long weekend, the holiday has deep historical roots tied to Canada’s identity as a constitutional monarchy and its colonial legacy. As Canadians reflect on this tradition, it also opens the door to critical conversations about the British Crown’s historical role in shaping the nation—including its enduring impact on Indigenous Peoples. This observance remains a timely opportunity to explore how history, colonialism, and reconciliation intersect in modern Canada. Key story angles include: The Origins of Victoria Day: Tracing the establishment of the holiday in 1845 and Queen Victoria’s significance to Canadian nationhood and imperial identity. Queen Victoria’s Reign and the British Empire: Examining how the expansion of the empire under her rule affected the development of Canada and its governance structures. Impact on First Nations Peoples: Analyzing the Crown’s role in treaty-making, land dispossession, and the assimilation policies that Indigenous communities continue to confront. Victoria Day in Contemporary Canada: Exploring how the holiday is celebrated today, including regional variations and the growing conversation around its relevance. The Crown’s Evolving Role in Reconciliation: Investigating how the monarchy’s historical ties to colonization are being reexamined in light of Canada’s commitment to truth and reconciliation. Monuments, Memory, and Public Debate: Highlighting recent movements to reassess statues, place names, and celebrations linked to colonial figures like Queen Victoria. As Canada navigates its evolving relationship with the monarchy and Indigenous communities, Victoria Day offers a meaningful occasion to revisit the country’s past and consider how its historical narratives are remembered and reshaped. Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com

When do we blame the tools?

Two recent incidents highlight concerns about AI misuse - a man used ChatGPT to plan an attack in Las Vegas, and AI video tools were exploited to create harmful content. These events sparked debate about regulating AI and holding developers accountable for potential harm caused by their technology. Carnegie Mellon University professor Vincent Conitzer explained that “our understanding of generative AI is still limited" and that we can't fully explain its success, predict its outputs, or ensure its safety with current methods.

ExpertSpotlight: A Look Back at the First American Election

The first U.S. election, held in 1789, marks a pivotal moment in the founding of American democracy, establishing a framework that has shaped the nation's political landscape for centuries. As the world’s first modern constitutional republic, this election not only elected George Washington as the first president but also introduced a new system of governance that emphasized the balance of power and individual rights. The significance of this event reaches far beyond the political sphere, touching on issues of civic engagement, representation, and the evolution of democratic ideals. Key sub-topics that may interest journalists and the public include: The Founding Fathers’ Vision for Democracy: Exploring the role of key figures like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson in shaping the U.S. political system, and how their ideas still influence governance today. Evolution of the Electoral Process: Examining how the original electoral system was structured, including the Electoral College, and how it has changed over time in response to shifting political dynamics. Voter Rights and Representation: Analyzing who was eligible to vote in 1789 compared to today, shedding light on the ongoing struggle for voting rights and representation for marginalized groups. Impact on Modern Democracies: Investigating how the U.S. election model influenced other nations' democratic structures and how it continues to serve as both an inspiration and a subject of debate. The Role of Media and Public Discourse: Looking at how the first election was communicated to the public and the early role of newspapers, pamphlets, and public speeches in shaping voter opinion. Legacy of George Washington’s Presidency: Reflecting on George Washington’s leadership style, his decision to step down after two terms, and the precedent it set for future presidential transitions. The history of the first U.S. election offers a lens through which to explore broader questions about governance, the role of leadership, and the ongoing evolution of democracy, providing journalists with numerous story angles relevant to both historical analysis and contemporary political discourse. Connect with an expert about the history of US elections: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com

VP Debate Recap

Dr. Meena Bose, professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, was interviewed by WNYW Fox 5 to give a recap of the October 1 vice presidential debate between Tim Walz and J.D. Vance. Bose is a professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.

Media Covers Hofstra Debate Watch Party

Media covered a student watch party for the first debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump on September 10. There were additionally interviews pre- and post-debate with Meena Bose, executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency; Larry Levy, associate vice president and executive dean of the National Center for Suburban Studies; Mark Lukasiewicz, dean of the Herbert School of Communication; Rosanna Perotti, political science professor; and James Sample, constitutional law professor.

The Handshake Seen 'Round The World

More than 50 million viewers were expecting a cold standoff to start last night's debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. University of Delaware experts say Trump was likely more shocked than they were when Harris walked to his podium for a cordial handshake. "It was a clearly planned move on Harris' part intending to assert some dominance over someone whose entire schtick is about being dominant. And it was successful, and I think it discomforted Trump," said David Redlawsk, professor of political science and international relations. Erin Cassese, professor of political science and international relations, said the move exuded confidence, especially given that President Biden and former-President Trump did not shake hands at the outset of their July debate. "Harris’s pursuit of the handshake showed off the bat that she would engage in this debate on her own terms, Cassese said. "It also had Trump on the back foot, as he seemed not to expect the gesture." Cassese said the handshake also offset any advantage Trump might have gained due to the podium setup, which could have highlighted their height differential. "But the handshake showed that Harris was not intimidated by the difference in stature," Cassese said. Redlawsk is a political psychologist who studies voter behavior and emotion, focusing on how voters process political information to make their decisions. He has written several books on politics, worked behind the scenes on campaigns and ran for local office. Cassese explores the behavior of women as voters and candidates for political office in the United States. Her areas of expertise are gender, abortion, public opinion, campaigns and elections. To set up an interview either either expert, reporters can visit their ExpertFile pages and clicking on the "contact" button.