legislation were the states, and the device was regional cooperation through interstate compacts. Authority was delegated to the states to deal with the problem of deciding where to dispose of low-level radioactive waste.
What is the frequency of use of compacts among the states? State enactments vary from 11 to 34, while the average is 20. Thirty or more compacts have been enacted by six states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Kentucky, and Maryland. Seven states have enacted 15 or less: Hawaii, South Carolina, Michigan, Alaska, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Iowa. It would be of interest to know if there are shared attributes among the states that enact numerous compacts. Thus far, there are no solid findings that differentiate the earmarks of state compact participation.
Since the founding of this nation, enactment of interstate compacts has varied greatly. Even though the use of compacts has not maintained a steady upward course, state officials across the country have persisted in advancing, considering, and passing national, regional, and bistate compacts. Interstate compacts today remain a plausibleform of cooperation that holds out the potential for settlement of difficulties among and between states in the American federal system. It is apparent that states see the compact as an achievable way of resolving interstate problems that include environmental protection, transportation regulation, service provision, criminal justice activities, boundary problem resolution, and regulation of rivers and river resources. Additionally, regional trade corridors are growing in importance, and they involve compacts in the economic development arena. Moreover, ongoing growth in interstate metropolitan areas requires interstate accords, particularly in the regulation of the transportation function.
It is unlikely, however, that the states will be inventing new and innovative uses of compacts in the near future. Every state has enacted at least one, and the existing compacts encompass an assortment of subjects. Their titles are illustrative: the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Compact, the Interstate Extradition Compact, the Nonresident Violators Compact, the Southern Growth Policies Compact, an Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance, and the South Dakota-Nebraska Boundary Compact. Current compacts will probably be amended and the numbers of signatories will increase. It is probable that the use of regional compacts will expand as the number of bistate compacts declines, while more compacts between the federal government and one or more states are apt to be enacted. Environmental and natural resource problems are certain to be a continuing but not the sole focus of compacts, and numerous other practical management issues will be dealt with by compacts in the future. Interstate compacts will continue to evolve as they are reviewed and revised to deal with persistent problems and issues.
PATRICIA S. FLORESTANO
Barton, Weldon 1967. Interstate Compacts in the Political Process. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
Glendening, Parris N., and Mavis Mann Reeves, 1984. Pragmatic Federalism. Pacific Palisades, CA: Palisades Publishers.
Hardy, Paul T., 1982. Interstate Compacts: The Ties That Bind. Athens: University of Georgia.
Interstate Compacts 1783-1977, 1977. Lexington: Council of State Governments.
Interstate Compacts and Agencies, 1983. Lexington: Council of State Governments.
Kearney, Richard C., and John J. Stucker, 1985. "Interstate Compacts and the Management of Low Level Radioactive Wastes", Public Administrative Review (January-February) 210-220.
Leach, Richard, and Redding Sugg, Jr., 1959. The Administrative of Interstate Compacts. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Nice, David. C., 1987. "State Participation in Interstate Compacts", Publius, vol. 17, no. 2:69-83.
Ridgeway, Marian 1971. Interstate Compacts: A Question of Federalism. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
Zimmermann, Frederick L., and Mitchell Wendell, 1951. The Interstate Compact Since 1925. Lexington: Council of State Governments.
-----, 1976. The Law and Use of Interstate Compacts. Lexington: Council of State Governments.
Zimmerman, Joseph F., 1992. Contemporary American Federalism. New York: Praeger.
INTERVIEWING . Part of the overall employment selection process involving a face-to-face communication between at least two people designed to accomplish several objectives. For the employer, the interview is designed to get information from the candidate for the purpose of making an evaluation decision. A secondary purpose is to educate the candidate about the organization. For the job candidate, the purpose is to convince the interviewer of his/her suitability for a given position or to gather more information about the position with which to make a decision about his/her own suitability for the organization.
Historically, the selection interview is widely used in government service throughout the world. Although it may be the only element in the selection process, normally it is combined with other selection factors such as information from an application form and knowledge-based information drawn from a written test. The application form yields basic personal background information, level of ed-