Search Results

We really want to have our voices heard when it comes to matters of concern to us, and we suspect that most people feel much the same way. But over the last few years, as the flow of surveys that come our way has turned into a deluge, our inclination to reply to many of them has decreased.   And we’re far from alone. So-called “survey fatigue”, like the kind we’re experiencing, isn’t a new phenomenon, and there were articles being written about it several years ago. But we’d argue that it has now entered a new phase: Let’s call it survey exhaustion. The overabundance of survey instruments is directly related to the advances in technology that allow online surveys to come directly to you, often through texts or e-mail. It has become nearly effortless for any organization to spread a survey instrument far and wide. And now that it’s cheaper and easier to put a survey out into the field (many of which are political in nature) lots of people want to do their own – notwithstanding that the more surveys that are in the field, the less likely it is to get response. We know that this presents a problem for state and local organizations and researchers in the field, as the validity of their conclusions declines when they don’t reach a critical mass of respondents. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics said in a podcast early last year, which we covered in this website , that there’s been an erosion of some of the data that is fundamental for his economic analyses, as well as to critical government decision-making because, "a lot of it is based on surveys and survey response rates are way down across the board.”   In fact, we’ve been at a number of conferences lately in which academics present their data based on surveys they’ve undertaken. But in a fair number of instances, they’ve expressed some concern that the lack of responses may lessen the value of their results and even introduce biases. For example, when a survey only triggers responses from the people who feel very strongly one way or another about the topic being explored, the opinions of the vast middle ground can be missed out on entirely. According to a  letter published in the Journal of Caring Sciences  last year, there are four types of survey fatigue: “Over surveying Question fatigue (when “the researcher asks the same questions in diverse ways”) Long surveys Disingenuous surveys: (“This is a dangerous type of survey fatigue. It occurs when our participants think that their responses will not affect an outcome.”) That last  one is echoed by a report from McKinsey , which stated that “ We reviewed results across more than 20 academic articles and found that, consistently, the number one driver of survey fatigue was the perception that the organization wouldn’t act on the results.” As we wrote  in a June article  in Government Finance Review, “When a community chooses to use a citizen survey, respondents need to believe their responses have been heard and considered. Otherwise, they may well rebel by not participating the next time they’re asked for their views—or even lose some trust and faith in the government altogether. “Even if it’s a matter of explaining why a particular priority is heavily favored by respondents but doesn’t get funded, people need to know why. If a community can’t close the loop and acknowledge that it heard from a resident, there is a natural assumption that this was just a paperwork exercise designed to make people think that leaders care when they don’t.” Our concern about this phenomenon is rooted in our strong belief that surveys are an important tool for states and localities to gather information from residents that can help them to establish their priorities. We’ve seen ample evidence that surveys can help leaders set agendas and make important decisions. Here’s a good example, which we’ve reported elsewhere: When Hurricane Helene hit Ashville, North Carolina in September 2024, the damage was devastating. In fact, the community is still recovering. But with devastating damage, the city was eager to use its limited resources in ways that would be of greatest consequence to its residents. So, city leaders decided to reach out to the populace to see what they thought was of greatest importance to them. As Dawa Hitch, communications and public engagement director in Asheville, told us, the city did everything in its power to get as many responses as it could “We did daily social media promotions on our city platforms,” she told us, “we had media coverage in local news outlets; used announcements; city newsletters, and we did some email campaigns.”The most significant finding from this work was that 96 percent of respondents were concerned about the city’s infrastructure. This wasn’t much of a surprise since the hurricane left many of the city’s assets far worse off than they had been before the storm. But the city was able to look closely into the comments and that helped it focus its vision. Explained Hitch, “it indicated that road repairs were essential or very important, while infrastructure improvements, like sidewalk repairs, greenways and bikeways were rated as lower importance.” In that case, of course, residents were particularly motivated to reply to the city’s outreach because they saw that their comments had the potential of affecting their lives. But it’s rare for residents to have that kind of motivation, and since we’ve long advocated that states and localities get as much citizen input as possible, we see the reticence to reply when a city county or state asks for views as a decidedly unfortunate turn of events. #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalCitizenSurveys #StateandLocalCitizenOutreach #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformance #CitySurveys #CitySurveyResponseRate #PublicSectorSurveyResponseRate #LowSurveyResponseRate #AcademicSurveyResponseRate #PublicSectorSurveyFatigue #PublicSectorSurveyExhaustion #GovernmentSurveyResponseRates #CitizenSurveyResponseProblem #StateandLocalGovernmentSurveyResearch #AcademicSurveyResearch #ConsequencesOfOverSurveying #JournalOfCaringSciences #MarkZandi #MoodysAnalytics #GovernmentFinanceReview #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Some time ago, in a conversation with a high-ranking county official, he told us about the three attributes that he sought when hiring a new employee: “attitude, aptitude and adaptability.” Subsequently in looking up those words online, we’ve realized that he didn’t make the “three A’s” up himself, but the idea remained with us as a sensible one. Clearly, the fundamental hurdles before someone should be hired for a job in state or local government are attitude and aptitude. If someone has a contrary personality and creates drama in the office that kind of attitude can be lethal. And as for aptitude, the aptitude to do a particular job (with or without a credential) remains essential. That said, while adaptability has always been an important trait, we want to argue that it’s never been more significant than it is right now. The world is changing at a frenetic pace, and so the absence of the ability to adapt to changes that weren’t predicted or predictable is a recipe for failure. The most obvious example right now is artificial intelligence. We’ve done a great deal of reporting about this phenomenon in recent months, including an October report for the IBM Center for the  Business of Government , and we’ve become aware that there’s a lot of trepidation in government about adapting to this brave new world. Many fear that their jobs may be in jeopardy. Others just don’t like the idea that the way they did things until recently is suddenly being antiquated. Notwithstanding the various issues with AI, government employees, at all levels, are seeing it enter their lives -- at least to some extent. Those who aren’t willing to adapt are going to be left in the same dust pile of history as the people who manufactured leather at the turn of the century. In 1900, the United Leather Company was one of the biggest corporations in the United States and was one of the first to be included in the list of firms that form the Dow Jones Average. Today, the US leather industry is barely noticeable in the world market. AI is just the most obvious example of ways in which government employees are going to have to adapt. There’s a growing expectation, for example, that people who provide services to the public have to be citizen oriented. Disappearing are the days when they could harbor an internal process-focused mindset, without regard to incorporating citizen feedback in their work. Then there’s the effort on the part of many places to break down silos and share not just data, but the tasks before them. Though it’s easy to say that silo breaking is simply logical, it can be somewhat easier said than done. For one thing there’s an ever-present concern that the power wielded by one department will be diffused when it’s sharing tasks with others. In a world in which most people want to get credit for their successes, departments sometimes are reticent to collaborate on projects out of concern that they’ll have to share the “attaboys,” and maybe even see their collaborator getting more praise. What’s more, two departments that are required to work together may each have a very distinct ethos. For instance, police departments increasingly collaborate with social service agencies.  But social workers and police officers may well not share the same sentiments regarding the best way to help fight violence or social strife. For the two units to successfully work together for the common good, both are necessarily going to have to adapt. Then, of course, there’s the change in the workforce away from credentialism. A growing number of states and localities are broadening the net for new employees to people who have the capacity to do a job but may not have a degree that signals  that they do. As a growing number of non-collegiates enter the workforce, it seems inevitable that there will be resentment on the part of the old-timers who struggled to get their degrees in order to land a job. Over the course of the years, we’ve been told that often progress in states and localities is stymied by the comment “but that’s the way we’ve always done it,” when a new approach to getting the work done is addressed. People who have been in their jobs for a while can be very comfortable with the tried and true. When that’s the case, new skills may seem like the enemy. That may just be a matter of human nature. But it’s a losing game. #StateandLocalGovernmentHR #StateandLocalGovernmentHiring #StateandLocalGovernmentHRandAdaptability #CityHR #CityHRManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #CityHiringCriteria #StateHiringCriteria #CountyHiringCriteria #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #CityPerformanceManagement #CountyPerformanceManagement #GovernmentEmployeeAdaptability #PublicSectorHiringAndAdaptability #StateLocalHiringAndAdaptability  #AdaptabilityAndStateLocalHiring #AdaptabilityAndCityHiring #AdaptabilityAndCountyHiring #AdaptabilityAndStateLocalWorkforce #AdaptabilityAndStateandLocalJobSuccess #StateandLocalArtificialIntelligence #AdaptabilityAndStateLocalAI  #IBMCenterBusinessOfGovernment #BarrettandGreeneStateArtificialIntelligenceReport #AdaptationAndTheGovernmentWorkforce #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

For well over 30 years, we’ve been researching, analyzing and writing about state and local government for a whole variety of publications and organizations. Our most significant foray into this field began when we were covering management issues for Governing Magazine from 1997 to 2019. We left Governing at a time when it briefly appeared that it was going to cease publication, to do similar coverage for Route Fifty. We held onto that gig until 2024, at which point it cut back on its editorial staff and more general contributors and focused almost exclusively on technology. For those years, it was a frustration to us because we didn’t feel like we could quote from the hundreds of columns and articles we had written for Governing over 22 years. After all, they were the competition. Of course, as history turned out, Governing didn’t go anyplace and continued its thriving website. Last year, it even started again to publish a magazine you can hold in your hands, with an issue in Spring 2024  the first hard copy version since September 2019.   So, we’re back again and are now contributors to Governing, which has reprinted a number of articles we’ve published on our website. In the future, we plan to write articles directly for the publication itself. So, now that we feel like the cork is out of the bottle, we thought we’d share ten Governing columns that we were particularly proud of. They follow, including the links. Some may be a little out of date, but we’ve tried to select out evergreens. Testing Period : “ Pilots—for programs ranging from a new model of fire engine to teen pregnancy prevention efforts—are an accepted management technique almost everywhere. Unfortunately, there are lots of ways to get tripped up by them.” How Breaking Down Silos in Government Can Make Things Worse  “Collaboration is the road governments need to be on to find solutions to problems that bedevil multiple agencies and departments. Unfortunately, that information road can be full of potholes. Sometimes attempts to fill the ruts create new holes.” What Happens When Evidence Based Policy Making Meets the Real World?  “Even with money and staff, evidence-based policymaking can be fraught with peril. For one thing, once evidence seems to indicate that a program is successful, public officials often declare victory and move on. “But there are few easy wins with health care, poverty, education and so on,” says Gary VanLandingham, a professor at Florida State University and a national expert on evidence-based policymaking. “No single program or process is a silver bullet that will solve all problems.  But everyone loves silver bullets.” Accounting for Oysters – The Importance of Fiscal Notes in Policy Making  “Clipping fiscal notes to bills is easier said than done. Management of that process is dicey. Some states are laggards. They do not have their legislative analysts calculate estimates for all bills. . . Nor do many states manage their fiscal note process to gain the most pertinent information available. “ Data-Based Decision=Making Works Great – Til Someone Cheats  “Even though we’re still strong supporters of the move to make decisions based on measures, we’ve begun to get a little skeptical about the validity of some measures and concerned about the way government officials sometimes misuse the data -- inadvertently or, on occasion, intentionally.” Are Public Employees Safe at Work ? “Violent attacks in the workplace are not common, but they may leave public employees fearful about going to work, especially in understaffed institutions. “Across the country, chronic understaffing in correctional facilities, youth detention centers, psychiatric hospitals and in social services contributes to high turnover among qualified staff and increases the likelihood that violent incidents will occur,” says Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.” Did We Say That? Public Sector Predictions that Never Came True . “We’re not perfect. Despite the depth of our reporting, the decades of historical memory and the thousands of experts upon whom we rely, we miss the mark from time to time. Maybe you’ve noticed. Several years ago, for example, we wrote excitedly about the coming age of performance-based budgeting. Although performance measures have certainly helped management, you’d need to look far and wide to find good examples of budgets that have been clearly formed by performance measures.” Bad Bosses  – “All the managerial systems in the world, it appears, aren't strong enough or thoughtful enough to overcome the problems that can be created by supervisors or managers who lack communication skills, fail to listen to employees, treat them poorly or don't provide honest feedback about job performance.” What Improv Comedians Can Teach Government Employees  “Government managers often find themselves in so-called ‘brainstorming sessions,’ where they’re supposed to work together to come up with a new approach, fix an old problem or develop a new program. Participants too often emerge from these meetings with the sense that little of value has been accomplished -- except for giving a handful of folks the opportunity to talk.” How Government Can Benefit by Becoming Better Storytellers . Simple statements of fact supplemented by statistics aren’t enough when communicating with the public. Storytelling is also needed for getting a message across not only to the public, but also to managers, legislators and public-sector employees.   #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #BarrettAndGreeneAndGoverning #DedicatedToStateandLocalGovernment #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalHR #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #StateandLocalEvidenceBasedPractices #BadBossses #StateandLocalEmployeeSafety #CityEmployeeSafety #StateandLocalFiscalNotes #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #PerformanceInformedBudgeting #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformance #CityPerformanceMeasurement #CityHR #CountyGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalSilos #CountyGovernmentPerformance #MisguidedPerformanceIncentives #DataBasedDecisionMaking #StateandLocalDataGovernance #StateandLocalDataUse #PublicSectorDataUseAndStoryTelling  #CoverageAboutStateandLocalGovernment #BandGReport #KatherineBarrettandRichardGreene #BarrettandGreeneInc

When we think about timeliness in police, fire and EMS, we often think of response times. And even though it’s recently been pointed out to us that there are other important measures, like timely evidence processing and timely release of information on high-profile events, ultimately response times are the metric you’re most likely to hear about – and the ones that are primarily the difference between safety and tragedy. For emergency services, particularly, every moment can spell the difference between a minor incident and a crippling injury or a death. To the general public, fast response times are the most tangible evidence that they are getting good service. Just ask anyone who has waited for an emergency vehicle when a relative or friend is having chest pains and shortness of breath.   It’s our guess that most people who read about response times aren’t aware that they can be measured very differently by first responders. Police 1, covers response issues frequently, including an upcoming webinar on “Advancing unified command and communication”  on November 4. In one article that was published prior to the pandemic, Police 1 noted that “almost every agency measures ‘response time’  differently.  Some cities use a ‘hello to hello’ standard. This is the time it takes for a dispatcher to pick up the phone (“hello”) and the time it takes the police officer to arrive on scene (“hello”). Other agencies break this time into multiple chunks, such as how long the dispatcher stays on the line, how long the officer is en route to the call, and how long the officer is on scene. “Where one city might automatically exclude anything over a certain time another city will just include every call sent to their call center. There are probably as many response time definitions as there are police departments across the country.” These distinctions are important, particularly from the point of view of the person who is urgently in need of help. With a shortage of EMS vehicles in many parts of the country, for example, after the 911 call is finished it can take the dispatcher valuable minutes to actually get an ambulance company to respond to the call. Once that happens, the ambulance still needs to arrive at the scene. From the perspective of the person who made the call, the response time might be 23 minutes for help to arrive, not eight minutes (for the emergency vehicle to make the trip).   If response times are truly to be used as helpful performance measures, we’d argue, that what really matters is the amount of time it takes from reaching 911 until help comes knocking on the door (or kicking it down in extreme instances). Other measures don’t really reflect the customer experience.   Yet another issue with response times is that they don’t take into account the specific situation – and that can jeopardize safety for others, including the responder. If someone thinks they’ve broken an arm, for example, and calls 911 it probably doesn’t matter much if an ambulance arrives in ten minutes or twenty minutes. But if the call is for a fire or a heart attack then every minute counts. Yet these different scenarios are comingled when response times are published, and used to hold police, fire and EMS accountable for delivering solid service. And that means that when emergency vehicles are summoned, responders who are eager to be seen as effective may respond to the scene as quickly as is possible – traveling far faster than the speed limit, going through stop signs and so on.   No surprise that in 2023 according to the National Safety Council , 198 people “ died in crashes involving emergency vehicles. More than half of these deaths were occupants of non-emergency vehicles (57%). Deaths among pedestrians accounted for 23% of the total, while emergency vehicle drivers represented 11%, and emergency vehicle passengers accounted for about 7% of the deaths.”   Our recommendation is that response times, wherever possible, should be disaggregated in such a way as to differentiate between life and death emergencies and those that are far less serious in nature. This would not only make the response time measures more useful – it might save other innocent lives along the way. #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #CityPerformanceMeasurement #CityPerformanceManagement #PolicePerformanceMeasurement #PolicePerformanceManagement #EmergencyPerformanceMeasurement #EmergencyManagementPerformanceMeasures #StateandLocalEmergencyResponseTime #PoliceandFireEmergencyResponseTime #EMSEmergencyResponseTime #911EmergencyResponse #MeasuringStateandLocalGovernmentResponseTime #MeasuringAmbulanceResponseTime #MeasuringFireResponseTime #MeasuringPoliceResponseTime #ResponseTimeMeasurementVariation #StateandLocalGovernmentData #StateandLocalDataQuality #CityGovernmentData #CityGovernmentDataQuality #PoliceResponseTimeDataQuality #RespondingToResponseTimes #ResponseTimeDistinctions #EmergencyVehicleAccidents #911DispatchPerformanceManagement #911DispatchPerformance #Police1 #NationalSafetyCouncil #BarrettandGreeneInc

In January 2022, a little more than a year before his death at the age of 92, we had the honor of working with Harry Hatry on an Urban Institute report titled “ Dos and Don’ts Tips for Strengthening Your Performance Management Systems. ” While we’d been writing about this broad topic for years, what made this special was that we were working once again with one of the giants in the realm of performance management. Contributions to this report were also made by well-known figures in the world of performance: Maria Aristigueta, Don Moynihan, Kathy Newcomer, Jonathan Schwabish and Tim Triplett. Hatry died on February 20, 2023 , and as far as we know this was the last major paper of his incredibly productive life. In a recent conversation, Chris Mihm, retired managing director of strategic issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), mentioned that he was currently using this report in a performance management course he is teaching at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. It struck us that its contents are evergreen – and worth sharing again. The report was divided into five sections: Collecting performance data; analyzing performance data; presenting performance findings; disseminating performance findings and using performance findings. Following are our favorite Do’s and Don’ts from each of these categories. Collecting performance data Do signal to all staff that performance is a top priority for the program. Do seek input from stakeholders as part of your process for selecting performance measures. Do make sure that mission statements focus on expected benefits. Do include both output and outcome indicators in performance measurement systems. Do identify and track performance indicators of potentially important unintended effects that can occur. Do obtain information for each performance indicator on each participant’s demographic characteristics to enable calculation for each performance indicator for each characteristic. Don’t assume that regularly surveying participants is costly. Don’t overwhelm your data users with too many measurements but instead provide ready access to add subgroup breakouts when needed. Analyzing Performance Data Do compare the outcome values broken out (disaggregated) by demographic characteristics (such as by age group, race/ethnicity, gender, educational level and location). Do dig into the outcome data and compare outcomes for similar participant groups by different key service characteristics. Do compare performance values over time. Do compare performance values before versus after services to help assess whether changes in service delivery practices have been successful. Do consider expressing targets as range of values rather than selecting a single number. Don’t ask leading questions in participant surveys. Don’t overemphasize rankings as a substitute for examining rankings when comparing organization units.  Don’t use “number of percentages of targets met” as a significant performance indicator. Presenting Performance Findings Do provide information identifying other departments, agencies or programs contributing to achievement of a given result. Do identify any significant ways in which the data collection has changed over time. Do clearly define each performance indicator. Both the data collectors and data users should be able to understand what is being measured. Do provide information on the extent of uncertainty of any important findings reported. Do provide explanatory notes in performance reports sharing the performance data especially for the important findings, both for major negative and positive findings. Don’t report differences as statistically significant without also providing information on the size of the difference. Don’t hide bad news. Don’t cherry-pick the most favorable results for publication to hype your results. Disseminating Performance Findings Do provide regular reports (scorecards) on the findings and disseminate them to all interested staff and public officials including frontline workers. Do provide summaries and highlights to report to audiences after each performance report is produced. Do share findings with the press. Do make the latest data on the performance indicators readily accessible to program managers through the year. Do ask a staff data analyst to highlight the findings of interest. Do hold regular “how are we doing” performance reviews with staff, using the findings from the performance measurement data as a starting point for those meetings. Using Performance Findings Do use performance measurement data as a major service learning and improvement tool. Do follow up with program managers and staff members to discuss performance results. Do train people at all levels in an organization on how to use performance measurements and what they mean. Do use performance information to motivate employees and contractors to improve outcomes even if the rewards are non-monetary recognition rewards. Do connect with other agencies to tackle complex issues involving multiple agencies and programs. Do reply to queries about findings. Don’t assume the program caused notable changes in the outcomes Don’t use performance measurements as a “gotcha’ exercise.   #StateandLocaPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentData #StateandLocalDataAnalysis #CityGovernmentPerformanceManagement #CityGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #CityGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentData #CityGovernmentDataAnalysis #CountyGovernmentPerforanceMeasurement #CountyGovernmentPerformanceManagement #CountyGovernmentPerformance #CountyGovernmentData #CountyGovernmentDataAnalysis #DisaggregatingPerformanceInformation #DisaggregatingPerformanceMeasurement #ReportingStateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurementRecommendations #HarryHatryAndPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagementTraining #DisseminatingPublicSectorPerformanceFindings #UsingPublicSectorPerformanceFindings #PresentingPublicSectorPerformanceFindings #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #UrbanInstitute #HarryHatry #ChrisMihm #MaxwellSchool #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Nearly every town, city, county and all the states have websites. We turn to them with regular frequency for a variety of purposes, which we’ll delve into right now. But there are any number of downsides to many websites and that’s what we really want to write about today. Among the benefits that websites can bring to a governmental entity are: The ability to allow residents to electronically interact with their government for tasks like renewing licenses, paying taxes or requesting public records. This can make for a speedier experience for people while saving governments cash.   They can be useful repositories of budgets, meeting minutes and policy documents. In prior years, people were kept in the cold when it comes to information like this. Now, on well-run websites, transparency is the name of the game.   They can be extremely useful in times of natural disasters or public health crises. The capacity to alter information in real time means that warnings about impending tornados, for example, can be removed when (one hopes) the danger passes.   Using infographics, superior websites can help explain complex topics in visual ways that can, done properly, help people understand what their governments are doing. All that said, since barely a day passes when we’re not visiting a government website, we’ve accumulated a bunch of grievances. Here are eight that are on the top of our list: 1)    Where are the names? When we visit a website, we crave the capacity to be able to find the appropriate contact person to dig a little deeper into items that are unclear to us. But in recent years, even the names of department heads are hard to find. 2)    Where are the dates? Many websites put up a series of posts over the course of time. But it’s surprising how many of them don’t have a date attached.  It’s frustrating not to be able to clearly discern whether the news on a site came from yesterday, last month, or sometime in the distant past.   3)    Even though we are experienced website users, searching for what we want can be tough. We find that many government websites suffer from non-intuitive and outdated navigation decisions, as well as poor website and page design and layout. Chalk this up to a lack of attention, and shortages of both money and staff.   4)    We continue to worry about the digital divide between individuals who are comfortable communicating by text or email and those who still rely on phones. Yet on many websites, there’s a complete absence of telephone contact information, leaving people who still rely on voice in the lurch.   5)    The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that websites be accessible to people with vision problems, difficulties with keyboards, even color blindness (which can make it impossible to read multi-hued pie charts.)  According to CivicPulse research in March 2025 , “ Accessibility policy adoption is low, especially among small communities. 29% of officials from large communities (over 50,000 residents), 28% from mid-sized communities (10,000-50,000 residents), and 18% from small communities (less than 10,000 residents) reported having established accessibility policies for digital platforms.”   6)    You might think that this would be a top priority on the list of government website fixes, but CivicPulse also noted that “Only 13% of local officials said they feel very familiar with a Department of Justice (DOJ) update that requires local and state websites to become Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant, while 38% said they are unaware of the decision altogether.”   7)      Hyperlinks are often not updated. Since URLs change with some frequency, it’s important for websites that use hyperlinks to be sure that they actually link to someplace other than an error message. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center article , about a fifth of government webpages contain at least one broken link.   8)    Websites require a lot of effort to keep current. But a lack of resources can mean that they aren’t updated nearly as frequently as they should be. We believe that most people visit government websites to find out what’s happening now -- not how to get tickets to an event the previous fall.     #StateandLocalGovernmentWebsites #StateandLocalCommunication #StateandLocalWebsiteCommunication #StateandLocalWebsiteCommunication #StateandLocalGoverentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalPerformancManagement  #StateandLocalWebsiteGripes #GovernmentWebsiteGripes #CivicPulseWebsiteInfo #PewResearchCenterWebsiteInfo #CityGovernmentWebsites #CountyGovernmentWebsites #CityCommunications #CountyCommunications #PoorPublicSectorWebsiteNavigation #PoorPublicSectorWebsiteDesign #StateandLocalDigitalDivide #CityGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalWebsitePerformance  #StateandLocalGvoernmentTransparency #CityGovernmentTransparency #CountyGovernmentTransparency #WebsiteFlaws #BrokenWebsiteLinks #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Much of the coverage about the concerns that beset states and localities tends to focus on specific areas like budgetary shortfalls, the need for better technology and a shortage of people to fill many vital positions (where have all the accountants gone?) But, increasingly, in conversations we’re having about all these topics and more, the problem that seem to keep our sources awake at night can be expressed in a single word: “Uncertainty.” “ Uncertainty is not generally welcome when you have to maintain ongoing services to members of your community or have projects that need to be built,” Emily Brock, director of the Federal Liaison Center at the Government Finance Officers Association, told Governing . “Our membership is thirsty and needs as much information as they can get. Unfortunately, it's not always readily available.” While a certain amount of uncertainty is always in the air in the world of states, cities and counties, “s tate and local leaders are struggling now with more uncertainty than they've faced since the housing collapse of 2009,” Don Kettl, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, told us. “What's different this time is that there is an avalanche of policy changes falling on top of what might--or might not--be an economic slowdown.” The biggest source of this malady is being delivered to state capitals and city halls directly from Washington D.C. What will happen to the Department of Education? What will happen to grants? Will there be more health policy changes coming?   Even the fast-growing area of artificial intelligence, which many places are trying to harness, so that the rewards outweigh the risks, can fall prey to questions of how much control the states have over their own governance. A White House Action Plan published a few months ago said, “The federal government should not allow AI related federal funding to be directed towards states with burdensome AI regulations that waste these funds but should also not interfere with the state's rights to pass prudent laws that are not unduly restricted to innovation.” But what exactly does burdensome mean? The definition has been left (peculiarly, we think) in the hands of the Federal Communications Commission. And though we can’t think of a state that would truly want to slow down its progress in using AI, all are concerned that they protect themselves from the attendant risks. And if their protective actions are considered burdensome, then it’s back to the drawing board. Although the federal government may be a major source of difficulty for people who work in planning departments, there are plenty of other reasons to leave state and local leaders unsure about the future. For one thing, uncertainty about the national economy makes the task of budgetary planning exceedingly difficult. Economists have never gotten everything right. But it feels to us like their predictions of interest rates, housing markets, and job growth have been in an extreme state of flux. Every other month we hear that the nation is heading for a recession and then we hear that we’re pulling back from the brink. Perhaps the most unpredictable source of anxiety has been the unnerving increase in the number of natural disasters. Between 1980 and 2024 there were an average of nine billion-dollar disasters a year. But between 2020 and 2024 that has catapulted to 23 of them a year. The National Academy of Public Administration has taken note of this phenomenon and has launched a major effort to help governments “take steps to reduce or prevent the impacts of disaster events on housing and infrastructure by enhancing resilience ,” according to a November 2024 paper . The NAPA effort points to one of the few ways states or localities have any chance to deal with unpredictable events of any kind: Planning. As John Bartle, the p resident, of the American Society for Public Administration said: “ When you have a difficult task ahead of you, you can apply your organization’s strategy and do your best to prepare and act. If you do not know the nature of the challenge, it becomes more difficult. You have to prepare for a wider range of changes that go outside the bounds of your plans into ‘terra incognita.’ If the organization does not have a clear plan for uncertain times, the manager is more likely to be hung out to dry by elected officials.” The moral of this story was well expressed by John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, who said “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.” #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPlanning #StateandLocalPolicyUncertainty #StateandLocalEconomicUncertainty #StateandLocalGovenmentPerformance #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformanceManagement #CityGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentBudgeting #CountyGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentPerformanceManagement #CountyGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentUncertainty #DealingWithPolicyChange #StateandLocalArtificialIntelligence #StateandLocalImpactOfUncertainty #UncertaintyIsTheOnlyCertainty #StateandLocalPublicAdministration #NationalAcademyPublicAdministration #NAPA #AmericanSocietyForPublicAdministration #ASPA #GovernmentFinanceOfficersAssociation #GFOA #JohnBartle #DonKettl  #JohnAllenPaulos #IntergovernmentalRelations #FederalStateLocalUncertainty #ClimateUncertainty #StateandLocalHealthPolicyUncertainty #StateandLocalFederalRelations #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

We do an awful lot of reading of press releases in which various states or localities (or frequently an outside public relations firm) refers to some initiative as a “best practice.” Typically, if we write about the topic, we substitute in other phrasing, like a “practice that works,” or an “evidence-based approach,” (if it is). Of course, when we’re quoting from a study or a report we’re stuck with the phrase “best practice,” as we don’t change direct quotes to suit ourselves. There may be cases in which so-called best practices can apply from city to city and state to state. Best budgeting practices can certainly be useful. It’s an accepted best practice in budgeting, for example, that entities should cover current year expenditures with current year revenues -- not revenues borrowed from the future. Before we go on, it seems worthwhile for us to provide our own definition of "best practice." Others may disagree, but it's the way the words sound to us. We believe that the phrase should be used to describe management policies that can be applied pretty much universally. Best practices, we'd argue, should be something like plug and play models that others can pick up and use with a solid assurance of success. But that's often not the way the words are used. For example, the latest glittery idea that seems appealing (but has only been proven as worthwhile in a smattering of places) can often be dubbed as best. People writing reports for any number of significant organizations will take the study of a handful of cities or states and list approaches they’ve uncovered as “best.” Not to seem cynical, but we've noticed that often the words "best practice" are used in consulting firms to sell their own approaches. For years, it was considered a best practice that states set aside exactly 5 percent of revenues in their rainy day funds. No more. No less. When we researched the topic, we discovered that precise number emanated from an off-the-cuff comment in a speech given by a leader in one of the ratings agencies. As years have passed, thinking on the topic has grown more sophisticated. The Volcker Alliance, for example, threw that 5 percent figure out the window and encourages states to tie their reserve funding to the volatility of revenues. Here are five reasons we are concerned when a best practice is ballyhooed by a government official. 1) Ideas that work in rural areas often don't apply well to densely populated cities.  2) Approaches for homogeneous regions may leave out elements important in places with greater diversity.  3) Things that work well in healthy economic times may need to be forgotten in the depths of a recession.  4) Changing times generally require new solutions. For example, distancing behavior in the depths of the pandemic was considered the best practice.  Now it might be seen as unfriendly unless there are good health reasons to maintain distance.  5) The label is too often applied before a notion has been properly evaluated and proven to be generally workable. We don’t think this is all a matter of semantics. When a practice is labeled as the “best,” that can easily stand in the way of the evolution of thinking that’s necessary for progress in states, cities and counties. If we know the best way to do something, then why look for a better way? And the search for better functioning government is the core of what we do for a living. #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #EvidenceBasedPractice #BestPracticeCynicism #CityGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentManagement #ChangingTimes #CityGovernmentPerformance #CountyGovernmentPerformance #AvoidingBestPracticeLabels #StateandLocalBudgeting #GovernmentManagementHyperbole #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #CityBudgeting #StateManagement #LocalManagement #PerformanceManagement #EvidenceBasedManagement #PressReleaseOverreach #EvidenceBasedDecisionMaking #GovernmentConsultantOverreach #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Many years ago, when we were involved in evaluating the management capacity of the nation’s largest cities, one of the areas of inquiry was performance management (which we then were calling “management for results”). This early exercise – one of the first in a line of work that ultimately led to the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Government Performance Project– was largely reliant on journalistic-style interviews, supplemented with a survey instrument. When we interviewed the people in Seattle about their efforts at measuring performance in the early 1990s, they told us about all the frustrations and were somewhat apologetic that the city hadn’t advanced further in this effort. It was one of the first interviews we did and so we mentally marked Seattle to be evaluated as one of the weakest. But then reality intruded, as we interviewed people in dozens of other cities, and discovered that Seattle was really one of the best of the pack. The fundamental difference was that Seattle leaders were far more sophisticated in the field and saw that there was so much more work that needed to be done. Leaders in other cities that were laggards compared to Seattle thought that they were doing a jim-dandy job. Indeed, ignorance was bliss. We coined this phenomenon the “Seattle Syndrome,” to stand for states, counties and cities that misjudged their own work because they didn't know how far they’d come compared to other entities. We also used it to apply to governments in which leaders self-evaluated themselves as strong, when they were doing much less than others and couldn't accurately perceive how much more there was to achieve. With apologies to Seattle, we’ve continued to talk about this “syndrome” over the years as it relates to a variety of governments and topics. In recent months, for example, we’ve been doing scores of interviews about artificial intelligence, learning how different cities and states are using that new tool. While pretty much all the folks with whom we’re chatting understand that there’s lots of progress to be made, many have told us that they consider the work they’re doing to be cutting edge, when in fact, the cutting edge is leagues away from where they are now. We’ve noticed over the course of time that this is often an issue among city councilmembers and mayors who don’t know exactly what other cities are doing and so are more than happy to pronounce their own entities as national leaders, even when that’s far from the truth. Ultimately, the problem is that there’s far too little reliable data that allows cities to benchmark on one another and get a good sense of where they stand in the pack. It’s somewhat less of an issue among the fifty states, where a variety of organizations do a good job covering comparative information. Take Pew’s Fiscal 50 or the National Association of State Budget Officers, which publishes regular reports that are chock full of reliable information for users to compare one state with another. That’s not to say that there aren’t lots of fascinating reports that come out praising the work that’s being done by exemplary cities. But they tend to focus only on the ones that stand out and leave the average and below average places wondering where they stand in the world. This is more of an issue for smaller cities and towns than larger entities as many of the reports focus on places with larger populations. For a number of reasons that don’t bear going into, in recent months, we’ve been increasingly involved in research that focuses on small to medium-sized entities, and we often ask the question: “How do you compare to other cities of your size?” The answer almost always is that they don’t know. That’s not their fault, really. Few entities have the resources to do diligent comparisons with multiple other places. There’s another wrinkle here. Some organizations that do deep digs into the cities’ work are reticent to break out the data from the individual places they look at – preferring to aggregate the data to give readers an overall sense of where they stand. The individual places may be privy to the data about their own accomplishments or deficits, but there’s no great incentive to be ambitiously transparent. Consider this: Many press releases cross our desks on a regular basis, which proclaim a mayor’s announcement of an accomplishment worthy of note. But the only time the press releases are full of critiques they tend to come from politicians who are intent on tearing down their opposition. And, for obvious reasons, these have to be taken with a grain of salt. At least when it comes to the financial sector there’s some data (even if there’s a dearth of interpretation as to what exactly it means), but when it comes to other areas, like performance management, human resources, procurement or technological savvy, much less is known. Before we conclude, we want to invite you into our car on a long trip back from a friend’s home last weekend. We were (as is often the case) discussing our work, and the idea came up that there’s room in the world for a continued comparative look at the internal practices that drive performance in a hundred cities or so. No ranking. No grades -- but a careful look at the tools cities use to manage the business of government and drive results. Any takers?   #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #GovernmentPerformanceProject #CityGovernmentManagement #CityBenchmarking #CityGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentHR #StateandLocalGovernmentHR #ManagingForResults #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #CityPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalGovernmentData #CityGovernmentData #SeattleSyndrome #GovernmentSelfEvaluation #CityHumanResources #CityProcurement #CityTechnologyManagemet #StateLocalGovernmentGenerativeAIPolicyandManagement #CityArtificialIntelligenceManagment #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Over the course of years, we’ve come to rely on a number of organizations that specialize in various aspects of state and local government for information, expert sources, research reports and so on. In fact, we’ve gone further and become more closely involved in a few. For example, we currently serve as executive advisors to the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA); advisors for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA); and advisors for the National Association of State Personnel Executives (NASPE). Prior to the pandemic, we served for several years as senior fellows at the Council of State Governments (CSG). As writers about organizations like this, we’ve gained tremendous insight, ideas and knowledge. But we haven't as closely considered the value of these types of groups give to their members. That’s why we were particularly intrigued by a recent panel at the NASPE 2025 annual conference in Louisville which brought together the executive directors of four: Leslie Scott Parker of NASPE; David Adkins of the Council of State Governments; Doug Robinson of the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) and Elizabeth Whitehouse of the National Association of State Chief Administrators (NASCA).The association panel was moderated by Glenn Davidson who has had a wide variety of corporate and government experience (most recently as the human capital/workforce development consulting executive at Deloitte.) He was chief of staff to the Governor of Virginia between 1990 and 1994. Leslie Scott Parker, David Adkins, Doug Robinson and Elizabeth Whitehouse on a panel about membership associations at the 2025 annual NASPE conference in Louisville Our own observation about the membership associations that we’ve dealt with is that you see minimal partisan behavior at their conferences. We first became aware of this phenomenon at a nearly unbelievable level when former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich gave a speech to the National League of Cities. This was a time when he was clearly not a friend of the democratic party, but when he delivered a message that was appealing to an audience of city officials – many of them democrats – he got a standing ovation. The world has become more partisan since then, but a couple of weeks ago, when the governor of Kentucky came to the NASPE meeting and spoke to HR officials from around the country, he got a standing ovation from everyone – not just the folks from states with governors who are democrats. At conferences, we see multiple opportunities for a reasonable exchange of thoughts between people whose states have different perspectives on important topics. We recall a conversation at the mid-year conference of another NASPE meeting in which someone made a negative comment about unions which was followed by positive comments from a state where unions are strong and what followed was a reasoned intelligent discussion. The comments from the panelists at NASPE were illuminating. Generally speaking, all agreed that their organizations and others like them are a little bit like support groups, in which people can discover that the problems they confront aren’t unique to them. As NASPE's executive director expressed it, she sees relief in the face of new state members, “when they know that somebody has felt the way they do.” Echoing that thought, Adkins added that "“The benefits of participating in an organization like CSG or NASPE just boils down to one concept – trusted camaraderie.” He noted that a lot of effort goes into the programming of annual association conferences, but recalling the days when he was a Kansas legislator, he knows that the the greatest benefit is seeing others “who are going through the same thing I was going through, but in a different state, a different political party.” He said that membership associations provide members with the ability to see that some states are having bigger problems than they and that there are others that have figured out “cool ways to get things done.” Robinson explained that NASCIO has a long-standing process for onboarding new CIOs and that the annual survey that his organization does with CIOs also provides a compendium of advice from the trenches. “It’s very interesting to see all of that advice, particularly how to navigate the politics of state government,” he said. One of the major topics of conversation in the panel discussion was the balancing act in which public sector leaders can learn from the corporate membership. Said Parker. “One of the things that we really encourage “is less selling and more networking and building relationships.” Adkins’ council to corporate members, “If you’re selling, you’re losing. I would argue that even when you’re given three minutes at the podium to sell your stuff, you need to read the room and know that there are better ways than giving them the full dump truck commercial. . .  From the association’s perspective, I would say if you think this is a pay-to-play relationships, you’re wrong.” Whitehouse echoed this sentiment, saying that “They are thought leaders. It is not a vendor relationship. That is something that is very important to the community of NASCA and the executive committee has called on me to make sure that we’re very protective of that. We’re looking for thought leaders. We’re looking for trusted advisors.” Clearly these organizations need to establish their value to members reasonably quickly, particularly in fields where there’s lots of turnover. As Robinson said a challenge to his organization (which was echoed by Elizabeth Whitehouse who mentioned the rapid turnover of state chief administrative officers), was “to make friends fast,” because CIOs don’t generally have long tenure in their positions. “So the value proposition has to be articulated right off the bat because they’re not going to be in their positions for a long time.” Whitehouse and others also mentioned that the relationship with members is not just maintained through their tenure in the position, but afterwards as well, including during transitions to the private sector. Speaking of her role as executive director:  “I’m an extension of their staff and their team and I want everyone to have my cell phone number so if something comes up, they can call me. That goes for our corporate partners, our strategic partners and especially our state members.” #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalMembershipAssociations #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateAssociationNetworking #LocalAssociationNetworking #StateandLocalPublicAdministration #StateMembershipAssociations #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #NationalAssociationStatePersonnelExecutives #NASPE #NationalAssociationStateChiefInformationOfficers #NASCIO #NationalAssociationStateChiefAdministrators #NASCA #CouncilStateGovernments #CSG #AmericanSocietyPublicAdministration #NCSL #NLC #NACo #PSHRA #StateCorporateRelationships #StateandLocalMembershipAssociationCorporateRelationship #LeslieScott #DavidAdkins #DougRobinson #ElizabethWhitehouse #GlennDavidson #StateandLocalManagementNews #StateandLocalAssociationNews  #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

It feels like just yesterday when, during the pandemic, we were writing about the potential of remote work to make employees happier without diminishing the services they provide. What’s more, it appeared that there was the potential for large amounts of savings when cities, counties and states could cut back at least part of the office space they used. Yet a growing number of state and local governments have eliminated or drastically reduced the capacity of employees to work from home. Texas, for example, mandated that all employees return to full-time in-office work last March; Indiana did the same in July. Philadelphia was one of the first governments to pull back on remote work, requiring all full-time city employees to return to office about a year ago. Still others have retrenched in a lesser way, allowing employees to work from home for one day a week. We know there are advantages to spending at least a fair amount of time in the office. Face-to-face contact with co-workers and supervisors can create a sense of teamwork that may be unavailable when other employees are only seen on computer screens. When people work side-by-side, they learn from each other and form friendships. During the pandemic, workplace studies began to suggest that symptoms of burnout were evident among individuals who lacked strong office connections. But there are also advantages to allowing more workplace flexibility and we’d like to advance an argument that a hybrid environment and a more accepting view of remote work and telework should remain. There’s plenty of evidence that governments that provide workplace flexibility benefit. In fact, according to a recent GAO report , “ The greatest benefit of telework identified by employer stakeholder organizations was the improved ability to recruit and retain workers. Worker stakeholder organizations also identified recruitment and retention as a main benefit of telework. Expert researchers and worker and employer stakeholder organizations said another benefit of telework is that it increases workforce participation of: (1) workers with disabilities, (2) workers who have caregiving responsibilities, (3) older workers, and (4) two-career couples.” An August 2025 audit  from the state of California seems to point to the notion that at least in that state (and we suspect others) the decisions to reduce the amount of allowable time to work from home isn’t based on reasonable evidence. According to the audit, “The Governor’s April 2024 directive and March 2025 executive order requiring state employees to work more often in the office stated that this approach would enhance collaboration, cohesion, communication, mentorship, and accountability, among other factors they assert to be benefits of in-office work.”   But when the audit office asked the Governors office to provide the research and data it used when developing its back-to-office orders, “it provided us with two articles that support its claims about the benefits of in‑office work. It did not provide us with data it may have used to inform its decisions, such as data specific to State of California employees, their job performance, or the level of service delivery that state agencies and departments provided.   “It also did not appear that the Governor’s Office used valuable information that DGS (Department of General Services) collected from departments about their operations and experiences with telework…   “Further, the Governor’s Office issued the executive order without determining beforehand the amount of office space needed to accommodate employees working in the office four days per week or the associated costs. We found that respondents to our surveys of state departments, as well as state managers and staff, believe that telework is effective and can benefit state departments and employees by lowering costs and the amount of needed office space and improving recruitment and retention without negatively affecting productivity, collaboration, or customer service.”   Though states like California may have been thrust suddenly into work from home policies by COVID, we can’t see the rush in taking them back without adequate research into their benefits and deficits.   There were other reasons why we heard from many that variations on remote work was helpful – and we continue to think they hold true:   ·        Reduced commute time. We’ve been working from our home for decades now (and admittedly that wonderful experience may have biased our views toward this issue). But we’ve seen how many hours of each day can be saved when there’s not a commute to and from an office. Even if those extra hours in the day aren’t used to do more work, they have the potential of creating a better work/life balance.   ·        Good for the environment. This is related to the previous bulleted item. But it’s abundantly clear that the fewer cars driving people to work, the less emissions to pollute the air.   ·        Fewer distractions. Contrary to the fears that people working from home might be distracted by the amenities available there, the fact remains that when employees are working in an office a lot of time is taken up gossiping behind closed doors, or complaining about the supervisor.   #StateaandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #StateandLocalHR #StateandLocalGovernmentHR #CityHR #CountyHR #PublicSectorHR #RemoteWork #RemoteWorkBacklash #HybridWork #HybridWorkBacklash #StateandLocalRemoteWork #StateandLocalRemoteWorkBacklash #StateandLocalTelework #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalWorkforce #CityGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalWorkforce #StateandLocalRecruitingandRetention #GovernmentBackToWorkOrders #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Many years ago, when we were first introduced to the world of performance management, we became zealots, believing that cities and states were entering a brave new world in which government services would reliably improve.    Over time, we’ve become slightly less naïve about the way the world works – and understand that politics can trump information in many cases. But we still believe that skillfully assembled performance management systems have a huge amount of value even if they’re not a panacea.   During the last three (plus) decades, we’ve seen a number of flaws crop up in the performance management functions of cities, counties and states. Some of these are obvious -- like the problems caused by low quality data -- others are not. Following. are ten tips that we believe can be useful for entities that covet success in this discipline.   Before using performance measurements to provide incentives to individuals and agencies, it’s doubly important to carefully vet the data. That’s because there can be a natural tendency to fudge conclusions in order to get the reward. Disaggregate, disaggregate, disaggregate. When entities lump their performance measures about a program's success together, the results can be misleading and uninformative. The way that performance measures can be most effective is when they’re broken apart in terms of geographic or demographic information or split up to gauge the differential functioning of governmental units or offices.   When a state or local government sets up a performance management system it’s important to take the next step – providing enough resources to provide the needed staff and research. As time has gone on, there have been challenges to the independence of performance management offices. But without non-partisan, independent efforts, politics can prevail over fair, honest reporting. Make sure that the people who are evaluating performance aren’t under the thumb of someone for whom success is defined by a successful effort to be elected. The words “performance-informed management” are preferable to “performance-based management.” The latter implies that there can be a formulaic approach to using data. The goal of performance management is to gather information that will be helpful in spurring thought and driving informed analysis that leads to better decisions. It’s not to dictate decisions. There’s a tendency in some cities and states to cherry-pick data that shows only the bright side of government performance, but people who actually live in those places can compare the government’s reports to the world in which they live, and when there’s a significant difference between the two, they’ll believe their eyes and not the information the government is issuing.   There’s an important distinction between having a performance management system that exists only on paper, and actually having it utilized by public sector leaders and managers to make decisions. This can be particularly difficult when a new administration comes in, and the support of leadership declines. Many efforts – notably those that have been dubbed “stat” programs can run the risk of being perceived as ‘gotcha” exercises. When government employees fear accountability overdrive, they’re disinclined to buy in and that stands in the way of progress and improvement. The data behind performance measures need to be as timely as possible. So, it’s critical to keep data flowing into dashboards that track performance information on a regular basis in order to keep public and internal reporting useful.   It’s important to bridge the gap in the world of performance management that can exist between important research done by academics and the day-to-day decisions that need to be made by practitioners.   #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalDataDisaggregation #StateLocalDataQuality #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalAccountability #CityStat #StateStat #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceAudit #CityandCountyManagement #PerformanceData #PerformanceInformedManagement   #PerformanceMeasurementTimeliness #StateandLocalPerformanceDashboards #PerformanceMeasurementTips #PerformanceMeasurementChallenges #PerformanceMeasurementIncentiveCaution #CityPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #CityPerformanceMeasurement #CountyPerformanceMeasurement #CountyPerformanceManagement #PerformanceBasedManagement #GovernmentStatSystems #CityStat #StateStat #CountyPerformanceManagement #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc