Search Results

We’re happy in our work life (and our home life as well). In fact, two of our favorite things we do professionally are writing the column you’re reading now and building this website. Yet barely a day goes by when something doesn’t frustrate or annoy us – often during our research – and we thought we’d share a few of these impediments to workplace bliss with you. We wonder how many of you are confronting the same challenges – and we invite you to send us any frustrations of your own. 1) Ancient data. It’s surprising how frequently when we’re reading a report, we discover that the information in it is based on data that can be five, ten, fifteen or even twenty years old. Maybe this is legitimate in certain kinds of academic literature (which is where we often find the old information), but we find it hard to believe that translating these documents into real-world action is a wise approach. Old data can lead to conclusions that aren’t applicable to the world of today. 2) Out of date legislative sites. We often visit legislative websites to keep up with what’s happening in states. Frequently they haven’t been updated, and we often find they promise more than they deliver with sections that suggest the coverage of topics, but contents that stem from way before the pandemic. Very old reports have a place in archives but are disappointing when you’re seeking information that’s useful today. 3) University centers that promise more than they deliver. Periodically, when we use a search engine to find a good source of information, we come up with university-based think tanks or subject centers. For example, when we recently looked for a website with a good reputation about the future of humanity (for an article we were writing), we found that the “best for institutional research” on this topic was the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford. And apparently it was once one of the world’s most famous research centers for topics like the potential threats of AI. But when we took the next step, it turned out that its website looked something like an obituary. Apparently after scandals, Oxford stopped funding the institute several years ago. 4) The road to nowhere. We fully understand that many potential sources need to have a protective layer around them to make sure they use their time effectively. But increasingly, the only way to reach out to them is through online auto-email connections. We fill in all the blanks, asking for a conversation, and then all too often we never hear back. This isn’t purposeful we think – it’s our guess that these general e-mail forms are continually overly full, and nobody on the other end is carefully going through the messages. 5) Missing contact information. Following up on the previous item, finding a direct e-mail address or phone number is a challenge. Increasingly, the names of individuals who head program areas or divisions are absent, as well. This is a clear obstacle to the transparent practices that cities, counties and states aspire to for their governments 6) Missing dates on reports and studies. We try to stay on top of the news, especially for the Management Updates that run on this site every Tuesday. But it’s frequently the case that we find a fascinating document, think it’s worth writing about, but are unable to figure out when it was released. (Truth in advertising; we’re not meticulous about dating some of the items on our own website. But we’re planning on being better about this in the future). 7) The misuse of the word "bureaucrat." We've written about this before in a B&G Report titled "Bureaucracy is not a Dirty Word," but we're going to hit on it again. The word “bureaucrat,” is often used as a pejorative. But in fact, it’s the people to whom that word is applied who actually get the business of government done. In our minds, the word should not be an epithet. #StateandLocalManagement #CityGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalResearchReports #StateandLocalResearchFlaws #StateandLocalGovernmentTransparency #StateandLocalPerformance #StateandLocalPerformanceReporting #StateandLocalGovernmentData #CityGovernmentData #CountyGovernmentData #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentTransparency #CityGovernmentTransparency #CountyGovernmentTransparency #StateandLocalWebsiteTransparency #StateandLocalPublicAdministration #InDefenseOfBureaucracy #GovernmentBureaucrats #StateandLocalResearchFrustration #StateandLocalGovernmentAccountability #StateandLocalGovernmentAccessibility #OutOfDateLegislativeWebsites #MissingGovernmentContactInformation #MissingDatesOnGovernmentReports #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

We’ve just come across a study titled “Best and Worst States to Be a Police Officer by WalletHub. This is just the kind of study that we like to follow for use on this website. In the study, California was ranked as the best. Then we took a moment to reflect on the findings of this research, and it struck us that it may not make sense to look at the best place to be a police officer by state when this is really a local issue. It could well be that it’s terrific to be an officer in one city and a nightmare of a job elsewhere – particularly in a state like California where there’s such huge variation from place to place. So, though WalletHub clearly outlined its criteria (for which it gets credit), giving a little thought to its findings made us somewhat more dubious. We’ve been concerned about studies like this, as over the years, we’ve happily written about scores of reports (probably hundreds) that are focused on broad areas of state and local government, like budgeting, human resources, performance management, infrastructure and so on. And we’ve been involved in creating some of these, too. All of this made us reflect on the ways in which we try to determine the value, validity and common sense of reports about state and local governments. Some time ago, we wrote about the reasons that we distrust some of the studies and reports that we read because of hidden flaws. Sometimes, these are just sloppy errors. Anyone can make a mistake. But the warning signs have remained consistent. We often spot them when we probe for more information. For example, our suspicions escalate: · When a study focuses on a common problem in a government program, but the author can’t produce a concrete example or answer basic questions we pose when we call. · If the data chosen to support a report’s findings is too old to logically represent current conditions or if a survey sample is too small to extrapolate a credible conclusion. · When a report on a controversial topic includes only the supporting evidence on one side of an issue, ignoring a stockpile of facts that take the other side. (We’re not looking for an “on the one hand; on the other hand” approach, but researchers owe it to the audience to acknowledge a contrary point of view.) In a blog post that we wrote more than a year ago, we recalled a time when we wrote and co-produced a documentary about Walt Disney. For that project, we interviewed 77 people. Many knew Disney personally. Others were film and Disney company historians. In a conversation that was taped with one, he told us that Disney’s father had never had any success in life. We pointed to information we knew that contradicted this point and the historian said the following: “Yes, that may be true, but it doesn’t fit into the theme.” Years ago, one of our editors (who we’ll not mention by name, for obvious reasons), complained that “we hadn’t come to our conclusions” before we embarked on reporting. We were younger at the time and lacked the courage to argue that this approach was ridiculous. Fortunately, it didn’t take long to know that it was also relatively rare. Most of the academics and journalists we know do try to be fair and balanced in their work. But we are watchful for situations in which that’s not the case. And that’s a problem, particularly when other researchers rely on misleading published narratives, the false conclusions can be repeated until everyone believes they’re true. #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalManagementResearch #StateandLocalPerformanceResearch #StateandLocalGovernmentReports #StateandLocalReports #StateandLocalStudies #StateandLocalResearch #StateandLocalResearchFlaws #WaltDisneyDocumentary #WaltDisneyManBehindTheMyth #StateandLocalGovernmentData #StateandLocalDataQuality #UnbalancedResearchReports #StateRankingFlaws #QuestionableSurveyResearch #ReportBias #MissingData #OldData #WalletHub #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone who works in state or local government to hear that many of our interviewees suggest – notwithstanding what ails their employer – that they’re going to solve many issues with new and improved technology. And to be sure, technology is increasingly an important part of any formula for success, and cities, counties and states that aren’t involved in improving their high-tech profile will be left behind. Still, as a state CIO characterized his approach to his job in a recent conversation, “I’m technology last. If you start with technology first, you’re too restrictive. . . I’m always focusing on solving the problem and meeting the need. If you can't agree on the problem at the 50,000-foot level, there's no reason to go on.” We think he makes an excellent point. Especially in a day when AI is often thought to be a cure-all, it’s critical to first think carefully about precisely what the problem is, before starting to invest in technology that may or may not address the real issue. Yet that’s exactly what many entities do. It’s interesting to see how many vendors of software and hardware offer themselves as providing “solutions,” which greatly oversimplifies the issues that states and localities confront. The use of that word makes it sound like whatever software they’re selling is a panacea, something like the old-fashioned salespeople who boasted that the elixirs they sold could cure whatever ails you, from tuberculosis to shattered nerves. Consider for example, entities that are currently purchasing variations of AI in hopes that they will spit out solutions, when a critical problem they face is problematic data. With AI, the old saying “garbage in-garbage out” should be altered to read “garbage in-garbage out faster than the twinkling of an eye.” There are lots of reasons why unthinking reliance on technology is so common. For one thing, it appears to be a politically practical approach. A mayor can get more positive press by announcing an investment in a new high-tech innovation than by digging into a problem to figure out the cause and a smart approach to make it go away – even if that takes three or four years. The allure of a quick-fix is powerful, and most deep-seated problems that cities, states and counties face take years to solve. In the interim, a high-tech fix is easier to explain to voters than the multiple steps inherent in a thoughtful iterative approach. In addition, no elected official wants to appear to be behind the times, when neighboring states or communities are announcing their own alluring technological solution. Since our minds almost immediately jump to the benefits of performance management, here’s our recommendation to help ameliorate the “shoot first ask questions later” approach to technology procurements: Before acquiring any shiny new bells and whistles make sure to clearly spell out what the actual results of the acquisition will be – and how you define success. This should be part of a clearly wrought plan before even issuing an RFP. Then, on a regular basis, do performance audits to catch any hitches along the way, before they get permanently built into the techno-structure. #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalTechnolgyManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentTechnologyPerformance #StateandLocalPerformanceAudit #StateandLocalDataGovernance #StateLocalGovernmentGenerativeAIPolicyandManagement #StateandLocalAI #StateandLocalArtificialIntelligence #CityGovernmentManagement #CityTechnologyManagement #CountyGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalInnovation #CityInnovation #CountyTechnologyManagement #CityTechnologyPerformance #CountyTechnologyPerformance #DedicatedToStateandLocalGovernment #StateandLocalDataQuality #TechnologyLast #TechnologyFirstMalady #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Though residents may assume that state and local government work is generally performed by public sector workers, in fact, a huge number of jobs are in the hands of third-party contractors and consultants. This can include garbage collection, road and bridge construction, and a wide variety of health and social services. Additionally, as cities, counties and states increasingly depend on technology, many – particularly smaller entities – don’t have the internal capacity or expertise to carry out the many jobs necessary to keep computers (and, increasingly, these days, artificial intelligence) running smoothly. While many government entities have performance management systems in place to measure the success or failure of the work that’s done in house, this can be trickier when it comes to the contractors and consultants who are sometimes referred to as the “hidden workforce.” When we regularly review performance audits, we often discover that the lack of oversight and measurement of contracted work is extremely commonplace. Last month, for example, we came across an audit from the Austin, Texas Auditor’s office, and its findings were alarming. During Fiscal Years 2023 – 2025, the city spent over $279M on consultants – a tidy pile of cash used by almost all the city’s departments. Here’s what the auditor found: 82 percent did not have a formal evaluation showing why the work could not be done by city staff 64 percent of them did not include a formal performance appraisal What’s more, even when there were evaluations, they were not always accurate. One of the complexities involved in effectively measuring the performance of individual contracts is that in many instances, they are overseen by multiple agencies. So, even though one agency may be carefully monitoring performance for some of the services delivered, other important issues may easily be overlooked. In addition, even when procurement departments carefully include performance measures in a contract, that doesn’t guarantee that agencies, which oversee the contract, will follow through to see that planned targets are achieved. This work, we’d argue, can’t wait until a performance audit comes through and discovers that they’re needed. They should be part of a city, county or state’s ethos, and preferably done in real time, so that problems are uncovered as quickly as possible and can be ameliorated before a little cavity in the teeth of a city turns into an abscess and requires the municipal equivalent of an extraction. One of the most important things to measure is the project completion rate. When project managers let things slide, it’s easy for a contracted task to be completed months or years after originally promised. A common problem involves scope creep, when a company realizes that additional money is needed to fulfil the task, and requests an extension to the original timeline and an addition to the budget, as well. The solution to this very common issue doesn’t come into play once the project has gotten rolling. Instead, it can help be prevented when key performance indicators are established before anyone has signed on the dotted line. When there’s a clearly defined metric, and it’s addressed, it’s easier to turn down a contractor’s request for new features that may be unrelated to that output. Additionally, it’s good practice to make sure there’s regular face-to-face contact with the contractor or consultant. A weekly, monthly or quarterly conversation can be a straightforward way to catch problems before they expand. Ongoing contact and careful performance monitoring, removes the temptation to hide problems until the auditors step in. #StateandLocalGovernmentProcurement #CityGovernmentProcurement #CountyGovernmentProcurement #StateandLocalContractManagement #CityContractManagement #CountyContractManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #CityPerformanceManagement #CountyPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceAudit #AustinCityAuditor #ContractPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalContractOversight #StateandLocalConsultantOversight #CityandCountyContractOversight #CityandCountyConsultantOversight #StateandLocalContractScopeCreep #MonitoringStateandLocalContractPerformance #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

“For years, opinion surveys have identified property taxes as the ones Americans hate the most,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). There are lots of reasons this has been the case. For one thing, property taxes are clearly the most visible of the major tax streams that go to municipalities. As Jon Cannon, executive director of the Nebraska Association of County Officials, told us in a recent conversation, “ It’s a tax you can’t avoid. You can make purchases across state lines to avoid sales taxes. For income taxes, if I’m sophisticated enough there are ways to avoid it. But dirt is dirt and homes are homes and you can’t escape them. And because it’s so hard to escape, it’s got greater visibility.” To make matters worse, as the NCSL points out, “p ayments must be made in large lump sums . . . Unlike sales taxes that are paid in small increments or income taxes that are withheld, property tax bills come with a large sum due.”  With that in mind, elected officials in a number of states – including Florida, Montana, Texas and North Dakota – have all been considering efforts to reduce or eliminate local property taxes .  This seems to us to be a wicked tradeoff. On the one hand, the idea that a state is forcing counties and localities to cut or eliminate their property taxes could be a very popular idea at the ballot box. But on the other hand, this kind of move will nearly inevitably bring enormous fiscal pain to the localities. At the Conference of Minority Public Administrators, which we attended in North Carolina in late February, all four of the panelists – county and city managers or their deputies  – pointed to the specter of state intrusion in their property tax streams as one of their greatest concerns. One of the big problems here, we believe, is that there’s a disconnect between people’s perception of the property taxes they pay and the services they receive in return. Nobody much wants to see public safety budgets cut, but they don’t necessarily see that if their property taxes are eliminated in all or in part, that’s exactly what could happen. As things stand, nearly every state has some kind of limitation that’s already in place. What’s changed, according to Ginger Delegal, executive director of the Florida Association of Counties, is that in the last 18 to 24 months there are upwards of 20 states now where there is very serious discussion about the elimination of property taxes, either from start to finish, or for at least homestead property.   Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis has been a poster child for the elimination of local property taxes, and even though this move hasn’t made it past the state legislature despite multiple efforts in recent years, his position is clear:  As was posted on his X account the Governor asked "Do you think it's fine that you buy property, you buy a home, you own it outright . . . and yet you have to continue to pony up money to the government just for the courtesy of using your own property?"   He seems to be missing the point here. Property taxes are far from a punitive measure for owning property, but rather the most reliable means for paying for schools,  the police department, fire department, roads and all the other services for which property taxes are a fundamental source of revenue.   But of course supporters of reducing or eliminating property taxes in Florida understand that somehow localities are going to have to pay their bills. There’s no great call for increased sales taxes and the state doesn’t even have an income tax. Where is the replacement money going to come from? It appears there's some anticipate that it will appear a result of the saving that the state will accrue from its DOGE-like efforts. As DeSantis posted on X, “Florida was DOGE before DOGE was cool,” So far, however, the state has yet to demonstrate the colossal savings it anticipates from its DOGE efforts.   Want a guess? The number is going to be underwhelming and not nearly enough to make up for any future dramatic reductions in property taxes.   Meanwhile, municipalities in states that have already mandated significant cuts in property taxes are already feeling the pain. According to an article by the Pew Charitable Trusts  “Indiana  passed  sweeping legislation to give homeowners $1.2 billion in tax relief between 2026 and 2028 through an annual tax credit of up to $300 on property tax bills and caps on local income tax rates, among other provisions. But those savings come at a cost to local government coffers—an estimated $1.5 billion over the three-year period. Many localities now face  budget shortfalls  and are  enacting budget cuts  in response. Fueled by such concerns,  Accelerate Indiana Municipalities  (AIM), which represents the state’s cities and towns, is pushing the Legislature to consider  several changes  to the law during its 2026 session.”   Pew also points to Wyoming as a case in point, writing that “ Meanwhile, counties and municipalities in Wyoming are also facing fallout from state legislation  that cuts  property taxes by 25% for up to $1 million of a home’s property value—without backfilling local governments for lost revenue. Public schools  could be the hardest hit . They receive roughly 70% of all property tax revenue in Wyoming with the rest going to local governments. The impacts of these revenue losses are rippling through local government budgets, forcing cuts to  libraries ,  city park maintenance , and  hospitals .”   #InDefenseOfPropertyTax #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentFunding #StateandLocalFinancialManagement #StateandLocalTaxes #StateandLocalTaxManagement #StateandLocalPropertyTaxes #CityGovernmentBudgeting #CityPropertyTax #CityGovernmentManagement #CityFinancialManagement #CountyPropertyTax  #CountyGovernmentManagement #PropertyTaxCutsAndCityFiscalStress #CityFiscalStress #CountyFiscalStress #SchoolFiscalStress #CityandCountyPropertyTaxCuts #NationalConferenceStateLegislatures #NCSL #PewCharitableTrusts #WyomingPropertyTaxCutStress #IndianaPropertyTaxCutStress #AccelerateIndianaMunicipalities #GovernorRonDeSantis #NebraskaPropertyTax #NebraskaAssociationCountyExecutives #FloridaAssociationOfCounties #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

In a “VOICES FROM ASPA" video that ran on this website a couple of weeks ago, Valerie Lemmie, senior advisor of state and local government at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, told us that “I am at times surprised how little our graduate students know about civics and then I am reminded that we don’t teach it in school anymore, you don’t learn it in high school. You don’t learn it in college. And so, it’s incumbent upon you, who are preparing for the profession (in public administration) to learn the history. . . “ We couldn’t agree more. A 2024 study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which evaluated survey instruments from 2,000 registered voters, found that “more then 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz on topics like the three branches of government, the number of Supreme Court justices and other basic functions of our democracy. Just half were able to correctly name the branch of government where bills become laws. “While two thirds of Americans say they studied civics in high school, just 25% say they are “very confident” that they could explain how our system of government works.” And consider this: These are registered voters. While we don’t have data about this, it’s our guess that people who aren’t registered to vote are probably even less knowledgeable. But on the other hand, and we don’t want to seem overly cynical, if we’re right about that, perhaps we’re all better off if people who have little or no notion of how government works don’t vote at all. It’s kind of like our desire for people who don’t have drivers licenses to stay off the roads. A couple of years ago, we looked at the state of civics education in the nation’s schools, and discovered a 2024 Hoover Institution report that found that eight U.S. states — Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming — required neither a civics course nor a civics test for students to receive a high school diploma. Just four states — Idaho, Louisiana, Virginia and West Virginia — require a full-year civics course and the passing of a standard civics test. Nationwide, there’s long been a dramatic shortage of funding to help young people get a grasp of how their government works. In 2024, the Carnegie Corporation of New York released a report titled “Connecting Civic Education and a Healthy Democracy.” The study found “funding for civic learning (from both philanthropy and government) is woefully inadequate.” For example, the data shows the US invests “just 50 cents in civic education for every 50 dollars that goes to education in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) subjects.” While the ignorance about government isn’t new, we’d argue that it’s even more important now than in the past. In a world in which disinformation about governmental policies has reached epidemic proportions, we can’t help but wonder how well-equipped Americans are to evaluate the actions their government are taking, if they don’t have a solid idea of how it functions in the first place. Meanwhile, and we’ve written about this before, there is clearly a widespread lack of comprehension about what level of government does what. While there’s general knowledge that the army and navy are run by the federal government, when it comes to basic interactions with the functioning of government, that’s hardly the case. People may complain about how bad their roads are. But do they know whether the pothole they’ve encountered is the responsibility of their city, county or state? They generally do not, in our experience. (Note that this was also a topic recently raised by Michael Jacobson, former Deputy Director of Performance and Strategy in a recent guest column on this website.) Though it’s likely that educated Americans are more likely to understand the basic questions of civics, even they often miss the idea that government is a lot more than just politics. We’ve complained about this in the past but it’s a never-ending source of frustration to us that when we meet someone new at a public gathering and try to explain what we do for a living and say we research and write about government, their immediate next question (assuming they find this interesting at all) is about politics. While there may be interest in the passage of individual policies, when it comes to discussions of policy implementation, that’s when our new acquaintances generally excuse themselves to get another glass of wine or use the restroom. Management of government simply isn’t on the radar for many. While they may complain about the so-called “bureaucracy,” meaning the people who they think are wasting their hard earned tax dollars, they don’t seem to get that it’s behind the scenes employees who ensure that their garbage is picked up, their bridges don’t fall into the river, the elections are run fairly, their children are educated, and on and on. With trust in government low (and not just for the federal government, but for states and localities), this is all a real pity. It’s simply too easy to mistrust the unknown. #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformance #AmericanSocietyForPublicAdministration #ASPA #ValerieLemmieVideo #CivicEducation #StateandLocalCivicEducation #CivicEducationAndTrustIn Government #TrustInGovernment #ValerieLemmie #CharlesFKetteringFoundation #FightingGovernmentDisinformation #CivicEducationRequirements #GovernmentIgnoranceGap #HooverInstitutionCivicEducationRequirementsReport #CivicEducationFundingShortage #CivicEducationVsStemEducation #CarnegieCorporationOfNewYork #ConnectingCivicEducationAndHealthyDemocracy #StateandLocalPolicyImplementation #MichaelJacobsonGuestColumn #CountyVsCityVsStateResponsibility #ScapegoatingBureaucracies #BureacuracyComplaints” #StateandLocalGovernmentBureaucracy #StateandLocalGovernmentWorkforce #StateandLocalGovernmentEmployees #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

There are certainly justifiable reasons to be concerned about the far-reaching ramifications of artificial intelligence. Nobody really knows for sure its impact on the workplace. And in the absence of guarantees that the benefits will outweigh the flaws, fear runs rampant. But when we talk with friends about AI, they forget that this isn’t the first technology to conjure up fear and loathing. In fact, historically almost every new scientific advance has led to public concern, and even terror among some – only to become adopted as the wrinkles are ironed out (which may, admittedly take a little time). With that in mind, we decided to see what people were thinking when new innovations first came on the scene. Back in the late 1700s, Edward Jenner developed a vaccine against the then deadly scourge of smallpox by exposing people to far less virulent cowpox. But when the government started to mandate that people receive the vaccines, concerns spread that government was putting poison into their blood. As the Morgan Library and Museum states “opposition to Jenner’s vaccine was quick to emerge, with its bovine origins often provoking some of the most vehement criticism. Objections were made on both medical and religious grounds, condemning vaccination as a dangerous and unsanitary procedure involving the forbidden mingling of animal matter with human flesh. “Outspoken opponents such as the physician Benjamin Moseley (1742–1819) sought to alarm readers with luridly worded arguments against the abominable practice of introducing a “bestial humour into the human frame,” while hinting darkly at the “strange mutations from quadruped sympathy” that might result as well as relating fantastical accounts of vaccinated children sprouting cow hair or developing facial features distorted “to resemble that of an Ox.” Later on in that century, when steam trains came into popular use, there were several frightening scenarios foist upon the populace. Traveling over 30 miles per hour could cause “delirium foriosum” some said. This was a kind of insanity that they believed could result from looking out the train windows to see the landscape whizzing by. There was even concern that the vibrations and speed could cause miscarriages or damage to women’s reproductive organs. By the late 1800s, there was yet another new-fangled innovation to fear: electricity. Some Americans were particularly concerned that electricity (like water from a tap) cold leak into a room from an empty socket if the switch was left on. Humorist James Thurber wrote in his wonderful “My Life and Hard Times” that his grandmother was fearful that electricity was “dripping invisibly all over the house.” When we first read this story, we assumed that Thurber was just making this up (even though “My Life and Hard Times” was intended to be a memoir.) But it turns out that his grandmother wasn’t alone in her trepidation. In fact, “President Benjamin Harrison and his wife Caroline were the first to live in an electrified White House, but electricity was so new at the time that the couple refused to touch the light switches for fear of electric shock. The White House staff was in charge of turning the lights on and off,” reports the U.S. Department of Energy. Then there was the radio. Some were fearful that this kind of in-home entertainment would effectively kill off normal social life, as people stayed home and listened to the new magical boxes. (And by the way, Ladies Home Journal reported that a similar phenomenon was afoot when people were able to rent videos from places like Blockbuster. We know this because we – and now we’re embarrassed by this – wrote the article over 40 years ago). But there were even more dramatic concerns about the advent of radio in the 1920s. “Farmers of the 1920s used to blame too much rain, earthquakes, and droughts on the new technology of radio,” according to Paleofuture: The History of the Future. When television first came into American homes, just as with radio, there was similar concern that it would destroy any kind of social life. Finally (and there are many more examples) when computers came into broad use, just as with AI, there was widespread belief that mainframes (with less computing power than a cellular phone today) could allow automation to lead to mass unemployment as middle-class jobs would be rendered obsolete. In fact a 1957 film Desk Set, featuring Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, was based on the fear that a new computer was going to put Hepburn and all of her compatriots out of work. This wasn’t just the kind of concern spread by entertainment. Consider the Time Magazine article from 1961 titled “The Automation Jobless.” Time wrote that “Dr. Russell Ackoff, a Case Institute expert on business problems, feels that automation is reaching into so many fields so fast that it has become ‘the nation's second most important problem.’ (First: peace.) #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentGenerativeAIPolicyAndManagement #StateAndLocalTechnologyManagement #FearOfTechnology #FearOfTheUnknown #StateandLocalAI #StateandLocalArtificialIntelligence #StateandLocalGovernmentWorkforce #StateandLocalHumanResources #StateandLocalHR #FearOfChange #AutomationJobless #DeskSet #PaleofutureTheHistoryOfTheFuture #AutomationAndUnemployment #FearOfInnovation #StateandLocalInnovation #BandGReport #FearOfSmallpoxVaccine #FearOfVideos #FearOfComputers #FearofElectricity #BarrettandGreeeneInc

Not long ago we were at a presentation by an academic about a topic that was of genuine interest to us. As is often the case, she had many interesting slides, showing all of the data she had gathered over months of research. But when one of the members of the audience inquired about the meaning behind the data, her answer was simple. “I don’t know. I only know the numbers.” This was frustrating to us, and we suspect other folks in the audience. But it’s been our experience at various conferences, webinars and other presentation venues that a great deal of academic work doesn’t seem to take the next step forward, beyond doing meticulous research in order to find out what the research really means. Don’t misunderstand, we know that academic research is often limited by time and money. But we’d like to make a modest proposal (and maybe this isn’t practical, but that doesn’t stop us from suggesting it): After the heavy number crunching is done, we’d like academics to have a handful of discussions with experts in the field to see how they would interpret the information they’ve gathered. The responses that could be garnered through this extra step wouldn’t need to be published as gospel – but could at least give users of the published work a sense of what it might mean, creating a starting point for their own reflections. We hasten to add that we’re not saying that all research should be qualitative. We’d just like the important findings of quantitative research to be presented in a real-world context of some kind. Some of those reading this B&G Report will remember the Government Performance Project (GPP), which was a Pew-Charitable Trusts effort that was published in Governing Magazine, with the goal of evaluating the management capacity of the states (and occasionally cities and counties). The research included lengthy survey instruments that covered the areas of human resources, budgeting, performance management, information technology and infrastructure, in an effort to evaluate the management capacity of states. We were deeply involved in its inception, research and writing. (Actually, it was loosely based on a similar, far less rigorous exercise that we did for the now defunct publication, Financial World.) The GPP included a cadre of very smart academics with small teams of graduate students to go through the survey instruments – had scores of sub criteria that were then pulled together to analyze how the governments fared on clear-cut criteria, and then brought a full step forward to come up with overall evaluation. That could then be translated into grades. But we also had a team of journalists, who did many hundreds of interviews with people in all fifty states and tried to get answers and context for all of the sub-criteria that the academics were using. This wasn’t always easy, but we were able to get people on the phone, to work with the journalistic team. The journalistic input provided two benefits. First, it sometimes discovered flaws in information that came from the surveys. While the journalists made every effort to reach people who were at the higher levels of government, sometimes the surveys were filled out by interns who didn’t necessarily provide the most accurate answers. When this happened, the academic team was able to re-evaluate, and the two groups came together to find a consensus that we thought approximated the truth. On the other side of the coin, sometimes interviews were inclined to whitewash their stories and put the full emphasis on the positives. The academics provided an intellectual grounding that provided accountability. The other advantage was that the journalists were able to tell the stories that allowed readers to get more than “just the numbers.” We didn’t just provide the total grades and the grades in the criteria, but we were able to publish the stories behind the most intriguing results. We apologize for this little trip down memory lane, but this exercise and the collaboration between journalists and academics has been a highlight of our careers, and taught us a great deal about the potential flaws in relying just on interviews (the way that journalists are inclined to do), as well as the booby-traps that can be hidden in seemingly accurate and complete data. The results bore out the process, and we were aware that a number of states actually took action based on the findings. And whether you’re an academic or a journalist what could be better than that? #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformance #CountyGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentPerformance #GovernmentPerformanceProject #PewCharitableTrusts #GoverningMagazine #FinancialWorld #StateandLocalGovernmentData #GovernmentDataAndRealWorldContext #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #CityPerformanceManagement #CountyPerformanceManagement #JournalistAcademicCollaboration #StateandLocalInformationTechnology #StateandLocalInfrastructureManagement #StateandLocalHumanResources #StateandLocalHR #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #CityBudgeting #CountyBudgeting #StateandLocalFinancialManagement #CityFinancialManagement #CountyFinancialManagement #GradingStateManagement #GradingCityManagement #GradingCountyManagement #AcademicJournalistPartnership #StateandLocalData #StateandLocalDataMeaning #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

There are many important routes to heighten the likelihood of developing successful programs and policies in the public sector. But over the years, in dozens of conversations, we’ve had one factor that comes up repeatedly: It’s critical to be willing to take risks. Naturally we’re not talking about gambling with the public dollars without ample consideration, study and the search for evidence. Instead, we’re thinking about a truly calculated approach to entering new territory. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but we’d argue that risk-taking has grown ever more important in a fast-moving world in which new problems and opportunities seem to be cropping up on a regular basis. The mantra that “we’re doing it this way, because that’s the way we’ve always done it,” is not just outmoded, but probably a path that’s destined to result in missed opportunities. We asked Don Kettl, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and a close colleague of ours for years, what he thought. Here’s what he had to say: “With inescapable demands and an enormously turbulent environment, state and local officials need to learn how to take risks—to experiment with new strategies for solving problems, to explore how best to connect with citizens, and to learn—fast—about how to adapt to unpredictable changes. It’s a hugely exciting time but one full of enormous challenges, and it’s a time where business-as-usual leaders are doomed to fail.” We also turned to William Hatcher, professor and chair of social sciences at Augusta University, and he added that “In our environment of political uncertainties and democratic backsliding, it is even more important for us in public administration to work toward solutions for the problems plaguing our communities. However, this will require state and local governments to take risks in solving public problems. But these risks need to be informed. Public administration can contribute through sharing expertise in helping policy makers devise evidence-based solutions and then implement those solutions in an effective, efficient, democratic, and fair manner.” Added Brooks Williams, the city manager of Ferris, Texas, “Real progress in state and local government does not come from preserving every existing process or waiting for perfect certainty. It comes from leaders who are willing to take informed risks in pursuit of better outcomes for the people and places they serve. That may mean redesigning outdated systems, challenging assumptions that no longer hold, or trying a different way of delivering services when the old way is no longer enough. Too often, government treats inaction as the safe choice, when in reality doing nothing carries its own consequences, costs, and failures.” Why do some city, county or state leaders avoid taking risks? One big part of the answer is pretty obvious. Every risk has a chance of resulting in a failure. And in a day when many election campaigns are focused on pointing out the mistakes made by a previous administration, elected officials can be pilloried during a campaign for potentially sensible risks that simply didn’t pan out as planned. Some years ago, we came across a quote that summed things up rather nicely: “The more society becomes focused on success the more failure gets stigmatized.” Of course, fears of risk are the natural state of affairs for many human beings whether in the public sector or elsewhere. Tim Maniccia, chief fiscal officer and treasurer at the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, pointed us to the work done by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, arguably the founders of behavioral economics. They theorized in their 1979 ground-breaking work Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, that humans fear losing what they have more than they value gaining what they do not have. Williams adds a cautionary note: “Risk in government should never be confused with recklessness. Responsible public leadership means being transparent about tradeoffs, grounded in evidence, and accountable for results, while still having the courage to move before every variable is settled. The strongest institutions are not the ones that avoid risk altogether. They are the ones that build the capacity to take smart risks deliberately, learn from them, and adapt without losing sight of mission, stewardship, and service." So, how do we take risks while continuing to be good fiscal stewards? Haley Kadish, policy and budget director for Bernalillo County, NM suggests that “we must ensure that risk is productive. By this I mean we need to invest in measuring whether the risk we took worked. Having that answer builds credibility with both elected leaders and constituents so that we can take the risks necessary to be nimble enough to meet our communities’ changing needs while also remaining good fiscal stewards.” #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentRiskManagement #RiskManagementInLocalGovernment #RiskManagementInStateGovernment #CityGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentManagement #RiskManagementInCityGovernment #RiskManagementInCountyGovernment #GovernmentAversionToRisk #StigmatizingFailure #StateandLocalRiskAvoidance #StateandLocalGovernmentLeadership #StateandLocalFiscalStewardship #StateandLocalAdaptationToChange #DonKettl #BrooksWilliams #TimManiccia #HaleyKadish #WilliamHatcher #BernalliloCountyNM #CityOfFerrisTX #DemocraticBacksliding #StateandLocalEvidenceBasedDecisions #ConsequencesOfGovernmentInaction #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Back on March 6, 2020, the IBM Center for the Business of Government hosted a glorious party in honor of our then-new book “The Promises and Pitfalls of Performance-Informed Management.” (Rowman & Littlefield) There was a lot of talk in the room about some mysterious new disease that seemed to be spreading. People were bumping elbows. On March 11 th , the World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. That night the NBA suspended its season, and a national travel ban from Europe was announced. As you can imagine, that didn’t do any good for sales of the book (which of course, was the least of the world’s problems for years to come). But one of the sections of the book, of which we were particularly proud, was a section titled Rx for Pitfalls, in which we provided a checklist of recommendations to optimize the use of performance management initiatives. For reasons that don’t bear going into, we’ve just reviewed that section and have decided that it is as timely now as it was then. So, with some modifications from the original, here’s our advice: ·         It is important to acknowledge that performance management systems are an integral part of government – like budgeting or procurement – and not just an adjunct effort. ·         Performance management efforts are more likely to be sustainable if they are not overly identified with an outgoing political administration.  It is better for them to be identified as a tool of the city than as the former mayor’s baby. ·         Narrative explanations should be presented side-by-side with performance measurement information or other data.  This provides the opportunity to put the numbers into context and to make sure that readers understand any exogenous factors that influence results. If numbers used in performance measurement targets are thrown wildly off by a forest fire, flood or hurricane, for example, it is important to communicate that. ·         Communication and reporting of performance measurements to legislators should be kept short and to the point to ensure they are considered. Knowledge of committee schedules and study assignments are extremely helpful in determining when information may be most useful and when it will overload legislators or their staff. ·         Sharing experiences with individuals in other cities, counties and states that are involved in performance management efforts provides an ongoing support system and way to share ideas and experiences. ·         The ability to gather together with other people who are working in neighboring or even faraway governments and dealing with the same issues and frustrations has enormous payoffs. ·         Building an organized information infrastructure can help both central offices and agencies know the work that has been completed in the past that may be relevant to current efforts. Central data inventories help managers know what information from other agencies would be useful to them. Centralized easy-to-access websites that provide retrievable copies of government reports and evaluations make sure that past work is not lost. ·         Caution should be exercised when utilizing incentives as an inducement to meet performance targets. Too often, incentives, whether in contracts, pay-for-performance plans or linked to increased funding, lead to gameplaying with performance results. ·         The beginning of a new program or policy initiative is the best time to consider the data that will be needed to analyze and evaluate how well it is doing and what changes may be needed to make it work better. ·         Building up workforce data skills is a pressing need that can be accelerated through both internal and external resources, with train the trainer and mentor relationships helping to spread the knowledge. ·         Training itself only goes part of the way. Coaching is also needed to keep building skills among workers without technical training.  Networks help to encourage participants to see performance management as a living breathing process that they can support through their collaborative forums, strategic conversations, and design workshops and which will break down silos, erase feelings of loneliness and fear of change and bring joy to the performance management effort. ·         Performance management benefits from a dash of realism in what can be accomplished with the resources available. This means avoiding over expectations and over-selling of the initiative and not under-projecting staff and resource needs. #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #CityPerformanceManagement #CountyPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #PerformanceManagementSuccessCheckList #CityandCountyPerformanceMeasurement #PerformanceManagementPitfalls #PerformanceMeasurementPitfalls #PerformanceMeasurementTargets #PerformanceInformedManagement #CommunicatingPerformanceInformationToLegislators #PromisesAndPitfallsOfPerformanceInformedManagement #StateandLocalPerformance #CityandCountyGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalData #StateandLocalDataGoernance #StateandLocalDataInventories #StateandLocalDataCollection #PerformanceManagementResilience #PerformanceMeasurementReporting #PerformanceMeasurementCommunication #PerformanceMeasurementNetworks #PerformanceManagementCommunication #PerformanceManagementTraining #BuildingWorkforceDataSkills #PerformanceMeaurementIncentives #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

We’ve been watching the Ken Burns documentary series about the history of the Vietnam War. It’s a difficult series to watch, but fascinating, nonetheless.   One point that the documentary makes is that, unlike other wars in which success was measured by the land overtaken, in Vietnam that didn’t apply as neither side ever really made any physical progress until after the end of the war, when North Vietnam prevailed and one nation emerged.   As a result, during the war, the measurement used was the number of dead bodies that could be counted (notwithstanding that it wasn’t always clear which side the bodies came from). The point Burns makes is that this was the easiest thing to measure and so was the metric upon which important decisions were made.   This struck a resilient chord for the two of us, thinking not of wars, but of the way states and localities often measure their success. They often focus on data that’s easier to collect but may be less helpful in achieving a desired result.   Take for example, crime rates, which are the measures upon which many police departments determine the degree to which they’re accomplishing their work. We won’t question that everyone wants less crime, but that measure leaves a great deal to be desired. For one thing, people can be fearful of reporting crimes (perhaps because of concern over retaliation or even when they don’t want to be identified by the authorities themselves). This can easily mean that there’s somewhat less crime than that which is being reported. The opposite problem also occurs when an apparent increase in crime comes from a shift in procedure or a change in reporting, leading to greater fears although the actual crime incidence hasn’t changed.   In our view, there may be somewhat better ways to measure crime-fighting success – and that’s the safety felt by the residents of a community.  Regular surveys can uncover this kind of data, but in many communities, surveys can be difficult to administer and unless great care is taken may not even reach the portion of the population that is most vulnerable to crime.   Then there are measures of success of tax incentives. Typically, cities or states turn to the number of new jobs created. But sometimes, these jobs are temporary, leaving a false impression. This is particularly true when it comes to incentives for data centers. Many new jobs are created when the centers are being constructed, but once they’re up and running, the jobs rapidly decline; it really doesn’t take too many people to keep a data center running.   It’s easy to proclaim victory when the first wave of jobs comes in, with few entities publicizing the reduction of jobs that follows, even though these are numbers that are available.   Homelessness provides another good example. Many places measure their success at dealing with this onerous problem by counting the number of shelter beds filled or the number of people who are processed into the system. But it would be more useful to consider the time-to-transition from temporary housing to more permanent abodes. Of course, this is much harder to measure, because fragmented state, local and non-profit systems often don’t share data, making it difficult to determine the results of a policy or how it’s implemented.   The purchase of new large IT systems can also be problematically measured. An entity may take credit for completing the installation of a new hardware or software system. But timeliness, while very important, doesn’t consider whether or not the new technology functions as intended. We can’t begin to count the number of times in which we’ve interviewed people at all levels of government who are woefully disappointed that new technology promises haven’t been kept. In that case, it matters less whether the IT was installed on schedule. It’s like having a train arrive at your station on time but then get stuck on the tracks.   In all these instances, there are no magic wands that leaders can wave to produce results measurements that can be put to good use. Our warning is simple: Be aware that the measurements you’re using are flawed and be careful about the ways they are used to make decisions.   #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalGovernmentData #CityGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #CountyGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #CityPerformanceManagement #CountyPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalCrimeMeasurement #StateandLocalCrimeData #StateandLocalTaxIncentiveResults #MeasuringResults #StateandLocalHomelessnessMeasurement #StateandLocalHomelessnessData #MeasuringStateLocalTaxIncentiveSuccess #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

We don’t get it. Over the years, many cities and states have handed out tax incentives with the notion that they are supposed to have a good return on investment. They’re supposed to bring in jobs and have a ripple effect in neighborhoods in which the incentivized project is located. But that often seems to be an illusion. Elected officials nearly always play up the potential benefits and downplay costs. Fortunately, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board has a standard that entities report lost revenue. But residents aren’t inclined to read government annual reports.   If they were more aware of the tradeoffs between education or health care and the money spent on tax exemptions, it’s our guess that they’d be less than thrilled when a governor or a mayor announced the exciting news about the next big tax-incentive-based economic deal. We’ve written about this in the past, but are moved to bring it up again, as the huge desire for rapidly expanding data centers has led some states – including Virginia, Illinois and Georgia to use tax incentives to attract these sexy new installations.   “Data centers are Exhibit A for what states should not be subsidizing in 2026,” Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, an organization that gathers much of the best data pertaining to tax incentives, told us.  “States themselves report losing 52 to 91 cents on the dollar on their sales and use tax exemptions. Data centers are causing stress on electric grids, driving up electricity prices, taxing water supplies, and creating very few permanent jobs.”   Consider some numbers from Georgia. Currently the state is expected to forgo some $2.5 billion to data center tax exemptions according to the state’s own data . “That’s 664 percent higher than the state’s previous estimate of $327 million,” according to Good Jobs First , “a reflection of the speed at which the industry is extracting public money from communities across the country.” Policy makers often use the so-called ‘but-for’ argument to make the case that if they weren’t forgoing millions, or billions of dollars in exemptions, they’d lose the potential for new economic development to other cities or states. But as we’ve studied this topic over the years, that’s never seemed to hold up in the real world. Far more important than tax incentives is the presence of a skilled workforce. This is particularly true in high-tech sectors, in which proximity to research universities is a major benefit.  Beyond that the costs of labor are a major factor. Then there’s the speed with which a company can move forward. High on the list of disincentives to businesses are lengthy periods – months or even years – to turn a plan into reality. Additionally, the quality of life of a city or state carries a lot of weight. Housing  affordability is a major factor for businesses. If workers must make a long commute to get to the office, that will mean that a company may have troubles in attracting sufficient talent – even in parts of the country in which there are ample talented potential workers.   There’s some powerful evidence that these other factors carry more weight to potential corporate employers. Georgia had a lot going for it in terms of existing infrastructure and low energy costs, and according to the Carl Vinson Institute at the University of Georgia . “in the absence of the exemption, 70% of data center construction activity in the state would have occurred anyway and . . . the remaining 30% could be attributed to the tax exemption.” David Brunori, Senior Director at RSM US LLP , has written extensively about this topic. We asked him to see if he could add anything. Here’s what he wrote; “A more philosophical reason for opposing incentives is that the government is literally picking winners and losers in the marketplace. The government has a hard enough time doing traditional governmental stuff. Government economic planning has never worked very well.  Data centers are a great example.  Many states have encouraged investment in data centers without regard to markets. Now in many states there is a glut of data centers. Moreover, most governments did not consider issues such as energy consumption and land use when providing incentives”   Finally, promises made by companies to deliver thousands of new jobs may not ever come to pass. In some instances, the jobs never materialize, in others the jobs aren’t genuinely new to the region but are simply a factor of shifting an employee from one employer to another.    At least entities that carefully measure the benefits of tax incentives are less likely to throw dollars out the door. But more often that doesn’t come to pass. According to Good Jobs First in 2025, only about 7 percent of U.S. cities disclose both the jobs promised and the jobs actually created. Without this transparency, the public never knows when a project has failed to deliver.   In a column  written by Ellen Harpel, Founder of Smart Incentives and Randall Bauer, Director, PFM Group Consulting, explained, entities should take the following into account:   “Consider both requirements (such as contractual obligations that the company must meet) and requests (information that would be helpful to have but may not be contractually required).” “Data should allow tracking of milestones to show outcomes achieved and incentive payments made. Data insights can also be used to address projects that are not in compliance.”   “Compliance data is valuable for both internal and external use. Internally, managers can see how well programs are performing and which programs are most effective at generating the outcomes the government cares about.”   #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement  #StateandLocalTaxIncentives #StateandLocalTaxIncentiveCosts #StateandLocalTaxIncentiveTransparency #StateTaxIncentives #LocalGovernmentTaxIncentives #CityGovernmentManagement #CityTaxIncentives #CountyGovernmentManagement#CountyTaxIncentives #TaxIncentivesAndDataCenters  #StateandLocalTaxIncentiveTransparency #CityTaxIncentiveTransparency #CountyTaxIncentiveTransparency #StateandLocalFinancialManagement #CityFinancialManagement #CountyFinancialManagement #StateandLocalEconomicDevelopment #CityEconomicDevelopment #CountyEconomicDevelopment #TaxIncentiveCost #TaxIncentiveCostAndOutcome #StateLocalDataAndTaxIncentives #TrackingTaxIncentiveOutcomesWithData #TaxIncentivesAndPerformanceMeasurement #GovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoard #StateandLocalJobCreation #StateandLocalGovernmentWorkforce #StateandLocalDataCenterCosts #DavidBrunori # RSMUSLLP  #EllenHarpel #SmartIncentives #RandallBauer #PFMGroupConsulting #GovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoard #GASBTaxAbatementStatement