Search Results

This male-dominated 1953 photo of a National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) annual meeting would not have been a surprise to public sector leaders of the time. Not many people would have expected back in Eisenhower’s first term that women would be in important budgetary leadership positions in the states. But 70 years later, a lot has changed, as evidenced by the recent NASBO webinar that featured three of NASBO’s current leaders: Oregon’s Kate Nass, who served as NASBO president from 2020 to 2022; Colorado’s Lauren Larson (2022-2023) and Ohio’s Kimberly Murnieks, who starts her term as president in July. Also participating in the webinar was Moody’s Analytics economist Emily Mandel, and the current NASBO executive director, Shelby Kerns. This is the first time that all three top executive officers of the membership association are held by women, and Kerns notes that it is reflective of a demographic shift in membership that has occurred over many years. “I’m glad this resonates with women who are looking for models of strong, smart women leaders,” she says. “Lauren, Kim and Kate were elected by their peers – women and men – because they stand out as leaders in their states and in their profession.” Demographic shifts occur slowly over time. In the 1990s, when we were first researching and reporting about state government management, NASBO saw the first woman elected to the role of president – Nevada’s Judy Matteucci. That was followed by two budget directors we knew well -- Kansas’s Gloria Timmer in 1996-1997 and Utah’s Lynne Koga the following year. In 1998, Timmer was appointed the first female NASBO executive director. (We remember fondly the tour she gave us of the Topeka Capitol in the late 1990s, and were saddened, as were so many people, by her untimely death in October 2000.) The percentage of women in NASBO’s membership, which is typically made up of the top three budgetary positions as reported by states and territories, has more than doubled since the time when Matteucci took the role of president. In 1992-1993, there were 26 females out of 147 listed or 18%. By 2023, females held 68 positions out of 178 listed or 38%. Below is a photo from the 2019 annual membership meeting in Seattle, which provides a powerful visual picture of the shift that has occurred over the years. On the left side from front to back are Beth Ashcroft, state budget officer, Maine, and Bran Shim, Finance Director, Massachusetts. On the right side from front to back are Bakia Parrish, budget administrator, Georgia; Chris Wells, division director, Georgia, and Melissa Moats, division director, Georgia. (Note that titles and positions are from 2019.) “The change does stand out when you see it in pictures,” Kerns says. (This blog post was originally published in a slightly different form on March 14, 2023. The original on our website was accidentally overwritten and we’re re-publishing it now.) #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #WomeninGovernment #WomenBudgetDirectors #NationalAssociationofStateBudgetOfficers #NASBO #NASBODirectorShelbyKerns #StateandLocalGovernmentLeadership #NASBOLeadership #ChangingTimes

by Greg LeRoy Executive Director, Good Jobs First, a nonprofit watchdog group on economic development incentives. Public officials, groomed for decades to “give away the store” to attract businesses, are misreading the new CHIPS and Science Act. Contrary to what some are telling taxpayers, the Act, which includes $39 billion for new semiconductor factories—does not require massive or matching subsidies from states or localities. Still, microchip manufacturers — all too glad to double dip — aren’t correcting the record. That may come as harsh news to some residents of New York and Ohio, which have recently committed two of the biggest subsidy “megadeals” in U.S. history to microchip makers. The Empire State committed at least $6.1 billion to Micron and the Buckeye State’s total for Intel is $2.1 billion and counting. In fact, those states and others who are playing the same game, do not have to spend huge sums to qualify for the federal incentives, even though that’s a generally held impression. Read the federal CHIPS Act closely and you’ll see that states or localities seeking to win a “chip fab” need to offer “incentives.” But it then immediately defines such incentives as including a number of things other than direct-to-company aid, including investments in workforce development or other public goods. Indeed, the CHIPS Act anticipates that states will reflexively try to subsidize companies directly, but advice about its use from the Commerce Department says direct corporate subsidies, such as tax abatements, are less beneficial and thus less competitive. Yes, an applicant company “must be offered a state or local government incentive,” however: The [U.S. Commerce] Department encourages projects that include state and local incentive packages capable of creating spillover benefits that improve regional economic resilience and support a robust semiconductor ecosystem, beyond assisting a single company. Such incentives might include investments in workforce, education, site preparation, or infrastructure (including transit or utilities) that are not limited to the applicant, but designed to benefit both the applicant and the broader community. Likewise, the Department will place less weight on incentives (such as direct tax abatements) with less potential for spillover benefits. Translation: states and localities should focus on making themselves “sticky” for tech employers by investing in cost-effective public goods and services that generate the biggest payoffs. That’s the opposite of risky “megadeals” and a smart way to ensure the broadest possible community benefits. The CHIPS Act guidance is the latest evidence that Uncle Sam, thanks to the Biden administration, is finally over the reflexive American fear of Industrial Policy. Combined with elements of the Inflation Reduction Act that augur in favor of domestic manufacturing, the two laws are signaling that the “economic war among the states” or “race to the bottom” is a losers’ game. The real competition is overseas, not the state next door. That’s great news from Washington, but the early microchip deals reveal that the 80-plus years of indoctrination by our tax break-industrial complex has created a belief system among states and cities that will not fade away easily. We at Good Jobs First call upon President Biden and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to get louder on this crucial message. The CHIPS and Science Act is not intended to drain state or local coffers by bankrolling subsidy megadeals, but rather to help build more resilient economies. More resilience means wider broadband access, better access to public health services, catch-up help for students after Covid, cheaper access to community colleges and state universities, modernized infrastructure — and other public investments that benefit all working families and employers both incumbent and prospective. The contents of this guest column reflect those of the author and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc

by Hala Altamimi Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs and Administration, University of Kansas In the public administration literature, it is generally expected that city managers are likely to support practices that improve government performance. There’s little question that’s true for a variety of reasons. For one thing, unlike elected officials who can retain their jobs based on simple popularity or name recognition, city managers are evaluated based on their ability to achieve policy goals and improve the quality of life for residents. This creates an incentive to encourage practices such as performance measurement, auditing, and evaluation that help them achieve these goals, building a strong reputation and career as qualified professionals. All of this means that they tend to take a long-term view in managing their cities. But, at least in one field of endeavor these expectations, surprisingly, do not seem to hold true as I discovered in my recent research on performance auditing in 110 local governments. One of the questions I tried to answer was whether performance auditors are more effective in council-manager or mayor-council governments. My unexpected conclusion: Performance auditors may not be as successful in council-manager governments. This finding contradicts previous public administration literature but is consistent with research done by former Kansas City Mayor and Auditor Mark Funkhouser in 2000. He also found that municipal governments with a council-manager form are less likely to have an audit function. The research that led to this conclusion didn’t delve into the reasons for this startling finding, but I have a few possible explanations. First, elected officials – and those who seek to obtain those positions – may use audit findings as a political tool to suggest problems in government management and policy implementation, which can create tension between auditors and managers. Audit findings can be weaponized to advance political goals and agendas, and media coverage of audit reports can make this strategy more effective. This can hurt the relationship between auditors and managers. Actions that blame managers for performance problems can potentially breed antagonism and reduce managers' acceptance of audit recommendations. ​ Second, local government managers may feel like they are competing with performance auditors for professional recognition. Both managers and auditors play important roles in policymaking, and they both see themselves as stewards of effective governance, organizational learning, and accountability. As such, they may end up competing to achieve these shared goals. This competition may become more visible when auditors are independent of the manager's office. Additionally, managers and auditors both want to influence the governing body, which can create tension between them. Managers may prefer to be the only ones influencing that body. ​ Finally, managers and auditors have different kinds of institutional logic that shape their perspectives and behavior. Auditors see their role as one of control and oversight, while managers see their role as one of professional judgment and discretion. As a result, managers may see auditors as a threat to their professional judgment and discretion. ​ To address this potential tension in the manager-auditor relationship, many auditors adopt a collaborative approach that focuses on building trust with managers to facilitate information sharing and problem-solving. This approach involves using a less confrontational tone, involving managers in discussions, and suggesting appropriate actions to address identified problems. Research has shown that auditors who follow this approach are more successful in getting managers to listen to them. ​ Life isn’t as simple as total collaboration, however. Though it’s in the auditors’ best interest to work smoothly and well with city managers, they must do so without risking their independence or creating any biases – implicit or explicit -- by getting too close to managers. ​ The contents of this guest column reflect those of the author and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc

Last night, the Iowa Senate quickly passed a bill that effectively limits the State Auditor’s independent oversight by restricting his access to records. The National State Auditors Association (NSAA) President and Connecticut State Auditor John C. Geragosian wrote the following letter in response. It was signed onto by a number of other state auditors. Here is the bulk of his letter: March 8, 2023 To Whom It May Concern: As President of the National State Auditors Association, I, and other independent state auditors from around the country are writing to express our concerns with Iowa Senate File 478. This bill will negatively impact Auditor Sand’s ability to independently and sufficiently perform his audit work. State auditors should have unfettered access to confidential records to ensure that state agencies are following their policies and procedures and state and federal law. This is also necessary to ensure that we prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of state programs and funds. State auditors also have the immense responsibility to guard against disclosure of any confidential information. It is a responsibility we take seriously. We are concerned that this bill will negatively impact the auditor’s ability to independently and sufficiently perform his audit work. According to professional auditing standards from the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, auditors must be independent and have the ability to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to achieve audit objectives. Independence is a foundational requirement and is embedded in professional auditing standards. In addition, Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200) requirements prescribed by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget require that auditors adhere to Government Auditing Standards, including those standards pertaining to independence. The audit requirements in the Uniform Guidance that are used to conduct audits of federal grant funds include the issuance of an opinion on compliance with the laws and regulations of major federal grant programs. If the auditor cannot obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence due to externally imposed limitations such as those outlined in this bill, they may disclaim an opinion on the state’s financial statements and its compliance with the laws and regulations of major federal grant programs. This means that these limitations are so severe that the auditor is unable to issue an opinion. This should not be the desired outcome of any audit and would lead to significant concerns for the federal grant-awarding agencies and could result in a loss of federal funds. A disclaimer on the financial statements could also negatively impact the state’s bond rating. Auditor independence is an essential element for the proper oversight of public funds. Therefore, we respectfully request that you eliminate the limitations in Iowa Senate File 478. Respectfully, John C. Geragosian, President Connecticut State Auditor Other State and Territorial Auditors in support of this letter: Kris Curtis, Alaska Legislative Auditor Roger Norman, Arkansas Legislative Auditor Grant Parks, California State Auditor Clark J. Chapin, Connecticut State Auditor Greg Griffin, Georgia State Auditor April Renfro, Idaho Legislative Auditor Frank Mautino, Illinois Auditor General Matt Dunlap, Maine State Auditor Judy Randall, Minnesota Legislative Auditor Angus Maciver, Montana Legislative Auditor Daniel Crossman, Nevada Legislative Auditor David J. Kaschak, New Jersey State Auditor Tina Kim, New York Deputy Comptroller for State Government Accountability Beth A. Wood, North Carolina State Auditor Kip Memmott, Oregon Director of Audits Yesmin M. Valdivieso, Puerto Rico Comptroller of the Commonwealth David Bergantino, Rhode Island Interim Auditor General K. Earle Powell, South Carolina Director of Legislative Audit Council John Dougall, Utah State Auditor Pat McCarthy, Washington State Auditor #StateandLocalPerformanceAudit #AuditorIndependence #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateofIowa #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #NASACTPresidentJohnGeragosian #AuditWatch #NationalStateAuditorsAssociation #NSAA #NationalAssociationofStateAuditorsComptrollersandTreasurers #NASACT #IowaStateSenateFile478 #IowaAuditorofState #ProfessionalAuditingStandards #GovernmentOversight #GovernmentAccountability #StateandLocalGovernmentAccountability #IowaSenate

by Dr. Ellen Harpel, Founder of Smart Incentives and Randall Bauer, Director, PFM Group Consulting ​ Randall Bauer Ellen Harpel As management guru Peter Drucker said – and as has been repeated by many others over the years – “what gets measured gets managed.” In thinking about the issue of tax incentives offered by cities and states to attract and retain businesses, we think that a variation on Drucker’s maxim is equally true: “That which is managed can be more effectively measured.” And, in turn, better measurement generally leads to more effective use of tax dollars. ​ In our work at Smart Incentives and PFM Group Consulting we’re often called upon to advise economic development organizations and evaluate incentive programs. In these efforts, we have identified two key questions: How will the incentive be managed? What data is necessary to determine if it is working? ​ Considering the first question, it’s become clear to us that incentive program management is underappreciated but critical to their use For example, we’ve consistently found that incentives with a designated lead organization and key management elements, including application forms, review procedures, and required reporting, generate better data and yield better performance outcomes. Among the elements of good incentive program management are: Clear guidance to program users Appropriate applicant eligibility requirements Specific compliance procedures Accountability through public reporting. Putting these program management processes in place requires sufficient staffing – not an easy task in this day of workforce shortages -- as well as sufficient resources. But their value is clear as they create multiple points of accountability and open more windows for leaders to gain insights into how incentives are performing, both individually and collectively. The second question of course, goes beyond data lists. It is also necessary to create systems that collect, manage, and report data across the incentive portfolio. While many programs collect data, it often suffers from the ‘garbage in, garbage out’ syndrome. ‘Active management’ is necessary here as well, and data collection activities (and the actual data collected) should focus on several key strategic elements: ​ What data is necessary to determine performance related to the incentive’s policy goals? How will data be collected and integrated, and by whom? How will data be shared with other state/local agency partners and policymakers to enable an understanding of how well programs are performing? ​ Data. 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 typically comes from three sources: the incentive recipient, state administrative records, and other third-party data sources. ​ Procedures. What is the process for obtaining and managing data? How can the steps be implemented to ease the administrative burden for both companies and compliance staff? Good practices include outreach and training for recipients, so they know what they need to provide and when they need to provide it, developing procedure manuals for staff, providing reminders and guidelines for incentive recipients, and making it easy to submit data electronically. ​ Progress. 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. ​ Results. Compliance data is valuable for both internal and external use. Internally, mangers can see how well programs are performing and which programs are most effective at generating the outcomes the government cares about. Externally, organizations can be confident that they have good quality data that can be shared with elected officials, other policy leaders, and the public. Transparency and accountability. Aggregated information can be used to tell the story of how the economic development organization is utilizing incentives to support the location’s economic development priorities. This moves beyond spreadsheets and dashboards to communicate with a wider audience in a user-friendly, informative, and positive manner about how and why incentives are being used on the community’s behalf. ​ Ultimately, business incentives are an investment with an expected pay-off for state and local taxpayers. Many of the active management and data collection and analysis tools we cite are used by smart investors for their personal investment portfolios every day. It is worth keeping in mind that the whole reason that we are engaged in economic development is because we believe these activities are beneficial for our locations and our residents. Active program and information management allows agencies to make their case – and provide the data to back it up. The contents of this guest column reflect those of the authors and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentTaxIncentives #PublicSectorTaxIncentives #StateandLocalGovernmentData #PeterDrucker #WhatGetsMeasuredGetsManaged #SmartIncentives #PFMGroupConsulting #StateandLocalGovernmentEconomicDevelopment #EconomicDevelopment #PerformanceMeasurement #TaxIncentiveAccountability #ManagingTaxIncentives #GovernmentAccountability #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalWorkforceShortages #StateandLocalHumanResources #MeasuringTaxIncentivePerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentDataQuality #DataQuality #StateandLocalGovernmentTransparency #TaxIncentiveOutcomes #StateandLocalGovernmentPublicReporting #RandallBauer #EllenHarpel #BarrettandGreeneGuestColumn ​

On Tuesday evening, we got a phone call to tell us that Harry P. Hatry, the renowned, respected and remarkable leader in the world of #performancemanagement had died, at age 92, from complications that followed a case of pneumonia. That call came from his life partner, Carol Lee Rubin, who went on to tell us that Harry had asked that we write an obituary for him, when the time came. For years, Harry had been a supporter, colleague and mentor of ours, and so we were honored by the request. We followed through, and wrote a testimonial to Harry for Carol (which can be read in its entirety here.) Harry Hatry, a pioneer of great renown in the field of performance management died on February 20th from complications resulting from pneumonia. He was born on October 12, 1930, the son of May June Hatry and William August Hatry. His career spanned over 60 years, during which time he worked with a wide range of local state and federal agencies – internationally and nationally – to help provide them with the capacity to measure the success and failure of their efforts in such services as public safety, health, transportation, education, parks and recreation, social services, environmental protection, and economic development. Upon his graduation with a BS in engineering from Yale University, Hatry began working for a General Electric research facility in Santa Barbara. He also earned an MS from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business. He served for two years in the army at the White Sand Proving Grounds in New Mexico after which he became part of the then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s Whiz kids; a group which advised McNamara in his efforts to turn around the management of the Department of Defense in the 1960s. When the Urban Institute was created in 1968, Hatry became program director focusing on public management issues at local, state and federal levels, and continued to work with the Institute until a month before his death after a brief illness. In those early years, “when I spoke with people in states and localities all over the country, many hadn’t heard of the Institute, but they had heard of Harry Hatry,” recalled long-time colleague at the Urban Institute and friend Randall Bovbjerg, “He was self-effacing, intensely practical, highly collegial and was interested in a wide variety of subject areas.” Over his career he accumulated a number of honors and awards including the American Society for Public Administration’s “Outstanding Contributor to the Literature of Management Science and Policy Science” award in 1984; the Elmer B. Staats award for excellence in program evaluation in 1985; a National Public Service Award in 1993; and the “Evaluator of the Year” award from the Washington (D.C.) Evaluators Association in 1996. In 1999, the Center for Accountability and Performance of the American Society of Public Administration established the Harry Hatry Award for Distinguished Practice in Performance Management. Said the most recent recipient of that award, John Kamensky, another pioneer in performance management, “He was constantly working on new projects in a wide array of policy areas at the Urban Institute, flying across the country and around the world. Staff had a hard time keeping up with his pace – both in writing and in walking! New, young staff were awed, and sometimes terrified, of his constant questions and pressure to move faster.” In 1980, he became a fellow with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) where he contributed to a number of white papers and studies. “The National Academy of Public Administration is saddened to learn of Harry’s passing,” said NAPA’s executive director Terry Gerton. “He was an active Fellow for over 40 years, always willing to contribute his expertise to any project and especially supportive of our Standing Panels on the Intergovernmental System and Executive Organization and Management.  Our government is better because Harry cared so much about evaluating its performance.  We will miss his warm smile and his brilliant mind.” Others in the field of performance management joined in a chorus of plaudits for Hatry’s work, and his level-headed approach to a complex world. “He was a valuable and inspiring mentor to me,” said Kathryn Newcomer, professor at The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at The George Washington University. “For over thirty years I looked to him for guidance and practical advice. He was the Forrest Gump of performance measurement in our country - and was literally there when all key moments of importance to our field happened and he retold them to me - giving me an oral history that I treasure.” Recalled Don Moynihan, McCourt Chair of Public Policy at Georgetown University, “Harry was an exceptionally kind and modest person despite his outsize reputation. He was always encouraging and looking to learn from others. He will be deeply missed by those of us who cared about trying to make government work better.” Added Shelley Metzenbaum, an American nonprofit executive, academic, and former government official specializing in public sector performance management, “Harry called for increased attention to outcome measurement and management as early as the 1970’s and remained a prolific contributor to thinking and practice on this topic throughout his life, remarkably even into his 90s. We will miss Harry’s persistence and tenacity advancing good government.” Jay Fountain, another pioneer in performance management was a colleague of Hatry’s for about four decades. ”I have been fortunate to know and work with wonderful professional people all dedicated to making government more responsive to the citizens and effective in providing service, and Harry was in the forefront.” He leaves his beloved life partner of 35 years, Carol Lee Rubin, his sister Patricia Hatry, a great many family members, as well as a world of state, local and federal employees who will forever miss his counsel, wisdom and boundless energy. #HarryHatry #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #PerformanceManagement #PerformanceMeasurement #UrbanInstitute #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #NationalAcademyofPublicAdmnistration #AmericanSocietyForPublicAdministraton #JohnKamensky #TerryGerton #KathrynNewcomer #DonMoynihan #ShelleyMetzenbaum #JayFountain

By Eric S. Berman, MSA, CPA, CGMA and Dr. Bradford Rockabrand CPA, CIA, MBA, Partners, Eide Bailly, LLP Eric Berman Bradford Rockabrand Many of the articles written about the shortage of qualified workers in state and local government have missed an area that should be a concern to public sector leaders as well as taxpayers. I’m referring to the talent gap in fiscal offices nationwide. The reasons for this are many, but here are a few of the outstanding ones: The lack of consistent finance-focused public administration, governmental accounting, and governmental auditing instruction at institutions of higher education. As in other job functions, more people are retiring, or are eligible to retire, from the workforce than are entering the workforce. There are fewer graduates in accounting in general due to the perception of some students of a lack of work-life balance. Even as the public sector is raising pay levels for many positions, the same is true in the private sector and it’s seemingly impossible to catch up. As many say, problems have solutions, conditions do not. We believe this is a problem that can be solved, but it will not be easy and certainly, the solutions are not immediate fixes. Still, there are some steps that can be taken to address this issue. Here are four: Government Executives Need to Focus on Skills Not Credentials Yes, there are letters after names of many finance officers that refer to degrees and c redentials. But with declining enrollments in institutions of higher education and the changing needs of government, more attention must be paid to the skills those jobs require. We note that in some states, finance officers have specific requirements referencing degrees and credentials that may need to be updated for tomorrow’s skills. Government must become data-driven to make better decisions. To do so, it is important to recognize that the youngest members of the workforce are digital natives and may have the necessary capacity but not the degrees. As a result, it is time to bridge the gap between the exiting workforce and those who thrive on data and technology. Exhibit number 1. On January 18, Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania eliminated the requirement of a four-year degree for 92% of state government jobs. Executives who are hiring need to look for talent in high schools, community colleges and other nontraditional places where skills are plentiful. In addition, governments, like much of the working world, do a very poor job of succession planning. In a recent review of a well-known government human resources recruiting website, many of the postings were for retiring finance professionals. Only one of the 23 positions indicated “Finance Director in waiting”. As a result, too little time is spent mentoring those who do choose a government job. New hires are left to their own devices once a leader departs and often suffer a similar fate, thereby perpetuating this systemic issue. Expand Opportunities for Additional Knowledge Instead of requiring people to use for-pay institutions to gain necessary information, why not expand on-site or on-line, on-demand professional development, or assistance in receiving additional skills? How about other important benefits such as stress management? On-site daycare and fitness centers would also be beneficial. It is inexpensive to survey your employees and potential employees as to what they desire and then prioritize based on available funds. Create Partnerships with Nontraditional Sources of Employees. If governments need to hire based on skills, then look where the skills are. They may not be at four-year (or more) institutions. As introduced, high schools could be a source at least to get students interested in public service. Community colleges, technical schools, returning veterans, retirees, homemakers all could be sources of skilled labor. State governments could also work with public institutions to refine curriculums for this reality of converting to skills assessment, rather than teaching for exams. Create Incentives to Stay in Public Service Some governments such as the City of Boston have long had a residency requirement for city workers. However, most public sector (and private sector) positions could not afford to live within the city due to high housing costs. The city and the public school system have temporarily lifted those requirements while negotiations are ongoing with trade unions. With scarcity of new hires, why not make those changes permanent? Further, even for cities that do not have residency requirements of any kind (and those restrictions have been falling by the wayside in recent years) why not subsidize transit for all workers, assuming the worker does not work remotely? Ridership would increase, congestion would decrease, and workers would return to offices that may be partially vacant, benefitting local businesses. These and many other ideas are just the start of a conversation. None are the holy grail. But we have to start somewhere. We hear the same issues in nearly every government executive we talk to. Maybe it is time to solve the problems. The contents of this guest column reflect those of the authors and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc

Public sector human services professionals tend to go into their field to spend time with lower-income families who are in need of benefits and services. And yet, many of those hours are often siphoned off to performing administrative tasks. This has been a source of intense frustration, but here’s the good news: The future may be different. In late 2022, we spoke with dozens of professionals in many different government fields in order to write about the future of government jobs. One of the conversations that gave us a sense of optimism about the potential for an altered future in human services was with Justin Brown, the Secretary of Human Services in Oklahoma. His team has begun to successfully automate some of the administrative transaction-oriented tasks, and as a result, Brown sees the Oklahoma Human Services moving to “build better relationships with the people we serve. . . We can redirect an employee’s time to actually being the social worker that they came to the agency to be,” he told us. “We want to meet families before they become in crisis,” says Brown, who was the human services agency director until August 2022 and continues to serve in the governor’s cabinet as Oklahoma’s Secretary of Human Services. “This is all about repositioning our workforce to move earlier to intervene in a family’s life, so they never fall into a level of crisis.” Some of the ideas taking root in Oklahoma that we think can be of use in other states: Departing from centralized government buildings. Oklahoma Human Services had already committed to remote work prior to the pandemic, but Covid accelerated this movement. Currently, most of its job postings note that an applicant needs to be willing to work remotely. In human services, remote work can mean something different than in many other state agencies. It often doesn’t mean working at home -- though that is the case for some jobs like call center functions. For Oklahoma’s workforce, the concept of remote work alleviates the necessity of people reporting to a central office, instead becoming embedded around the state in hundreds of locations, with memoranda of understanding that spell out confidentiality and other requirements, and the time and days that a worker will be present in places like homeless shelters, schools, law enforcement offices, hospitals and mental health centers. That way, “providers can meet people before they come into crisis and offer interventions and resources at an earlier stage,” says Brown. One major advantage in the schools is that these placements support proper role alignment. “If we can put social workers in the schools, we can realign our guidance counselors to be counselors and our teachers to be teachers,” says Brown. “So, we’re investing in that process as well.” What’s more, the movement away from central government offices is also having a markedly positive effect on rural Oklahoma – providing jobs and creating a newly expanded potential workforce. “Because of technology, we have an opportunity to embrace a much bigger, broader workforce in government,” he says. Before, to be in a leadership position, a person needed to work in Oklahoma City where the central human services building was just hundreds of yards away from the State Capitol, he says. Now, “we have more high- level leadership outside of Oklahoma City than ever before. I think this is a real opportunity for rural America. It could be an absolute rebirth.” Creating beneficial relationships. “I think we could see a day in the hopefully not too distant future, when a social worker for a government agency and a social worker for a hospital do very similar things,” says Brown, “In that way, statewide, anybody that’s in social work could be equipped to help somebody in whatever they need. “If somebody in need goes into a hospital and they have a poverty issue, that social worker in the hospital should be equipped to help them solve their problem instead of just having to say, ‘You need to go to DHS.’ I think public-private partnerships are a tremendous opportunity.” Brown points to the importance of cross-training workers so they can provide assistance that addresses a number of areas. “When you engage with an Oklahoma Human Services embedded worker that person isn’t just looking to answer SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) questions for you, they’re aware of Medicaid and housing vouchers and what’s available in the community that’s not just a government resource. “It takes relationships with organizations,” he says. “And we’re building those deeply. When we embed workers, the cultures between government and the nonprofit sector start to blur and come together and I think that is extremely helpful in the long term.” Emphasizing customer service. “We’re building a world class customer experience,” says Brown, “and that requires us to have people who are trained in customer service when they greet you.” As he envisions a client’s arrival at a community office, there won’t be someone on the other side of plexiglass to greet them, but a helpful individual who can welcome them as they enter and inquire as to their needs. Taking good care of the workforce. Improving the way human services are delivered depends on employees and Brown appreciates that. “These people are completely committed to our community. For the vast majority, this is not just a job or a paycheck. If it was, you’d probably take your skills elsewhere.” But if people don’t get the good feelings they deserve from their work, initial motivations can quickly dissipate in a sea of governmental fog. As a result, in Oklahoma’s human services world, managers pay attention as much as they can to an employee’s interests. “We’ve made sure to try to align the passions of the employee and the passions of the partner and location,” Brown says. Attention to training and to employee mental health has also accelerated, with a doubling of employee assistance program visits, group counseling sessions and a new app that provides a counselor for someone to talk with on a 24/7 basis. There’s evidence that this is working: In the last three years, Brown says the turnover rate has dropped nearly 17%, moving in the opposite direction from many government agencies, which are seeing turnover increase. This is just one of many ways Browns’ efforts appear to be bearing fruit. While there’s are no one-size-fits-all solutions to the issues of government, in human services or elsewhere, other states can learn some of these lessons from Oklahoma, tailor them to their own needs, and likely see the benefits accrue. #BarrettandGreene #FeaturedArticle #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalPerrformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #StateHumanServices #StateandLocalGovernmentTurnover #StateandLocalGovernmentCustomerService #OklahomaHumanServices #StateofOklahoma #HumanServicesSecretaryJustinBrrown #StateGovernmentWorkforce #StateGovernmentEmployeeTraining #HumanServicesPartnerships #GovernmentEmployeeMentalHealth #EmployeeAssistancePrograms #PublicPrivatePartnership #StateandLocalGovernmentData #FutureofGovernmentJobs #GovernmentAutomationBenefits #KatherineBarrett #RichardGreene #RuralRebirth #HumanServicesRelationships

By Elizabeth Linos, Emma Bloomberg Associate Professor of Public Policy and Management, Harvard Kennedy School and Faculty Director, The People Lab. ​ ​ The crises of the past few years have brought with them a rallying cry for more evidence in government; a call to “follow the science” and “lead with data.” And governments have responded. Public sector leaders from local governments all the way to the White House have celebrated the use of evidence in practice, and many are building the infrastructure to infuse data into day-to-day operations. For those of us who sit at the intersection of research and policy, this has been a noticeable shift. Evidence – rigorous, nuanced, and policy-relevant evidence – is not being produced in ivory towers alone but also in federal agencies, through community-led efforts, and across cities and states. ​ But as researchers and practitioners continue to collaborate to produce evidence on the most critical public sector challenges, it’s time to ask: What happens next? How do we go from documenting “best practice” to adoption of evidence? If we want evidence-based policymaking to meet its promise, we have to move beyond one-off demonstration projects to transformational use of evidence at scale. My work with Stefano DellaVigna and Woojin Kim has begun to document the size of this challenge in cities across the US. Between 2015 and 2019, over 70 city departments conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) – the gold standard of evaluation – in collaboration with the Behavioral Insights Team. These projects tackled a range of pressing challenges ranging from how to diversify the police to how to improve code enforcement. In many ways, these pilot projects were perfectly poised to make evidence adoption easy. First, the trials produced evidence on what works in the relevant government department. Almost 80% of trials identified a strategy with a positive impact, and almost half had both statistically significant and positive findings. Second, departments were testing low-cost interventions that had already received political, communications, and legal approval as part of the pilot project itself. So the types of innovations being tested were, at the very last, feasible at scale. Third, the cohort of cities that were doing this work were part of What Works Cities – a groundbreaking initiative that brought together cities that were already committed to using data and evidence to improve public policy. ​ Still, when we followed up five years later to see which of these best practices had been adopted, we found that less than a third of trial results were adopted by the very department that conducted the trial, beyond the timeline of the original pilot. The most surprising finding? The strength of the evidence did not matter. Put differently, the decision of whether to move forward or not after the end of a pilot program was not based on evidence-based information. ​ Despite this major investment in producing rigorous evidence, and truly committed public sector leaders, the single most important factor in predicting a department’s adoption of a new strategy was whether the tested strategy was a tweak to a pre-existing process, or an entirely new process developed for the specific innovation. Some 67% of strategies built into pre-existing processes were adopted, compared to just 12% of strategies based on new innovations. If we’re not seeing evidence adoption at scale, it seems organizational inertia may be the culprit. ​ The good news? Behavioral scientists know a lot about how to combat inertia. If we start thinking about the process of evidence adoption as a series of individual micro-hurdles – in the same way we think about how to get people to go to the gym, or to show up on election day – the challenge of evidence adoption becomes a manageable one. ​ My hope for 2023 is to see more evidence on how to overcome these hurdles using what we know about how humans actually behave. How do you make sure a busy public sector leader sees and understands the science? How do we make sure scientists are asking questions that a government has asked or providing evidence on the outcomes that matter most? How do we bring in the communities most affected into defining success metrics? And ultimately, how do we streamline these processes so that using the evidence becomes the default and not the exception? ​ We don’t have the answers yet but addressing these bottlenecks for evidence adoption requires the same level of data-driven attention we give to creating the evidence in the first place. Without this final step, all the effort and resources devoted to evidence-based policy making will miss their full potential. The contents of this guest column reflect those of the author and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc. #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformancManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #EvidenceBasedDecisionMaking #EvidenceBasedPolicyMaking #DisappointingUseofEvidenceBasedPolicy #ElizabethLinos #PuttingProgramEvidenceIntoPractice #RandomizedControlTrials #RCTs #EvidenceBasedDecisionMakingShortcomings #PoorPilotAdoption #StateandLocalGovernmentInnovation #InnovationInertia #BehavioralInsightsTeam #StefanoDellaVigna #WoojinKim #StateandLocalEvidenceAdoption #DataBasedDecisionMaking #WhatWorksCities

Cities, counties and states from coast to coast are cultivating efforts to create a more diverse workforce – one that mirrors the communities which they serve in terms of race, ethnicity and gender. Among the efforts they’re embarking upon include trying to identify and reduce implicit racism among the people who are doing the hiring; cultivating public-facing images and messaging to emphasize how diversity is a priority in their workplaces; strengthening pipelines to communities that haven’t traditionally been well represented in their agencies; and even reaching into high schools and middle schools to expand their pool of potential employees. This is critically important. As we reported in Route Fifty, according to data from a MissionSquare Research Institute survey, in 2021 only 38% of the cities responding found their workforce to be reflective of the community when it came to race and ethnicity. Though 56% of cities surveyed by MissionSquare in another report indicated that diversity, equity and inclusion are a top or high priority, only “42% have a formal program in place,” according to Gerald Young, the senior research analyst there, although more may have an informal program. Last month, we spoke with Linda Misegadis, Senior Government Strategist for UKG about just this issue. The first in that series, which you can watch here, covers topics including questions of explicit versus implicit racism; ways to avoid implicit racism, which can make it difficult to expand the workforce in an equitable fashion; efforts to put forward an image of a city that appears welcoming to people of all races, ethnicities and genders; and developing a pipeline for people who have not traditionally found jobs in government to do so now. ​ Take a look. And if you enjoy it, don't wait, as next week this will be replaced with the second in this series of interviews. #StateandLocalGovernment #StateandLocalEmployeeDiversity #Equity #Inclusion #MissionSquareResearchInstitute #RouteFifty #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #StateandLocalGovernmentEquity #PublicSectorEmployeeDiversity #ImplicitRacism #ExplicitRacism #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentWorkforce #LindaMisegadis #UKG #BarrettandGreene #BarrettandGreeneInterview #CityGovernmentEmployeeDiversity #EmployeeDiversity #PublicSectorHumanResources #EmployeeDiversityData

[Photo: Oregon Governor Tina Kotek] Generally, gubernatorial executive orders get scanty press attention. But we’ve found they’re one of the best ways to scope out both management and policy priorities before any new legislation winds its way through legislatures. They’re particularly interesting for the nine new governors as these just-after-oath-of-office actions show what’s top of the mind as their four-year stint in charge begins. By January 25, the new governors had already produced 31 executive orders. The median number is 2.5, with the record holder for executive order production found in Arkansas, where new Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who took office on January 10, had already signed 14 by January 25. Some of the issues that these new governors grabbed onto reflect both campaign promises and issues dear to them, their own background, current controversies, and headline-grabbing national problems. The choices often reflect their political party’s policy dreams and priorities, as well as their approach to governing. On her second day in office, Oregon’s new leader, Gov. Tina Kotek signed three executive orders, all focused on escalating homelessness. The most comprehensive order declared homelessness in Oregon an emergency that requires emergency actions (for example the suspension of some procurement rules). It repurposes $40 million to deal with the problem and focuses attention on a number of regions in the state, including the Portland metro area. Two other orders direct the state’s agencies to prioritize ending homelessness and sets an “annual housing production” goal of 36,000 homes. The creation of both new governmental offices and commissions are always an executive order staple and the batch emanating from the new governors is no exception. Massachusetts’s Gov. Maura Healey’s initial focus has been on climate change, with an executive order , signed on her second day in office, January 6, to create the Office of Climate Innovation and Resilience to be housed in the Governor’s office. Other newly created entities include Maryland Gov. Wes Moore’s new Department of Service and Civic Innovation ; Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s creation of the Office of Broadband Coordinator, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobb’s creation of an independent prison oversight commission , and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s order creating the Pennsylvania Office of Transformation and Opportunity , with a mission to “facilitate the implementation of transformational economic development projects.” Multiple advisory councils and task forces were also set up. In line with her focus on homelessness, Gov. Kotek established the Governor’s Housing Advisory Council and Gov. Healey created a working group to assess the potential for creating a Housing Secretariat ; Gov. Sanders created an advisory council to advise her on outdoor recreation and Arkansas’s “outdoor economy” ; Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs created and/or reinstated three advisory bodies on homelessness and housing , elections , and water policy . The gubernatorial pen that has used the most ink belongs to Arkansas Gov, Sanders, who signed seven executive orders on her first day in office, January 10. These included an immediate hiring and promotion freeze , several orders aimed at reducing government rules , regulations and wasteful spending, one prohibiting indoctrination and critical race theory in schools , and one eliminating the word “Latinx,” “latinx,” “Latinxs,” or “latinxs” from official use in government A week later, she repealed a variety of Covid related executive orders, an action also taken by Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo , who also directed his Department of Administration to review the state’s hiring, retention and promotional rules and to work with executive branch agencies to move the workforce to “pre-pandemic, normal and customary office conditions by July 1, 2023.” The public sector workforce, currently plagued by a shortage of applicants in multiple states, also received attention, with an order from Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to downplay the importance of college degrees , saying that Pennsylvania job postings would “lead with experience needed rather than degree requirements”. Gov. Hobbs first executive order focused on eliminating barriers to employment and combatting job discrimination , while Gov. Moore signed one creating guidelines for professional and ethical behavior, while also promoting respect for employees and the prevention of discrimination. To check out what’s happened this January in other states, you’ll find an interactive map on this website that provides links to the governor’s executive orders. Also, for more on the demographic shift that’s taken place with the new governors, see our blog post from January 5. #NewGovs #NewGovernor #BarrettandGreene #FeaturedArticle

As the federal government hands out money to states and localities for broadband services (and other infrastructure as well), one question has been in the back of our minds: How well are the feds measuring the performance of these investments. We got a partial answer earlier today, with the release of a Government Accountability Office report, that makes it clear that the answer is sometimes “not well enough.” The report focused on the work of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which manages two grant programs that work to expand broadband access. As of September 2022, it had announced about $1 billion worth of grants awarded. But, reported the GAO, both of the programs fall short of the basic standards for good performance measurement. For example, the NTIA set a goal for its Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) to extend affordable broadband to 200,000 households, but the performance goal and measures “do not reflect the primary function of the program, funding broadband use and adoption projects.” To our minds, this is a critical shortcoming. It’s not very useful to create goals and measures that aren’t pertinent to the central functions of any program. This is kind of like an archer who keeps aiming for the bullseye – but isn’t looking at the right target in the first place. The archer may feel good about himself, but he’s never going to win a competition. Moreover, the report pointed out that NTIA's goals for both the TBCP and the larger Broadband Infrastructure Program, included terms such as “reliable” and “affordable” that are not defined and therefore are not fully quantifiable. Wrote the GAO, “NTIA officials said that the agency was still developing goals and measures. Without comprehensive goals and measures, NTIA will be unable to track its progress.” This sounds very familiar to us. Over the course of time, we’ve heard repeated complaints – often in performance audits – that terms being measured are not well defined, and as a result, the measurements may have minimal value. To be fair, the GAO had some positive things to say, as well, about performance measurements and the NTIA grants. Notably, for both grant programs, “The performance goal and measure reflect what is to be observed without significant bias or manipulation.” Given the large amounts of money being delivered here, there could easily be a temptation to stack the deck, and the assurance that hasn’t happened is good news indeed. #NewGAOReport #Broadband #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #NTIA #GovernmentAccountabilityOffice #BroadbandUse #StateandLocalPerformance #PerformanceAudit #StateandLocalPerformanceAudit #NationalTelecommunicationsandInformationAdministration #IntergovernmentalRelations #PerformanceMeasurement