Search Results

By Joshua Avila, MPA, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, City of Providence, Office of Mayor Jorge O. Elorza ​I joined the City of Providence in the fall of 2019 as a Mayoral Fellow, optimistic and eager to advance a career in public administration. That initial optimism and enthusiasm quickly transitioned, however, into uncertainty and anxiety as the world drastically changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ​ What would we do? How would we serve our constituents during a once-in-a-generation crisis that had a direct impact on all the residents of Providence and, indeed, the entire United States? How would we lead the city into the future, when there was no certainty as to what that future would hold and forecasts were riddled with doubt? ​ We finally breathed a sigh of relief when President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) into law almost exactly one year from the day the country shut down in response to the pandemic. Under ARPA, the City of Providence would receive $166 million in city and county funds that needed to be allocated within three years. But how would that money be spent? The biggest lesson we learned in Providence was that we needed to involve our residents in that decision-making process. Here’s the story of how that came to pass. ​ The City's initial round of funding, a total allocation of $43 million, was announced on July 16, 2021. The uses to which this first infusion of cash would be targeted involved a a multi-step process: department directors established lists of high-priority projects, the mayor's office and Providence city council created a list of high-priority projects, and all projects were reviewed through two public meetings: a City Council Finance Committee meeting and an open meeting as part of the City Council budget hearing process. The proposal was transformed into an ordinance, passed by the City Council, and signed into law by Mayor Elorza. As projects from the initial allocation moved forward, discussion soon turned to the remaining ARPA dollars. As efforts to allocate the remaining funds began, our team recognized the importance of emphasizing the need to serve rather than steer the public, a notion that was well-explained by Janet and Robert Denhardt in their 2014 book "The New Public Service: Serving Not Steering". To best serve the public, we needed to engage and listen to our constituents - how did they think the city should allocate the rest of the ARPA dollars to better serve their communities and families? ​ We established the Providence COVID-19 Recovery and Resiliency Task Force. Fourteen community leaders and advocates comprised the Task Force, which began meeting in July 2021. Their missions were to "balance a long and short term equitable and impactful deployment of stimulus relief funds in the City of Providence" as well as to "provide guidance and make recommendations to the city government" about the use of the $166 million received by Providence as part of the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF). ​ All of the Task Force meetings were open to the public to ensure transparency and accountability, critical elements of governance. The Task Force ultimately completed their report in November 2021, which was submitted to both the Mayor and City Council and included the Task Force’s recommendations on how to best allocate the remaining ARPA funding. The Elorza Administration utilized these recommendations to structure the allocation proposal for the remaining $123,769,438, with an emphasis on equity and resiliency in all funding categories. ​ In addition to establishing the Task Force, the City of Providence hosted five Community Conversations with partner organizations that attracted 285 participants, two Business Roundtables that attracted 64 attendees, and an additional 88 submitted proposals from the community. The Elorza Administration also created and widely shared a public feedback survey that the public could access in eight languages, which asked how survey respondents thought the City should allocate the remaining ARPA dollars. The survey categories fit into the following four buckets: ​ Youth and Education (Youth and Community Investments) Inclusive and Thriving Communities (Arts, Culture, and Tourism, Racial Equity, Sustainability, Housing and Homelessness) Jobs and Economic Opportunity (Business and Economic Development) A City That Works (City Services and Infrastructure) ​ The survey initially garnered around 500 responses, but after analyzing the data, our team recognized that responses were highly concentrated in some areas of the city and were not representative of our city's actual demographics. To make the data sample more representative and ensure an equitable process and outcome, the city launched a targeted outreach effort of door-knocking in the ZIP codes that were hit hardest by COVID-19 and provided $25 gift cards to individuals in these areas to incentivize participation. With these efforts, the total number of respondents rose to 1,111. ​ The City of Providence rose to the challenge and met the moment of serving the community by listening to it. My colleagues expressed compassion and were guided by a sense of determination that empowered them to not just be public servants, but community advocates pushing for equity, transparency, and accountability in municipal government. ​ The contents of this guest column reflect those of the author, and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc. #PerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernment #PublicSectorWorkforce #CityLeadership #StateandLocalGovernmentLeadership #StateofRhodeIsland #CityofProvidence #CityofProvidenceARPASpending #ARPA #ARPAFunding #PublicInput #Equity #LocalUseofARPAFunding #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #JoshuaAvila #Equity #FederalGrants #ResidentInput #CitizenInput #JanetandRobertDenhardt #ProvidenceRecoveryandResiliencyTaskForce #PublicSectorTransparency #CityGovernmentTransparency #GovernmentAccountability #ARPAandEquity #CitizenSurveys #CommunityOutreach #AmericanRescuePlanAct ​

​ By Doug Criscitello, Managing Director, Grant Thornton Public Sector Trust, perhaps the most important ingredient to a well-functioning society, is in very short supply these days. As the Pew Research Center regularly reports, trust in the U.S. government has generally been on a downward trajectory for decades. As pointed out in a recent survey conducted by the Partnership for Public Service, we now find ourselves at a point where a majority of Americans do not trust the government to do what is right—even some of the time. Clearly, something’s gotta give. ​ In an everyday setting, we tend to think of trust as something that comes from telling the truth, doing what you say you will do, and just trying to act fairly. While those qualities are sufficient to generate trust among individuals, the public has, perhaps unrealistically, held their elected officials to the same standard. But candidates for public office tend to propose grand solutions to societal problems without much regard for what can be accomplished practically. That tendency to over promise and under deliver leads, not surprisingly, to a diminution of trust among the very people politicians seek to impress. ​ Some degree of suspicion of government is healthy; blind faith is surely not a precondition for being a patriotic citizen. But we may be approaching a tipping point where the level of distrust is so severe it hinders our ability to operate productively. Under the American model, a compact of mutual trust between citizens and government is essential for a well-functioning and free society. Trust forms when trustworthiness is joined with competence. To be sure, falling trust levels is a phenomenon occurring not just in the U.S., but in countries around the world. The probable causes are consistent with concerns that have been expressed here in the U.S.—that government is viewed as dishonest and corrupt and primarily concerned with serving the powerful rather than the vast majority of citizens. A perceived diminishment of economic prospects along with building pressure to address issues such as the COVID pandemic, war/terrorism, large-scale migrations, and climate change have heightened citizen anxieties and distrust. Exacerbating this phenomenon are divergent levels of trust in key institutions between the mass population and individuals considered “informed” (i.e., college-educated, high income, significant consumers of public policy and business news). ​ Are we doomed, as a society to a future in which trust in government becomes an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp,” or “old news”? I’d argue that’s not necessarily the case, and that there’s good reason to hope that the movement toward data-informed government may make an enormous difference. ​ We find ourselves in the enviable position of living in a time of rapidly advancing technological progress that can help enable trust-building solutions. Governments can dismiss old ways of thinking and find ways to engage the public using approaches that involve innovation, technology, science, and inclusiveness. ​ The digitization of many facets of government has resulted in a data explosion across agencies at all levels of government. That data, however, needs to be synthesized into actionable information to satisfy the growing demands of taxpayers for better results and greater transparency. Recent advances, such as the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, improve public accessibility of data and encourages the development of learning agendas and program evaluation activities. Moves toward leveraging data and analytics to engage the public and to improve government efficiency, effectiveness and accountability appear to be gaining real momentum. ​ The development of web-based applications providing citizens with direct access to government data (e.g., USAspending.gov, data.gov, dataUSA.io, USAfacts.org) have significantly enhanced transparency and accountability by answering the “what, where and when” questions involving government operations and expenditures. ​ The “why and how well” questions are more complex. Transparency has its benefits, but government data frequently require sophisticated analysis to yield clear insights. While those applications open up portions of the government’s vast data vault, we need to be thinking about ways to push out actionable information to the public rather than expecting them to gain deep insights by wandering around the vault. There’s a big difference between data transparency and useful information. We need to push more, pull less. ​ How might governments deliver more information – or at least make it readily available in a useful form – instead of just having it available for folks who have the time and energy to seek it out? Examples of using technology to push information to citizens abound here in the U.S., particularly at the local levels of government. Cities are increasingly delivering on the promise of using data to enable better services, smarter use of tax dollars, and civic engagement. Many illuminating examples are highlighted by organizations such as Bloomberg Philanthropies’ What Works Cities and Results for America. ​ A modern approach to governing leverages technology and data to drive iterative, customer-focused engagement that builds trust. While there’s no magical solution to accomplish that goal overnight, the government must view itself as playing a translational role in data analytics, to the point where focus is consistently placed on converting data into engaging, informative, and understandable information. In terms of conveying that info to the public, now is a good time to be pushy. ​ The contents of this guest column reflect those of the author, and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc. ​ #StateandLocalGovernment #TrustInGovernment #PerformanceMeasurement #PublicSectorTransparency #PublicSectorLeadership #PerformanceManagement #GovernmentData #OpenData #DigitalGovernment #CityandCountyManagement #PublicSectorData #DougCriscitello #GrantThorntonPublicSector #DecliningGovernmentTrust #PublicSectorDataUse #PublicSectorDataManagement #EvidenceBasedPolicymaking #PublicSectorDataAccessibility #GovernmentEfficiencyandEffectiveness #GovernmentTransparency #PublicPathwaysforActionableInformation #OpenData #WhatWorksCities #ResultsforAmerica #PewResearchCenter #PartnershipforPublicService #BloombergPhilanthropies #StateandLocalGovernmentDataManagement

Typically, when people think about efforts to help deal with the byproducts of global warming, they focus on the power of federal governments. But there’s an important contribution to be made by cities. It’s highlighted in a special report, released on May 4th, from the Trust for Public Land, titled “The Power of Parks to Address Climate Change.” As the report states, “Park acres, it turns out, are very good at buffering the effects of climate change. Green space has the power to lower air temperature and absorb floodwater, and can be designed in such a way as to significantly enhance those climate benefits.” Are the nation’s cities taking advantage of these opportunities? The answer is a resounding yes. According to the Trust, “Across the United States . . . many cities are starting to implement new policies to deal with climate change. In addition to setting ambitious goals for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, a number of cities are establishing flood prevention requirements, urban tree canopy goals, natural-area management blueprints, and park master plans that prioritize climate resilience.” The Trust for Public Land (TPL) asked parks departments in the 100 most populous cities precisely what they’re doing to deal with climate change. Some of the major findings, described in the report: • “Eighty-five percent of cities are adapting parks and recreation facilities to address climate change.” • “Seventy-seven percent are enlisting parks to counter urban heat.” • “Sixty-seven percent are improving surfaces to reduce flooding and runoff from rains.” • “Twenty percent are managing parks and woodlands to sequester carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.” #CityParks #ClimateChange #CityParksandClimateChange #CityParksandGlobalWarming #TrustforPublicLand #UrbanHeat #GreenhouseGas #CityGreenSpace #Parks #CityGovernmentPerformanceManagement #CityParkInnovation #PublicSectorinnovation #MunicipalActionsforClimateChange #MunicipalClimateChangeAction #CityGovernmentActionsforClimateChange #CityGovernmentInnovation #StateandLocalGovernment #CityandCountyManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceManagement

On May 3rd, The Trust for Public Land (TPS) released its annual ParkScore rankings of parks in the 100 most populous cities, based on five factors: Equity, Access, Acreage, Investment and Amenities. The five cities that scored highest in this ranking were Washington D.C.; St. Paul, Minnesota; Arlington, Virginia; Cincinnati, Ohio and Minneapolis, Minnesota. "Washington, DC, was rated the best big city park system in the country for the second consecutive year," according to TPS. "The city scored well on all ParkScore rating factors. Twenty-four percent of land in the District of Columbia is reserved for parks, among the highest in the United States. "The District also outperformed on ParkScore’s park access and park equity metrics. Washington, DC, neighborhoods where a majority of residents identify as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American, or Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are equally likely to live within a 10-minute walk of a park as neighborhoods where a majority of residents are white. Park space per capita is also distributed nearly equally in Washington, DC." That's the good news. But for many of the cities examined by TPL, equity is an issue for parks. In fact, "neighborhoods where most residents identify as people of color have access to an average of 43 percent less park space than predominately white neighborhoods," reported TPL. We grew particularly interested in city parks when we wrote a column for Route Fifty a little over a year ago about the budgetary woes of the nation’s parks, in which we said that “many have been grappling with sometimes extreme budgetary problems.” Yet, despite the potential for helping society in a number of ways, including combatting climate change (see our next B&G Report) the Trust wrote that “Park spending was virtually unchanged among ParkScore cities this year and investment remains insufficient to maintain existing parks or meaningfully increase park access. “In response to city funding crises during the COVID pandemic, many park systems stretched their budgets by deferring regular maintenance and leaving damaged park infrastructure in place, rather than providing needed replacements. The 46 ParkScore cities that shared detailed budget information with Trust for Public Land accumulated an estimated $8.5 billion in deferred maintenance costs – about double their total annual spending.” #TrustforPublicLand #CityParkScoreRankings #CityPark #Equity #WashingtonDCParks #MinneapolisandStPaulParks #ArlingtonVirginiaParks #CincinnatiParks #CityParkEquity #CityParkAccess #CityParkAcreage #CityParkInvestment #CityParkAmenities #RouteFifty #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceManagement #PerformanceManagement #DeferredMaintenance #CityDeferredMaintenance

We’ve been spending our day watching the Association of Local Government Auditors Annual Conference online. We wish we could be there in person – as ALGA’s membership represents one of the best group of sources for our work in state and local government. The session that’s ended about ten minutes ago was titled, “The Role of Internal Audit in Municipal Government.” The panel, made up of four city managers from Texas, focused largely on ways the audit community can get along productively with the agencies being audited. The session was elegantly moderated by Chris Horton, County Auditor for Arlington County, Virginia and president of ALGA. Here were a few of the comments that we found particularly interesting. “In the City of Garland," said Bryan Bradford, city manager of Garland Texas, "if you are a department manager and you request an audit, you get kind of a Get Out of Jail Free Card in the fact that you get credit for the fact that you initiated the audit and you knew there was a problem. And you had the wherewithal to ask the auditor to come in and help diagnose that.” When TC Broadnax, city manager of Dallas first came into office about five years ago, only about forty percent of the audit recommendations were implemented. So, as he reported in the panel discussion, “We began a process under my new chief financial officer and myself and our team and actually assembled a group of five to six people who worked side by side with departments to hep them through the auditing process and work with the internal auditor, (Mark Swann), to understand better how to talk through issues. . . “And we’ve gone from the low 40s up to close to 90 percent of our audited recommendations being implemented because, again, of the collaborative nature.” David Cooke, City Manager Fort Worth Texas: “I think that auditors . . . struggle sometimes with translating some of our recommendations into the fiscal impact,” they have on agencies. Cooke made the point that taking note of both the financial and non-financial ramifications of audit recommendations can be very useful to all concerned. Trey Yelverton, City Manager, Arlington Texas addressed himself to one of the fundamental lessons his city learned from the pandemic. We thought his comment was a powerful one for auditors to keep in mind when unprecedented events occur: “We counted on people doing what was in the best interest of the public, what was in the best interest of providing a service regardless of what was in our rule and regulations," he said. "And so, to me, I hope what we've learned is that you don’t need a rulebook for everything if people keep in mind why we’re all here and that’s to provide service to the public.” #StateandLocalGovernment #PerformanceAudit #CityofGarlandTexas #CityofDallas #CityofFortWorth #CityofArlingtonTexas #CityofArlingtonVirginia #CityManagers #ALGA #AssociationofLocalGovernmentAuditors #ALGAAnuualConference2022 #AuditorAgencyRelations #StateofTexas #AuditRecommendationImplementation #CityManagerTCBroadnax #CityManagerDavidCooke #CityManagerTreyYelverton #TexasCityManagers #TexasCityManagerAuditDiscussion #ImprovingAuditAgencyRelations #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceAudit #CityGovernmentPerformanceAudit

Two of the most-repeated aphorisms pertaining to performance management have long been “What Gets Measured Gets Managed,” or, optionally, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” We’ve always liked these ideas, even though some smart people have pointed out flaws in these general principals. (And by the way, they are often attributed to management guru Peter Drucker, who never said either one.) But as years have passed, we’ve become increasingly aware of another iteration of these phrases: “What gets measured, gets done.” This isn’t a particularly new notion. It’s been around for a while, but increasingly we see it replacing the old misattributed quote -- most recently as part of a slideshow presented by an expert in performance management in a symposium just a few days ago. We don’t want to pick fights with the people who have adopted this phrase, because there’s always some truth in anything. But we’d prefer to go back to the good old Managing for Results days of our work in this field and drop “What gets measured gets done,” in favor of “What gets measured gets managed”. We’d even take it a step further, if wordier, and say “If you want to get something done, it’s a good idea to measure it.” That’s certainly a weak-kneed cousin to the more emphatic phrase about which we’re complaining. But we’re convinced that the effort to encourage people to believe in the power of performance management is only damaged by overselling the case. If you take “What Gets Measured Gets Done,” literally, that would mean that the mere act of measurement leads to accomplishment. If only that were true, then there’d be no more murders. Society knows a great deal about those heinous acts, and there are loads of measurements about them. But murder rates have been rising over the last couple of years, and we don’t see improved use of measurement data as a panacea. And while we’re at it, we might as well take a jab at another phrase we don’t care for: “Performance-based budgeting.” Since nobody really bases budgets strictly on performance, we’ve long argued that it should be replaced with “performance-informed budgeting.” We’re not alone there, we know. As we pointed out in our book “The Promises and Pitfalls of Performance-Informed Management,” Phil Joyce, senior associate dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland “favors taking about performance-informed budgeting as opposed to performance-based budgeting. This better communicates the idea that the information that is gathered in performance management efforts can and should be used by budgeters and other decision makers including legislators. But it makes clear the fact that there is no actual formulaic connection among measures, evaluations, and budgets.” Words matter. Let’s use the right ones, not the most dramatic ones. #PerformanceManagment #PerformanceMeasurement #PerformanceBasedBudgeting #PerformanceInformedBudgeting #PhilJoyce #PeterDrucker #StateAndLocalGovernment #WhatGetsMeasuredGetsDone #WhatGetsMeasuredGetsManaged #PromisesandPitfallsofPerformanceInformedManagement #KatherineBarrettandRichardGreene #PublicSectorJargon #MisattributedQuotes #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #SchoolofPublicPolicyatUniversityofMaryland #ManagingforResults

In the current tough-to-hire environment, we’ve become increasingly aware of the importance of a strong entity-wide state government data infrastructure for recruiting and hiring in the public sector workforce. As we described in our column in Route Fifty last week, in the past, the leaders in Missouri weren't paying much attention to that notion. Fortunately, things have changed. Here's the story: Back in 2019, the state’s agencies, and even smaller units within those agencies, each approached hiring and recruiting in their own way. “When I started in July 2019, each department did their own thing. Some had online applications and some were on paper,” says Dawn Sweazea, Missouri’s Statewide Director of Recruitment. At the time, many of the participants of this decentralized system did not even track their hiring speed -- how long it took them to fill positions. Others used different definitions of “time to fill” that meant the resulting data was inconsistent and not useful for cross agency comparison. For example, some units considered the start of the hiring process when positions became vacant. Others started the clock when the posting was announced. As part of the transformation process, the central personnel office solicited input from 16 departments about the elements that needed to go into a single state application. A crucial step was agreeing on how the measurement of “Time to Fill” was defined. As Sweazea describes it, the shift to a single application system for the state was a “game changer.” It means “we can offer a consistent system to our candidates. I’m so thankful that we were able to put this in place before Covid,” she says. That consistent system greatly benefits state HR managers, who now have a single set of data that can be used to compare departments, which vary substantially in the amount of time it takes to fill positions. In 2021, for example, the Missouri Department of Revenue had the best "time to fill" of 35 days. That compares to departments at the other end of the spectrum, which averaged more than 100 days. As we pointed out in our Route Fifty column, with its consistent data set, Missouri has been able to begin whittling down the time it takes to fill positions, moving from a 65-day average for the state in 2020 to 58 days in 2021. Its current target is 45 days, one of the benchmark figures used by the Society for Human Resource Management. To get to that goal, state leaders are looking at the practices of departments that do better at hiring speed – for example by scheduling interviews throughout the process, and setting up texting with applicants. Missouri supplements the data it collects on its hiring process with applicant surveys. Through this ongoing contact, it learned about some technological bumps that occurred when a candidate’s interest in several state jobs led to multiple attachments to the single application. “The feedback was that multiple attachments were hard to do,” says Sweazea. “Our developers have looked at that to make sure the technology runs smoothly.” Missouri managers also learned the importance of letting applicants know what happened to their application. The central personnel division cannot compel agencies to send a final communication, but they recommend this as a best practice, and they have made it easier by automating responses that agencies can use for different circumstances. “People want to hear a final answer,” Says Sweazea. “We have built the technology to make that final email communications super easy.” #PublicSectorWorkforce #PublicSectorHumanResources #StateAndLocalGovernment #Hiring #TimeToHire #DataAnalysis #PublicSectorManagement #HumanResourceHiringData #PublicSectorHiringData #DawnSweazea #MissouriDivisionofPersonnel #ProblemsofDecentralizedData #InconsistentDefinitionsinthePublicSector #CentralizedStateGovernmentHiring #PublicSectorHiringSpeed #PublicSectorApplicantSurveys #CommunicationDuringtheHiringProcess #PublicSectorOutreachtoJobApplicants #StateandLocalGovernmentHiringData #StateofMissouri #StateGovernmentDataInfrastructure #RouteFifty #StateGovernmentDataDefinition #StateGovernmentHumanResources #StateGovernmentHiringSpeed #StateGovernmentHumanResourceCentralization #SocietyforHumanResourceManagement

Pools of new talent for state and local governments are in short supply. One state, which has come up with a significant new effort is Utah with its program called Return Utah. Launched a year ago, it is designed to welcome individuals who have taken a break from work, for a wide variety of reasons, back into the workforce. “State agencies, just like everyone else, are experiencing a labor shortage where they need qualified candidates to fill roles that run the gamut,” says ShayAnn Baker, Return Utah’s program manager. “This is another hiring pool to pull from, which is often overlooked and stigmatized.” Word of the success of this program has spread and states like Washington and New Mexico and several cities in Florida have recently started to explore emulating it. Baker, a former television reporter in Salt Lake City, knows about the stigma of withdrawing from the workforce from personal experience. Eight years ago, she left her TV job to stay at home with her new baby. Since then, she had two other children and acquired a wealth of experience that comes with child-rearing, school fund-raising, and organizing community events. But none of that showed up on her resume. ShayAnn Baker, program manager of Return Utah, with her children “I knew that getting back in the news industry would be almost impossible,” she says. “I wouldn’t have any recent professional experience and then I was terrified about my resume. How do I cover that eight-year gap when you’re taught that gaps are bad?” A year ago, Baker, who ultimately became manager of the program, was one of seven new workers who were part of the first cohort of the Return Utah pilot. Some of the new hires, like Baker, were employed on a temporary basis – in her case in the Department of Commerce. Others were put on the payroll with the “intent to hire” in a permanent spot. Like the other members of the pilot group, a regular job orientation period at her new agency was supplemented with 16-weeks of transitional coaching and assistance that included a technological refresher course, mentorships, and individual coaching to build her resume, establish a new network and build up her confidence. Why does a returner need something like this? Baker’s answer: “Well, because they are rusty and that rust creates a lack of confidence. When I had my interview, I thought ‘Are they even going to listen to me because yesterday I was covered in peanut butter.’” When Baker’s temporary job with Commerce ended, the Division of Human Resource Management offered her a full-time job as manager of the continuing Return Utah program. With 16 individuals, the second Return Utah cohort will be finishing its 16-week session in two weeks. It includes a handful of women who, like Baker, had left the workforce to stay home with their children, as well as two individuals who had been out of the country; two whose withdrawal from professional work had resulted from illness and three who had left work to pursue education. Nine of the returners are women and six are men. A new bunch of returners will join the program in May. Baker says that Return Utah is currently the only public sector program of its kind in the country, although there are many similar programs run by private companies. The program has been supported by the state’s executive leadership from day one. It was initially suggested by Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson’s chief of staff, who had left the workforce for eighteen years to raise her family. The Lt. Governor also had a shorter, but similar work gap for the same reason. The Governor was on board immediately, launching the program with a April 2021 executive order that asked agencies to remove barriers of employment that prevented the hiring of individuals without recent work experience. The idea? “Basically, to reduce the stigmatization that comes from career breaks so that that we could access a different hiring pool,” says Baker. What lessons have been learned from the first year of the program? On the positive side, she cites the importance of having a group of individuals who support each other as they go through the 16-week back-to-work transition period together. Also important, she says, was having technological refresher instruction, mentorships and access to executive leadership. In terms of areas to improve, she believes that more flexibility in program design would be beneficial to both agencies and participants. Like many new programs, Return Utah has been operating on a shoe-string budget, as it is solely an executive initiative that has not yet received funding from the legislature – something that will be requested in 2023. “We’ve learned that good solid budgets are necessary,” Baker says. Continuing the program is not a hard sell and plans currently are to begin welcoming three new cohorts a year. “It helps agencies fill a need and it helps returners get transitional support so their confidence can increase and their skill set can be renewed,” she says, adding that there are other benefits, as well. “They bring energy and motivation. They shake up the culture of the bureaucracy.” Utah Lt. Governor Diedre Henderson with the current Return Utah cohort #PublicSectorWorkforce #StateofUtah #HiringCrisis #PublicSectorHumanResources #StateAndLocalGovernment #StateandLocalGovernmentHiringCrisis #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #ReturnUtah #ResumeGaps #LieutenantGovernorDeirdreHenderson #ReenteringtheWorkplace #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement , and it’s designed to welcome back into employment individuals who have taken a break from work for a wide variety of reasons. “State agencies, just like everyone else, are experiencing a labor shortage where they need qualified candidates to fill roles that run the gamut,” says ShayAnn Baker, Return Utah’s program manager. “This is another hiring pool to pull from that is often overlooked and stigmatized.” Baker, a former television reporter in Salt Lake City, knows about the stigma of withdrawing from the workforce from personal experience. Eight years ago, she left her TV job to stay at home with her new baby. Since then, she had two other children and acquired a wealth of experience that comes with child-rearing, school fund-raising, and organizing community events. But none of that showed up on her resume. “I knew that getting back in the news industry would be almost impossible,” she says. “I wouldn’t have any recent professional experience and then I was terrified about my resume. How do I cover that eight-year gap when you’re taught that gaps are bad?” A year ago, Baker was one of seven new workers who were part of the first cohort of the Return Utah pilot. Some of the new hires, like Baker, were employed on a temporary basis – in her case in the Department of Commerce. Others were put on the payroll with the “intent to hire” in a permanent spot. Like the other members of the pilot group, a regular job orientation period at her new agency was supplemented with 16-weeks of transitional coaching and assistance that included a technological refresher course, mentorships, and individual coaching to build her resume, establish a new network and build up her confidence. Why does a returner need something like this? Baker’s answer: “Well, because they are rusty and that rust creates a lack of confidence. When I had my interview, I thought ‘Are they even going to listen to me because yesterday I was covered in peanut butter.’” When Baker’s temporary job with Commerce ended, the Division of Human Resource Management offered her a full-time job as a manager of the continuing Return Utah program. The second Return Utah cohort, which includes 16 returners, will be finishing its 16-week session in two weeks. It includes a handful of women who, like Baker, had left the workforce to stay home with their children, as well as two individuals who had been out of the country; two whose withdrawal from professional work had resulted from illness and three who had left work to pursue education. Nine of the returners are women and six are men. A new bunch of returners will join the program in May. Baker says that Return Utah is currently the only public sector program of its kind in the country, although there are many similar programs run by private companies. The program has been supported by the state’s executive leadership from day one. It was initially suggested by Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson’s chief of staff, who had left the workforce for eighteen years to raise her family. The Lt. Governor also had a shorter, but similar work gap for the same purpose. The Governor was on board immediately, launching the program with a April 2021 executive order https://rules.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/Utah-Executive-Order-No.-2021-08.pdf that asked agencies to remove barriers of employment that prevented the hiring of individuals without recent work experience. The idea? “Basically, to reduce the stigmatization that comes from career breaks so that that we could access a different hiring pool,” says Baker. What lessons have been learned from the first year of the program? On the positive side, she cites the importance of having a group of individuals who support each other as they go through the 16-week back-to-work transition period together. Also important, she says, was having technological refresher instruction, mentorships and access to executive leadership. In terms of areas to improve, she believes that more flexibility in program design would be beneficial to both agencies and participants. Like many new programs, Return Utah also has been operating on a shoe-string budget, as it is solely an executive initiative that has not yet received funding from the legislature – something that will be requested in 2023. “We’ve learned that good solid budgets are necessary,” Baker says. Continuing the program is not a hard sell and plans currently are to begin welcoming three new cohorts a year. “It helps agencies fill a need and it helps returners get transitional support so their confidence can increase and their skill set can be renewed,” she says, adding that there are other benefits, as well. “They bring energy and motivation. They shake up the culture of the bureaucracy.”

​ By Bruce Waltuck, Professor, Kean University, College of Business and Public Management and an award-winning creator and facilitator of better outcomes for organizations It is ok. You can admit it. You have watched Sesame Street. If you are my age, you have probably watched from the first day it was on the air. Right now, Sesame Street is in the midst of a two-year initiative to teach people (yes…all people, not only children) a simple, yet powerful framework for creative problem-solving. It sounds like this: I wonder… What if…? Let’s try! While the problems facing governments are not the same as those that Elmo and Big Bird face, we can all learn powerful insights from our friends on Sesame Street. The problems facing government organizations are many and highly varied. That is no surprise. What is a surprise to most public managers and leaders, is that there is a problem in the way we understand the problems, themselves. Let’s call that the “Problem with Problems.” Sometimes the challenges that confront governments are clear and obvious. Everyone who sees the situation agrees on what it is, and what needs to be done. If the traffic light at Broad and Main is out, we will send folks out to fix it. Some problems that governments experience are somewhat more complex. How can we address homelessness? Or gang violence? Do we all agree on what is happening? Do we all agree on what to do? Can experts give us highly reliable solutions to our complex situations? The Problem with Problems is that even though complex situations are inherently unknowable, and that no expert can give us a guaranteed reliable solution, leaders act as if as if consultants will provide solutions with outcomes that are knowable and predictable in advance. Sadly, that’s not possible. Why do so many managers and leaders make the Big Mistake of treating ambiguous, uncertain, and unknowable situations with the assumption that some expert could fix it? In a word… fear. Fear of admitting we don’t know what to do. Fear of not knowing how to define metrics for outcomes in situations where we need to know “how well…?” as much or more than we need to know “how much?” “how many?” or “how quickly?” As government leaders and workers, we have to answer these questions all the time. Then we need to figure out “how will we decide what to do?” “who will decide?” and after we act, “what happened, and what do we do now?” An understanding of the types of problems and situations we experience, together with the powerful framework from Sesame Street, and a simple technique from the ground-breaking book “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” can lead government organizations to optimal outcomes more easily. “I wonder…” We each see complex situations differently. What can and will we do, to include and consider all voices in our dialogue, planning, and action? “What if…?” we saw the situation this way. If we could act on it this way. What might we learn? What might happen? What if we succeed? What if we fail? What can we do to not be afraid of failure? What if we agreed to learn as much from failures as from successes? “Let’s Try!” We have a range of ideas that each seem to have a good chance of working, even with the most complex situations. The optimal way to act in these situations is to try multiple promising ideas…at the same time. We can experiment, and carefully observe what happened to the best of our abilities. As we assess outcomes, we can act next to expand what is working for us and stop the things that are not working. With no fear, no blame. I wonder…what if… we as government managers and leaders, could learn to work together in this way? As we work and act together, we know that our funders and stakeholders will want to know what happened. We also know that some things… typically the “how many?” and “how much?” metrics are fairly easy to assess. We also know that the truly complex situations we need to act on, have “how well…?” metrics that are not easily countable. So… I wonder…what if… government managers and leaders adopted a simple, powerful practice from “Getting to Yes.” What if… each team brainstormed and reached consensus on a short list of Core Values and Operating Principles. Maybe six to eight criteria, used together by everyone, to assess each of the “What if…?” options. These can be criteria that the team will also use to hold themselves accountable for acting consistently with their agreed-on core values and principles. So even when promising ideas don’t work out as intended, we can assure ourselves and our stakeholders that we have acted consistently with our most important principles. I do not wonder if this works. I know that it works. These concepts and practices were at the heart of what became an award-winning initiative for employee involvement and process improvement at the U.S. Department of Labor, that I co-created and led. I wonder…how many state and local government groups everywhere, will benefit from learning and using the Sesame Street framework, and Integrative Collaboration. What if…we all acted with continuous curiosity, courage, consideration of all ideas, and full commitment to all ideas the team agrees on. What are you waiting for? Let’s try! ​ The contents of this guest column reflect those of the author, and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc. ​ ​#StateandLocalGovernment #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceManagement #BruceWaltuck #KeanUniversity #CreativeProblemSolving #SolvingComplexProblems

About a month ago, we wrote a column for Route Fifty about a dramatic transformation in the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS). The change, which has taken place under the leadership of Human Services Cabinet Secretary Justin Brown, was simple and surprisingly powerful and it’s helping Oklahoma to more effectively use state dollars to serve people in need. It can be replicated in other states, as long as non-profits, foundations and government agencies are open to productive collaboration. We were so thoroughly intrigued by the singular changes in Oklahoma that we wanted to give you some more insider insights into the way they’re working. To that end, here’s an edited interview with Sarah Roberts, vice president of programs at the Oklahoma-based Inasmuch Foundation. She is one of 16 members of an advisory committee assembled by Oklahoma’s DHS to provide insight and advice on how to invest $100 million of reserve fund dollars that had accumulated from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). The interview was originally done for the Route Fifty column. B&G: What was your role, as a representative of a foundation, on the advisory committee that you were asked to join in 2021? Sarah Roberts: We were involved in assisting the Department of Human Services in rethinking how to better distribute TANF dollars throughout the state. There was a backlog of those dollars that had built up prior to Secretary Brown taking over as director of the Department of Human Services. I believe this happened nationwide. It wasn’t exclusively in Oklahoma. It was a lot of work to figure out how to line up nonprofits, which are already doing amazing work with TANF eligible clients, with those TANF dollars. B&G: Could you help us to understand why this partnership between Oklahoma foundations and the Department of Human Services was so important? Sarah Roberts: We’ve always prioritized public-private partnerships at Inasmuch Foundation and in Oklahoma. We are hyper-aware that philanthropy just doesn’t have the dollars that government has and so without public-private partnerships, it can sometimes be hard to have synergy and longevity for great initiatives. B&G: We know that you work with many nonprofits. Can you explain a bit more about the impact that better communications had on them? Sarah Roberts: I think that, at times, nonprofits can be intimidated by government and that’s sometimes been a barrier to accessing public funds. Some of them have never dreamt of applying for funding through government. Secretary Brown has been willing to listen. He has brought nonprofits to the table in a way that hadn’t been done before on such a large scale. That has resulted in mutual trust being built. It has also pushed nonprofits to get stronger in terms of compliance because they have a clearer sense of the reason for some departmental/federal rules. It took a while for foundations and nonprofits, to stop thinking about this as Big Brother State Government and realize it is a funder which is wrestling with how to solve community problems as efficiently as possible. B&G: What were some of the insights that foundations like yours were able to give to the Department of Human Services? Sarah Roberts: I think some of it is just recognizing that a wide variety of nonprofits exist. In the past there were nonprofits that received ninety-nine percent of their funding from the government. They didn’t know anything about private funders because they’d never done anything but be funded by the government. Then there are other nonprofits that are intimidated by the government. They are looking to the private sector to fund everything and it probably would be better if both groups were a little more open to public/private partnership. We didn’t really have any traction on this until Secretary Brown arrived and he was receptive to that conversation. B&G: Has that situation changed? Sarah Roberts: I think what Secretary Brown has done beautifully is listen and send a coordinated message that we could probably strengthen all of these nonprofits if we gave them a little bit more balanced funding, with some from the government and some private funding and due diligence in both scenarios to make the nonprofits stronger. DHS clients are already working with nonprofits so it is a wonderful way to meet families where they are in their own communities. B&G: Is there an example that you can give us of a program that is now getting new funding through this new kind of partnership? Sarah Roberts: There are two programs in Oklahoma that have similar missions. They are trying to divert mothers with children from prison. The program in Tulsa is called Women in Recovery and in Oklahoma City it’s called ReMerge. Both provide housing, job training, substance abuse and mental health treatment. Women are able to gain job skills and become employed. This has been incredibly successful. More than 500 women, who have graduated, are working, contributing, tax-paying citizens and present in their children’s lives. Alternatively, they would be serving an average sentence of 10 years in state prison. B&G: We’ve heard from your peers and individuals involved in community organizations that the kind of partnership that’s evolved in the Department of Human Services has been happening elsewhere in Oklahoma government. Sarah Roberts: I think many of the Cabinet secretaries feel charged with interacting with us in a way that wasn’t top of mind in previous administrations because they didn’t have a governor who was stating that as a goal. Many of the cabinet secretaries have served in the private sector and get the value of public-private partnerships. They’ve been involved with philanthropy either by being philanthropists themselves or being parts of nonprofit boards. I think there is a real love and respect for the nonprofit sector among some of the current cabinet secretaries. B&G: Any final comments? Sarah Roberts: We’ve been promoting the benefits of Public-Private Partnerships for years prior to anyone listening. It’s been really exciting to watch other people get on fire with this idea, see the value and watch it play out beneficially for vulnerable families in our communities. #StateandLocalGovernment #PublicSectorHumanResources #HumanServices #OklahomaDepartmentofHumanServices #StateofOklahoma #PublicPrivatePartnerships #TANF #StateGovernment #CabinetSecretaryJustinBrown #ProductiveCollaboration #JustinBrown #SarahRoberts #OklahomaDHSAdvisoryCommittee #OklahomaDHSAdvisoryCommittee #PublicSectorStakeholderInput #TANF #TemporaryAssistanceforNeedyFamilies #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceManagement #BuildingNonProfitandGovernmentRelations #NonProfitandGovernmenRelations #FoundationandHumanServicesPartnership #InAsMuchFoundation

On April 1st a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there was a crisis in mental health among America's teens. A few specifics from the CDC: Over 50% of teens experienced emotional abuse, 44% felt persistent sadness/hopelessness and 20% seriously considered attempting suicide.” To help confront the mental health crisis among youth, New York State, has been leaning on legislation passed in 2018, which made it the first state to mandate that schools must include instruction in mental health. The law decreed that all school districts “ensure that their health education programs recognize the multiple dimensions of health by including mental health and the relation of physical and mental health to enhance student understanding, attitudes and behaviors that promote health, well-being and human dignity.” In and of itself, this was a very worthwhile means to combat a problem that had already been identified by 2018 and has just been magnified by the pandemic. But we fear, based on a new audit from the comptroller’s office that this may be yet another instance in which the passage of a law is only the starting point, and that without sufficient oversight, it’s nearly impossible to discern the vigor and virtue with which the law is being implemented. According to the Comptroller, of a sample of 22 districts surveyed, three of them could provide no documentation that they were actually following the law. Others varied in the effort they were making to get to the law’s intended outcomes. “Without some level of oversight” said the audit report, "the Department (of Education) cannot be assured that students are receiving mental health education or that the instruction achieves the intent of the law.” This is a recurring theme in our experience with states and localities. Public officials really take pleasure in the accomplishments they can make with new, worthwhile statutes. But if they don’t mandate sufficient oversight, they may have little or no notion of whether the pats on the back they gave themselves were warranted. #NewYorkStatePolicyImplementation #PoorPolicyImplementation #GovernmentOversight #NewYorkStateComptrollerAudit #GovernmentAccountability #StateandLocalGovernmentAccountability #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceAudit #SchoolMentalHealthInstruction #CDCMentalHealthStatistics #StateofNewYork #FlawedNewYorkPolicyImplementation #PolicyImplementationOversight #StateandLocalPolicyImplemenationOversight

“A California budget surplus that is already expected to be massive could end up being billions of dollars more than initial estimates,” reported KTLA Morning News’s website in February. We mention this, not because we want to write about fiscal conditions in California, but because we want to carp a little bit about one of the most widely misused and misunderstood words in all of state and local government finance: “surplus.” This is of particular significance right now, because thanks to the money that’s been flowing into state and local coffers this last year, we’re seeing the word used quite frequently, and not only in California. As Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget & Policy Center explained in an interview we did with him for the Government Finance Research Center, “I wouldn’t use that term, because a surplus is the money that’s left over at the end of a fiscal year. This is unanticipated revenue that state leaders are authorized to allocate as part of the annual budget process.” In fact, when you see mentions of surpluses in the press right now, it’s more than likely that the word is being misused. By definition, a state or locality can only have a surplus at the end of the fiscal year, and since that doesn’t come until the end of June for most of these governments, the extra money they have on hand now is decidedly not a surplus. The same kind of confusion is also found in the popular use of the word “deficit.” The mangled use of that word has been bothering us for a long time, and we wrote about it in Governing Magazine in 2011. We addressed this when we wrote a glossary for the Volcker Alliance’s Truth and Integrity in State Budgeting reports. Here’s how we explained it there: According to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), deficits “reflect expenses outstripping revenues at the end of the year. It is not to be confused with a shortfall, which represents revenue shortages that accumulate during the year and may be eliminated by spending cuts, tax or fee hikes, or one-time actions to avoid a year-end deficit.” This isn’t all just a matter of semantics and we don’t want to come across as sounding like somebody’s eighth grade English teacher. We’re always happy when elected officials talk about the need for transparency in government. But when the language of finance is badly miscommunicated to the general public, all the transparency in the world doesn’t mean that voters will really understand what’s going on. And that’s important. #StateandLocalGovernment #PerformanceManagement #BudgetManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgetManagement #GovernmentFinanceResearchCenter #GovernmentJargon #CaliforniaBudgetPolicyCenter #MisunderstoodBudgetTerms #ChrisHoene #VagueLanguage #DefiningSurplusandDeficit #CaliforniaBudgetSurplus #StateofCalifornia #GoverningMagazine #GoverningMagazineBarrettandGreeneColumn #VolckerAlliance #TruthandIntegrityinStateBudgeting #PublicSectorBudgetManagement