Search Results

As summer draws to a close, so do the B&G Wordles -- using words from state and local government. We'll be posting two more after this one. Enjoy. Click here: https://mywordle.strivemath.com/?word=yvzhq

Click here for the latest state-and-local government related Wordle. Enjoy https://mywordle.strivemath.com/?word=hctdw

As promised, we're offering state and local government-related Wordles every Tueday for the rest of the summer. Enjoy today's. We hope it's not too easy. (And by the way, this is an unapologetic bait and switch, and we hope that after you enjoy the B&G World, you'll visit some of the other features on the site. Click here:

As promised, we're offering state and local government related Wordles every Tuesday for the rest of the summer. Enjoy today's. We hope it's not too easy. (And by the way, this is an unapologetic bait and switch, and we hope that after you enjoy the B&G Worldle, you'll visit some of the other features on the site. Click here: https://mywordle.strivemath.com/?word=biegd

by Laurie Giddens, G. Brint Ryan College of Business, University of North Texas and Stacie Petter, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University Laurie Giddens Stacie Petter There’s nothing new about the pressure on government agencies to do more with less. In many areas, including human resources, advances in information technology are often touted as a powerful solution. There’s no question that IT can improve operations or offer new services to citizens. But the idea that these benefits will magically appear if an entity simply buys the right hardware and software is little more than a fantasy. It’s critical to accept the idea that managing, using, and maintaining information technology for these purposes often requires employees to learn new skills. The Government Accountability Office identifies managing human capital within federal agencies as a high-risk area in part because of a skills gap related to technology. The same thing is doubtless true in states and localities. How can we narrow the technology-skills gap? A growing number of organizations are relying on technology-oriented reskilling programs to train employees on skills for new or different roles within their organization. One billion people worldwide will need reskilling by the year 2030, and companies expect to provide upskilling and reskilling opportunities to nearly three-fourths of their current workforce. Specifically, technology-oriented reskilling programs teach workers new skills about one or more technologies to solve organizational problems in new or evolving organizational roles. It's abundantly clear, though that sending employees to technology-oriented training programs is just the first step to address the technology-skills gap. Attendance alone doesn’t ensure success. For a training program to be successful, the employees must transfer the knowledge they have gathered back to their respective agencies. Unfortunately, within six months, less than half of what is learned during training is transferred back to the organization. To encourage the transfer of training: Agencies need to carefully select which employees should attend technology-oriented reskilling programs, which can be time and resource intensive. Organizations should choose reskilling programs that deliver training using methods that are more likely to help the employee apply the lessons learned to their context. Agencies must be prepared to support employees as they use their newly learned skills from training once they return to work. In our recent report published by the IBM Center for the Business of Government, we describe two case studies of technology-oriented reskilling training programs. One reskilling training program is offered by a non-profit for local, state, and federal law enforcement to learn how to use information technology in new ways to fight human trafficking. The other reskilling training program, created by the Office of Management and Budget, teaches employees skills in cybersecurity. Our report offers recommendations to government agencies regarding practices to improve the likelihood of transfer of training in technology-oriented reskilling programs. This table from our report identifies factors that influence the likelihood an employee will transfer training knowledge back to the organization. The three categories focus on the characteristics of the employee attending the training program; significant elements contained in the training program itself, and the organization’s level of support. In today’s world, where rapid technological advancements are commonplace, change is inevitable. However, local and state governments can find ways to leverage technology effectively by ensuring their employees have the appropriate technology-related skills. This effort may not be simple to implement, but recognizing the need is a critical first step.

We recall being extremely excited decades ago at the prospect of state and local governments being able to conduct all sorts of transactions with the public. At the time, we were hearing about drivers’ license renewals, hunting & fishing licenses, and the like. Since then, the number of transactions that don’t need in-person visits to offices has grown steadily, and this has proven to be a blessing during the pandemic. But even though the capacity to interact with a government with a mouse, a monitor and a computer, has been a beneficial trend in most ways, we’re concerned that it’s predicated on an invalid notion: The belief, which is simply not universally true is that practically everybody can easily, avail themselves of contacts with city hall and state houses that are increasingly designed to be conducted online. Consider the days when vaccinations first became available to the general public. At least in our corner of America, we were all being encouraged to sign up for vaccines on our computers. The two of us could certainly accomplish this, and we did. But what about some of our friends and relatives, who are somewhat older than we are, and continue to find using a mouse as difficult an accomplishment as we might find if we were required to program our own computers? They were reliant on younger friends and relatives to lend a hand. But not everyone has a support group in this world, and so vaccines had to wait while COVID spread through the land. Even for people who are computer savvy, other challenges presented themselves. Many Americans still live in areas where there is no easy access to broadband. We’ve written an article that will soon be published in the GFOA’s Government Finance Review about just that topic. In other times, one solution for people who didn’t have their own access to broadband, would have been to use wi-fi connections available in libraries and in schools. But in the depths of the pandemic, libraries and schools were closed. And for people who didn’t have solid internet connections in their house. . . well, again, they labored under a potentially deadly disadvantage. Now that there are plenty of vaccines available for Americans, most of these specific issues have receded into the past. But the reliance on computers to properly obtain the services paid for by tax dollars is still problematic for many. Consider, for a moment, the multitude of websites put online by states and localities that aren’t compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Common interpretations of the Act maintain that public sector websites must be accessible to the blind, the deaf and the disabled. But as Ken Nakata, principle of Converge Accessibility, recently told us, for yet another piece in Government Finance Review, “Web accessibility is really broken in many places. Cities and states don’t think about it when they put up the site. And then, if a problem is identified, they often fix it, but then they add new content and they still don’t pay sufficient attention to accessibility.” It used to be that the phrase “digital divide,” was used commonly and concerns about a society split into the information-haves and the information-have-nots was a specter on the horizon. Now that the number of have nots has shrunken, society seems somewhat less concerned. But just because a problem is somewhat less widespread than it once was, it doesn’t mean it’s gone away.

In the days before the pandemic shut down most social gatherings that we might have attended, one of the first obligatory questions in polite chit-chat would be: “And what do you do for a living?” Our first answer, typically, has always been “we’re journalists,” even though our work extends in all sorts of directions other than traditional journalism. But when someone probed a bit, we’d say, “We do research, analysis and writing about governments, in an effort to help them to run better.” The reaction, frequently, has ranged from a polite quizzical smile to outright laughter. The very idea that state and local governments can and do improve the way they deliver services seemed to be a humorously implausible notion to these new acquaintances. It’s our guess that the readers of this website have had similar experiences. We think that this phenomenon has just gotten worse. We read all kinds of local newspapers, in order to do the work we do, and there seems to be a sad consensus forming that governments are just growing steadily less capable of solving the hard problems. One of the reasons, we suspect, is the long delay in getting out from under the pandemic itself. Governors and mayors have, over the course of the last 22 months or so, intermittently said that things are finally getting better and we will soon return to the kind of lives we led in the days before March of 2020. That hasn’t come to pass yet, of course, and the surprise visit of the Omicron variant has led many to suspect that we are in a permanent state of abnormal times. As our friend Don Moynihan, a professor at Georgetown University recently wrote, “As the pandemic continues, a series of forces will combine to reduce faith in political institutions. The third year of the pandemic will be extraordinarily damaging.” Certainly, governments could have done some things differently, in ways that might have helped the nation fight the pandemic more effectively. A couple of months ago, a paper we co-authored with the brilliant Don Kettl for the IBM Center for the Business of Government was released, outlining twelve lessons learned from the pandemic which can be applied to create governments that are better able to fight future crises of this nature. But, while the pandemic may have led people to doubt the capacity of government to solve problems, that doesn’t mean that government is incapable of doing a lot of good. An unprecedented attack on our serenity like COVID tests the capacity of governments to fix that which ails society in an extreme way. Flaws in approach shouldn’t provide the signal that government is incompetent or incapable any more than the lack of a cure for cancer means that medical science has generally failed. Longer term, the increasingly partisan nature of government has provided another cause for doubt in governments’ capacity to solve problems. Let’s say that General Motors ran a series of ads claiming that Ford cars were likely to explode; and Ford ran its own series of ads claiming that General Motors vehicles had brakes that were defective. Nobody would be inclined to buy either brand. We think that’s very much the way things are working as people running for elective office run attack ads come election season. As long as there’s an insistent drumbeat about the perceived failures of previous administrations, how can anyone expect people to think that new administrations will be any better? Another factor contributing to the suspicion about the capacity of government to improve lives is that there’s been a trend to wanting quick solutions to long-standing problems. But overnight solutions to problems like homelessness, flaws in policing, or unsafe bridges just don’t exist. Patience is key. On reflection, we realize we’ve devoted our careers observing state and local government to exploring the incremental changes that can lead to major advances. For example, we’ve written extensively about the need for better data upon which to make decisions. As time has passed, reliance on data has become increasingly prevalent. Right now, we’re working on an article about the use of data to help develop a more equitable nation. But while we think that work is critical, we know clearly that understanding the underlying roots behind the lack of equity, diversity and inclusion isn’t going to lead to a panacea. It’s a step in a process. We think that armed with appropriate information, progress can be made, not just in trying to create a more equitable nation, but in dealing with a whole host of problems that beset us. And that’s why we do what we do. Any questions?

Often performance audits geared to one agency in one state carry provide lessons for many other governments around the U.S. That’s true of an unusual audit of workplace culture at the Department of Fish and Wildlife in the State of Washington. We’re calling it unusual because, unlike other performance audits that just touch on issues of workplace culture, in this instance that important topic was the sole reason for the report. The audit by the Office of the Washington State Auditor, was sparked by two sexual harassment and sexual assault scandals that rocked the department and attracted widespread media attention in 2017. As a result, it was a surprise to us to find that the biggest problem the audit found was not sexual harassment. The audit did find a good many other problems to worry about, concluding that sexual harassment was not a pervasive issue but was, in fact, the “least reported type of unprofessional behavior.” Of course, that may not hold true in other cities or states, but at least in Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife, there were far more worrisome issues uncovered by the report. The most commonly reported instances of unprofessional behavior related to employee bullying by supervisors. The extensive employee survey, plus group and individual interviews, also revealed retaliation against complainers, a lack of accountability, poor communication, discrimination, and ethical violations. The damage to the agency's mission caused by poor workplace culture was nicely summed up by one employee. “I just can’t get anyone to listen. My morale is low. I don’t feel like doing more than the minimum. Why would I come here and work extra hard for this jerk who micromanages me, who shuts the door to my office and yells at me, why would I give that guy extra?” An affiliated problem that surfaced in the audit was that complaints about unprofessional behavior often went unanswered, resulting in widespread frustration because of minimal follow-through. The audit acknowledged that many improvements to the workplace environment had already taken place, including the hiring of new leadership, particularly in the human resources department. Among improvements listed by the audit were increased training, the introduction of a new onboarding toolkit, a new hotline for anonymous complaints and improvements to workplace communication. Of course, change in perceptions can be very slow, with strong gains in workplace culture often taking three to five years, the audit said. We started this blog post by noting how the audit could help other agencies in other states that worry about workplace culture, particularly in these tension-filled years. The problems encountered may be less extreme, but the recommendations provided by the audit are widely applicable. Among the recommendations: Develop a professional conduct policy, which clearly identifies the consequences for all types of unprofessional behavior Ensure all supervisors receive required training on how to effectively manage personnel. Implement a process, such as 360 evaluations, for employees to provide feedback on supervisor performance. Establish mechanisms to facilitate regular communication up the chain of command Establish clear policies and procedures for investigations so they are handled consistently and employees know what to expect.

The other day, we came across some news from Washington state about a brewing tug of war between the executive and legislative branches over gubernatorial power. This isn’t unusual. But it provided a great example of the idea that all conflicts between branches of government are not colored in shades of red versus blue. Partisanship is not, in short, at the root of all intragovernmental debate. This isn’t a new idea. Over the years, we’ve taken note of the simple fact that legislatures and governors have plenty of reason to argue even when they’re dominated by the same party. In brief, here’s the Washington story: At the end of January, democratic leaders from the state senate introduced a bill to limit the authority democratic Governor Jay Inslee has over emergency proclamations and executive orders that limit business or personal activity. The bill, introduced by State Senate Majority Whip Emily Randall and co-sponsored by seven other Democrats, would give Senate and House leadership the ability to terminate a gubernatorial state of emergency or other “prohibitive orders” issued by the governor when the legislature isn’t in session. Details about the bill were spelled out in an article in The Olympian on January 28. According to that piece, Randall said the bill was designed to address the uneven balance of power. Not surprisingly, Governor Inslee spoke against the bill at a January 27 press conference. Red-Red battles have also blossomed in states like Indiana, Georgia and New Hampshire, where republicans hold the power in both legislature and executive branches, as a January 25 article in The Hill pointed out. Disagreements over emergency powers have also appeared in New Mexico and New Jersey, where democratic leaders rule the roost. Plenty of legislative-executive battles have blossomed over American Rescue Plan Act spending decisions, as well. We wrote about these disagreements in a July 21, 2021 column in Route Fifty. As we said back then, “Even states in which both the legislative and executive branches are of the same party, questions over who has the power over the purse strings continue to pop up.”

Are you playing the seemingly addictive game of Wordle? Practically everyone we know seems to be. Doubtless, the day of Wordle will pass, but while it's still hot, we've posting our own -- state-and-local-government related Wordle today. Just click on the link here and then press the button for Custom Wordle. Please let us know how you do. And if you'd like more, we're happy to supply them. https://mywordle.strivemath.com/?word=pflve

It was clear that many of you enjoyed the Wordle that appeared in this space a little under a week ago, so we decided to put up new Wordles every Tuesday, until you all get sick of it. As was the case the last time around, the B&G Wordles are a little different than others in that they are all connected to state and local government. Let us know, please if you enjoy them. Click here for the next one: https://mywordle.strivemath.com/?word=wiule

When a new piece of state or local legislation passes, elected officials are only too happy to send out press releases announcing the grand new advances for which they’ve just voted. But what happens after the press releases have been put in the shredder, and metaphorical ribbon-cuttings have been forgotten? The truth is that no matter how enthusiastic the opening day fanfare, there’s no guarantee that a new policy will actually be funded. We’ve been writing about this for years. But we’re bringing it up today thanks to a potent example that just came to our attention in a CT Mirror opinion piece by Stuart Mahler, a board member of the Connecticut State Contracting Standards Board (SCSB). This somewhat depressing column follows up on the creation of the Board in 2007, which followed the contracting scandals that resulted in the resignation, conviction and imprisonment of former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland. At the time the governor had accepted over $100,000 in free vacations, construction work on his cottage and other favors. He neglected to pay $35,000 in taxes on the gifts. What better time to institute controls over contracting? The goals of the legislation were impressive, as outlined in 50 sections of statutory instructions. The legislation required the appointment of a chief procurement officer as well as an executive director. Responsibilities of the board included “but were not limited to, oversight, investigation, auditing, agency procurement certification and procurement and project management training and enforcement of said policies as well as the application of such policies to the screening and evaluation of current and prospective contractors.” So, what’s the problem? According to Mahler, the SCSB has never had a fully functioning staff. In fact, he writes “For most of its existence, the board had and still has one full-time employee. The one other employee of the board, the State’s Chief Procurement Officer, left years ago and the board has not been given permission to fill it.” While Mahler acknowledges that hard work by board members has led to many impressive accomplishments, the board can only go so far depending on its own community spirit and the work of graduate student interns. If Connecticut wants to fulfil the sizeable ambitions of its contracting oversight legislation, those good ideas of 2007 need to be supported with money. At least the Connecticut Board is accomplishing something. Elsewhere, they exist in title only, and this can have unfortunate side effects. As we wrote for the IBM Center for the Business of Government a couple of years ago: “This doesn’t cost a city anything in terms of cash, but if a citizen discovers the existence of a board on line, and then finds out it doesn’t have active board members or even a telephone, this can only serve to heighten the alarming lack of trust in government.”