Search Results

By Terry McKee, director of procurement at Knoxville’s Community Development Corporation I believe that one of the reasons people disparage government at all levels is because of an absence of a proclaimed political philosophy that aligns with their true wishes about the way government spends its money. ​ I have served as the procurement officer for three different governmental entities and have observed inconsistent patterns between the scope of government people think they want, compared with their actual expectations for governmental services. I have seen the same phenomenon play out in my own community, where many of my fellow residents call for “cutting” taxes while simultaneously wanting certain specific areas of government funded at higher levels. ​ I have several friends, for example, who say they believe in limited government. All three routinely call for lowering our taxes. ​ Yet one, who works in our public school system, frequently posts on social media calling for increased spending on K12 education. Another small-government aficionado I know works in law enforcement and consistently calls for increasing funding for law enforcement. Yet another friend works with disabled children and routinely bemoans that “government” does not better fund such programs. ​ These examples show the incongruent thinking that challenges elected officials across the nation: “Lower my taxes but fund my passion to the maximum.” ​ Contradictory goals create a predicament for elected officials. Local, state and federal candidates, often campaign on “keeping taxes low” and “getting government out of your life” because that is what we tell them we want. Once they are in office, we push them to fund the services we are passionate about and we push them to not increase taxes. Many politicians exacerbate this issue by campaigning on “cutting taxes,” but once elected, they effectively make it likely that taxes will rise higher by pushing for new programs or increasing existing programs to accomplish the projects that have been developed without a realistic funding plan. ​ This inconsistency in thinking also plays out within governments. Earlier in my career, I led the procurement efforts for a county government. During those years I remember comments from various departments telling me to prioritize their purchases because “my department” should take precedence. What that meant was “I run the Health Department and we help people stay healthy so obviously our needs must come first.” “I take care of the roads-so I am more important,” “I arrest criminals, so my needs come first.“ Each major department thought it was the worthiest of funding. Not that any department wanted other departments to lack funding, they were just laser focused on their passion. Taken to an extreme, this is a problem because elected officials must balance all of those advocating for a portion of the limited available funds for the government to function. ​ I suggest that one of the reasons citizens are so frustrated with government is due to our own inconsistent expectations for government. We want low taxes; responsive government and we want the areas of government that we care about passionately to be funded to the maximum. Politicians cater to our desires to get elected and we verbalize “keep my taxes low” very loudly. ​ Once elected though we expect them to lower our taxes at the same time as they fund our passions and the passions of our friends and neighbors. This results in unrealistic expectations and frustration later when governments cannot deliver both low taxes and the services we demand. ​ The solution seems to be for citizens to recognize that even if we want small government, there is a cost to providing good roads, schools, libraries and protective services. Goods and services do not magically materialize for governments any more than they magically appear for us as individuals. Goods and services cost governments money just like they cost businesses and individuals. We need to accept that there is a cost to government and that if we want services, we must pay for them through taxes. We need to contribute to good government by having realistic expectations concerning service levels and taxes. We must accept the fact that the government we want has costs. ​ While efficiencies in government can certainly save money, they can only go so far. There’s an old cliché that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” This old saw likely emanated in the practice in saloons of providing free food to get people to drink more – and that’s where the money was to be made. ​ The origins may be different, but the idea is the same: There is no such thing as a free government. ​ The contents of this guest column reflect those of the author, and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc.

We were disheartened, but not surprised by a February 2022 performance audit in Kansas about that state’s use of performance-based budgeting. While the Kansas auditors noted that the state’s executive budget division met most of the basic requirements of the Kansas 2016 performance-based budgeting law, it didn’t mince words on the actual impact of all the law: “This doesn’t seem to have meaningfully changed how the state budgets,” auditors wrote in big bold letters on page 2 of the audit. Before we go on, we want to take note of how impressed we were that the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit undertook such an ambitious, and ultimately useful, exercise. Its only through this kind of thoughtful work that there’s much hope for the future of performance budgeting. Over the years, we’ve continued to believe in the importance of performance management and we like the idea that thoughtful agency performance measures should inform budget discussions. But basing budgets on performance has turned out repeatedly to be a very tall order. Here are our suggestions, based on our reading of this audit and our observations based on seeing similar stories play out in other states. 1. Keep expectations for major change in check. As we wrote in our 2020 book, The Promises and Pitfalls of Performance-Informed Management (Rowman & Littlefield), “Frustration stems from disappointment when the benefits touted by advocates fail to materialize.” 2. Recognize that change happens slowly. The period of study for the performance audit was January 2017 through September 2021. While the law was passed in 2016, various parts of it were implemented between 2017 and January 2019. While this was a very reasonable time to do this audit, we’d advise Kansas leaders not to get too discouraged yet, as very little progress was made on a number of fronts during 2020 and 2021 as a result of the pandemic. 3. In mandating performance budgeting, spell things out clearly. The audit pointed out several different ways in which the 2016 law lacked detail. These problems included vague language about who would receive performance information, and the role of the legislative branch in using the performance information. There were also missing details about when and how agencies would update program inventories and performance measures they produce. 4. Focus more agency attention on the quality of their budget submissions. The 2016 statute had a strong emphasis on the importance of results-oriented measures. But too little emphasis may have been placed on how those measures were established and verified. An examination of seven agencies by the auditor raised questions about the quality of program inventories and performance measures submitted by agencies as part of the performance-budgeting process. Two out of seven agencies that were closely examined had “significant deficiencies,” in program inventories according to the audit. Three out of the seven agencies had “significant issues identified” in the accuracy and reliability of their performance measures. 5. Change the language. As we pointed out in our book, we think it’s important that people give up on using the very phrase “performance-based budgeting,” in favor of the more accurate “performance-informed budgeting.” As we wrote, this makes it clear that “there is no actual formulaic connection among measures, evaluations and budgets.” 6. Don’t give up. As Ivor Beasley and Don Moynihan, both well-known experts in this field wrote in 2017, “Governments are too quick to abandon rather than adapt past efforts.” For anyone who wants to know more about this audit, the Kansas auditor’s office produces a useful podcast, called The Rundown Podcast, This audit was the most recent one featured.

We’ve written repeatedly over the years about the many challenges that confront workforce development programs. Back in the early 1990s, one of the big issues was the penchant to cherry-pick clients who could probably have gotten jobs on their own, in order to show that the programs were successful – at least on paper. Since then, we’ve written about problems with incentives; tense intergovernmental relations between state or federal programs and local needs; ongoing issues with sharing data and the need to track results. One ongoing problem that we hadn’t considered in the past is the nature of the jobs into which clients of workforce development programs get placed. “At a high level, the workforce system hasn’t been focused on quality jobs,” says Celeste Richie, the vice president for workforce development at Results for America (RFA) “The performance measures are about getting someone into a job as quickly as possible and that leads to churn with someone getting served, getting placed in a job that is not high quality and then ending up back at the job center.” We first met Richie (virtually speaking) last month when we were researching our January 31 column in Route Fifty about how data is being used by state and local governments to achieve greater equity in the funding and delivery of services. At the time, we heard briefly about RFA’s State and Local Workforce Fellows and the job quality pilot that is part of it. Yesterday, we pursued the topic more deeply to find out more about the pilot and its goals, so we could share the information with readers of our website. Data was a key focus of this conversation, as it was in our Route Fifty column. Part of the mission of the pilots, which currently operate in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Virginia, is to clearly define the elements that create a high-quality job and the data necessary to measure them. These include earnings; the potential for earning and career growth; employer provided benefits and stable scheduling. There are also elements that are harder to measure like the feeling of safety at a job or the sense of autonomy. “We’re figuring out what data Is most easily accessible,” says Richie. “Is it available? Where is it falling short? And where do we want to look for it?” A bit more background. The pilots, which are expanding, are currently drawn from RFA’s State and Local Workforce Fellows, which involves 34 individual participants across seven states and 14 local jurisdictions, with each state and its local partners organized into a team. Participants include government-run workforce development agencies and non-profit partners. The pilots are taking different approaches. One effort in Colorado, involves looking at public sector jobs and using data to measure the quality of a government’s own jobs. Others have included the participation of local employers who agree to have their own jobs assessed for quality. That data is stored, with access restricted to participants, on the Working Metrics website. These pilots also provide employers the opportunity to see how they can improve the quality of the jobs they have available by adjusting what they offer employees – including, for example, paid family leave. “People think it’s all about money, and we want to show that there are other elements to job quality that you can work on,” Richie says. Ultimately, the idea is to match and “crosswalk” quality jobs with demographic information on employees and job trainees. Creating more high-quality jobs and making sure they’re distributed more equitably can help everyone concerned; both the employers who can cut turnover rates, and the employees who won’t want to be looking for greener pastures.

By William Leighty, partner in DecideSmart, LLC, senior strategic advisor to the dean of the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University, and formerly chief of staff to Governors Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia Early in my career when I served as a staff person in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I never hired, fired, or did an employee evaluation. Then I woke up one morning as the Deputy Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, a 1,200-person organization. Puzzled at what my first actions should be, I decided to introduce myself to the individuals who reported to me. I strolled through the agency introducing myself and asking two questions: “What do you do here and how do you know you are doing a good job?” In one work unit I was told they processed something called “DMV form 43s.” The key, people explained to me was to keep less than a six-week backlog of these forms. If they did that, no one would bother them. I was unimpressed to hear that their primary performance measure was the length of their backlogs and I decided to learn more. I visited the stockroom and obtained a form DMV 43. It turned out to be a “Certificate of Habitual Offender Status.” The Virginia DMV would issue the DMV 43 to the local prosecutor when a driver was found to have driven while intoxicated for a third time. The result: the driver would lose their license for the rest of their life. Processing DMV 43s, notwithstanding backlogs, was potentially a matter of life and death for other drivers on the road. Soon thereafter, a Virginia State Trooper was visiting me regarding a highway safety grant he was pursuing from DMV. I asked him to accompany me to the work unit. Resplendent in his uniform, he entered the offices and asked what was done there. When they answered, he was visibly impressed and began telling the work unit how state troopers use the DMV 43 certification process to locate and bring in these convicted drivers. He inquired if it was possible to get a list of the “worst of the worst” generated by the seven Virginia State Police divisions so that each Monday morning the division First Sergeant could task troopers with locating these potentially deadly drivers. A few weeks later the President of the Virginia Chapter of the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers visited me and I repeated the process. When she asked the supervisor what they did in that unit she became teary eyed and lost her composure momentarily. She turned to the whole unit and expressed her gratitude for what they did every day. Then she related a story of a thirteen-year-old girl who was recently killed by a man with 8 DUI convictions and said, “If you all could just do your work a little faster you could be saving people’s lives.” After that emotional visit, when you asked the employees in that work unit what they did, they answered, “We save people’s lives!” The work unit began posting charts of their progress noting which prosecutors were the most efficient and which state troopers were the most active. There is an entirely different motivation for employees going to work each morning to save people’s lives than to reduce a six-week backlog. Yet, in the name of efficiency, government tends to segregate the work processes into smaller and smaller specialized units. In doing so we also segregate the employees from the purpose of their work. The leader’s role is “link” employees to the true purpose of their work. At its core public service is noble. The most important leadership lesson I ever learned is that it is the leader’s responsibility to make that service meaningful to the employees. Postscript: The DMV43 work unit became so engaged in “saving people’s lives” that they put forth a proposal to put computers on every judge’s bench, automating habitual offender process and eliminating the need for their own work unit. When I became the director of the Virginia Retirement System the very first work unit that I introduced myself to told me they were responsible for processing VRS form 1501s and that if they kept less than a six-week backlog no one bothered them. I immediately knew I had work to do! ​

A couple of weeks ago, New York City’s new mayor Eric Adams signed an executive order consolidating all the city’s technology agencies under a single authority to streamline their operations and foster interagency cooperation. The new operation is called the Office of Technology and Innovation. We don’t know enough about the details of the consolidation to weigh in on whether it’s a brilliant idea or not. But we do know that we don’t like its name. For one thing, dubbing any single office as being responsible for innovation misses the idea that every agency in every city should be coming up with new ideas. Just last week, for example, New York’s Department of Sanitation announced that it was trying out particularly nimble vehicles capable of clearing bike lines. We’d call that an innovation, but it decidedly didn’t fall under the auspices of the new office. O.K. so maybe we’re nitpicking here. There’s no particular harm in naming the new city authority whatever sounds good. But when we heard about the name, it triggered our long-standing frustration at the use of the word innovation to apply to almost anything states and cities do for which they want to create a buzz. The very word innovation (or its cousins, “innovate,” and “innovative” is used by elected officials as a kind of magic wand that can create better tomorrows. Typical are the words of Alabama governor Kay Ivey in her state of the state address: “Ladies and gentlemen, if innovation and discovery are in our DNA – and they are – just imagine what lies ahead for us if we work together to lay the groundwork for tomorrow.” There’s no question in our minds that even if the word innovation is overused, the practice of innovating is a very good thing, But when governments overemphasize the notion that their future lies in innovating, they can miss out on another equally important concept: that there are lots of good ideas for successful government that aren’t brand new – but simply need to be implemented. Consider, for example, the idea of “chief equity officers,” in state and local governments. We’ve interviewed enough of these folks to be convinced that the existence of this office can make a big difference. Fairfax County Virginia was one of the first places to create that office back in 2018, and a growing number of other places have appointed people to that position since. So, it’s not an innovation anymore. But it’s still a very good idea. Some state and local government officials are eager to call something an innovation, even when it’s nothing new to the world – but just new there. This notion is reminiscent of an old NBC slogan used to convince people to watch re-runs: “If You Haven’t Seen It, It’s New To You.” One more point: In the real world, true innovations can just as easily fail as succeed. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be tried. They should be. It’s just worthwhile acknowledging that a whole bunch of new, exciting ideas never really pan out, and that the willingness to take risks is necessary for progress to take place. As a blog post from the Aspen Institute stated, “Innovation depends on failure, and improvement depends on recognizing failure.”

By Chris Adams, CEO of Balancing Act, a creator of simulation-based online engagement tools. ​ ​ ​ With the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (which is really more about climate than inflation) this is an important moment for local governments to take advantage of the opportunities of the day to preserve clean air and water for generations to come. In order to do this, they will be best served by getting citizen input in a variety of ways. ​ The last few years have illustrated, on issues ranging from mask policies to housing, the power of a small number of energized but vocal participants to sway policy. The new challenge is to encourage participation so that anyone with a few minutes to learn and provide input can become part of the decision-making process. Broad, informed participation creates an environment that will support strong actions. My education about this critical topic began in 2014, when the City of Denver hired me to plan and facilitate community input sessions on the city’s proposed climate action plan update. Denver had produced a plan in 2007 and wanted to update it based on new data as well as to gauge public sentiment on setting more ambitious goals. Many of the lessons learned back then still apply and reflecting on my experiences eight years ago up through today, I’ve developed four essential recommendations which will help local governments that want to get public engagement while firmly establishing climate action as a priority. ​ Four Paths To Change ​ Set a goal: Extremely broad goals without specifics (like eliminate poverty) may be estimable, but they’re generally not conducive to making positive change. If a state or local government doesn’t have one already, this is the time to take that step. An ambitious but achievable goal provides a rallying point that anyone can understand. ​ Governments don’t need to start from scratch. They can learn from the work done by others. The Paris Climate Agreement, for example, has committed to limiting global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius. Organizations such as ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability – are helping to adapt that goal for local governments. ​ Describe Mitigation Actions: Once you have a goal, share the actions that can help to achieve it, including how much each strategy can contribute to success. I recently had a conversation with a city climate action planner who told me that one of her frustrations was that many residents interested in climate action were almost solely focused on citywide composting and community gardening. By assigning numbers to each action, residents can see what contributes most to achieving the goal, and though community gardening is a great idea it may not be the most effective at stemming climate change. ​ Back in 2014 when I was first introduced to local government climate plans, I learned that actions that move the needle most are transportation, buildings and efficiency of the electric grid. ​ Get the number of participants up: In the community input sessions I facilitated for Denver, we had two meetings held in neighborhood recreation centers. The city made good efforts to publicize the sessions and genuinely wanted the public to come. However, for both meetings there was a combined total of 18 participants. ​ For an issue like climate change, public meetings will likely never generate the numbers needed to firmly plant goals into the public’s consciousness. One positive thing we learned during COVID is that it is possible to involve thousands of people in quality online engagement with the right tools and strategies. ​ Give residents the information they need: Input is generally the most useful when the people providing it have information about the benefits of the choices they prefer. Community gardeners love gardening, and they think it is good for the environment (and they are right!). But when they find out that a composting program reduces greenhouse gas emissions by a paltry 100 tons over ten years and infrastructure to provide charging for electric vehicles has an impact of 20,000 tons, they get it. But Who’ll Pay the Bill? While these suggestions will help inspire useful citizen participation in decision making, things get trickier when it comes to the question of paying for the solutions for which people may advocate. ​ I participated in a webinar earlier this year with a dozen cities that are in various stages of creating or updating a climate plan. When it came to how to address the issue of the cost of mitigation strategies, the group was split right down the middle. Some adamantly said that cost should be up front when strategies are discussed; cost should be as prominent as the projected reduction in pollutants. They argued that not including it doomed it to never being implemented. ​ Equally as strong were climate action planners who said cost should not be included because if it were, the plan would never get off the ground. ​ My view: Since cost is critical to implementing many of the strategies it should be included upfront. However, especially in certain venues, cost could be added as a second phase once the community understands the value of the potential mitigation steps. We are at an important time in history for climate action and the Inflation Reduction Act can help to accelerate and multiply the good work done by individuals and communities. Many local governments have been on board with this for decades and have helped get us to this point. Now is the time to press on, with the broadest and deepest public support possible. ​ The contents of this guest column reflect those of the authors and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc. #climatechange #citizeninput #stateandlocalgovernment #InflationReductionAct #ChrisAdams #BalancingAct

Across the U.S., a growing number of cities, counties, and states are using data across agencies to improve management and make decisions—and HR professionals in particular stand to gain much from this data to help drive staffing and other strategic decisions. With that in mind, we’ve written a white paper for UKG, that takes a deep dive into both the benefits and challenges of using data, with real-life examples of how it can be instrumental in building resilient HR operations. We’re really proud of this particular piece of work, as it combines two of the things that we’re most passionate about in our research: the public sector workforce and the beneficial use of data. So, here’s a shameless plug. If either of these are areas about which you care, we suggest you do more than read this post – look at the report as well. For instance, when state and local governments effectively track turnover data, they can uncover the kinds of patterns that help them identify people who are most likely to be running out the door in the immediate future. Similarly, by measuring the distribution of overtime among employees, entities can ensure fairer distribution of overtime – and avoid the kind of overuse by individuals that can lead to fatigue and even burnout. Another area in which data are increasingly being utilized by well-run HR offices is to uncover inequities by assessing and comparing the demographic makeup of a workforce to reveal potential biases in the hiring process. For example, as we wrote in the report, “Several years ago, an analysis of overtime in one growing southwestern city was inspired by a female employee’s complaint that she was being denied opportunities for overtime work, compared with other employees in the city’s predominantly male utilities division. Data confirmed the validity of the female employee’s story. A review of overtime distribution for all the individuals working for the same supervisor showed that her overtime level was 400 hours less than the next lowest overtime-receiving employee of the gas and electric division.” Of course, merely collecting data doesn’t mean that positive changes will necessarily follow. Careful analysis and management response help turn gritty numbers into action. Here’s an example from the report: One public sector employee was often absent, which ticked off her colleagues who had to pick up the slack. But supervisors hadn’t really noticed the problem until they analyzed a database that showed employee sick leave data. Things could have ended there, with a reprimand and a note in a personnel file. But the next steps were what mattered. When the data was disaggregated, it turned out that this employee was missing work on alternate Wednesdays. As we wrote, “Her supervisor discovered that her children had a half-day of school every Wednesday, and she had fallen into the habit of calling in sick when she didn’t have someone to pick them up, rather than drawing attention to herself by regularly asking permission to leave the office at noon. Understanding the problem, the supervisor proposed a solution — come in to work at 7 a.m. on Wednesdays instead of the normal start time of 8:30 a.m.; then work until noon.” Employee and supervisor agreed that the missing Wednesday afternoon hours would be made up through extra time worked on other days — either by staying late or coming in early. Happy ending: The rest of the employees were no longer angry. Productivity went up as did morale. There’s little disagreement that the careful and deliberate use of data in HR can make an enormous difference in ways like this. But that doesn’t mean every agency in every city and state are jumping aboard the spreadsheet bandwagon. Challenges abound including insufficient funding, insufficient training and the lack of access to the appropriate software. That said, we’d make the argument that money spent on this kind of work shouldn’t be described as an expense, but rather as an investment in the smooth functioning of the public sector workforce – the folks without whom all the great policies and practices in the world aren’t worth a hill of beans. #performancemanagement #performancemeasurement #cityandstategovernment #publicsectorworkforce #humanresources #UKG #data #equity

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.