Search Results

Few challenges crop up with as much regularity in state and local audits as a lack of capacity – an absence of people, dollars, skills, and equipment to get jobs done. You might think this would be obvious. Everyone knows that you can’t lift a heavy fifteen foot piece of lumber without at least two people – one at each end. And yet, it’s surprising how many governments try to accomplish something very similar in service delivery. As Berkeley, California’s longtime auditor Ann-Marie Hogan wrote in a recent newsletter, “The City’s most important asset is its people. An immediate risk to operations and strategic, long-term planning is workload capacity: Does the City have the staff resources to provide expected, promised and critical services.” We asked Hogan where she thought workload issues were the most intense? “I particularly see capacity issues in support departments – IT and Finance – because of the nature of the work,” wrote Hogan in an e-mail to us. “There is also a problem with turnover, particularly noticeable in those two departments, at least in part because the dot-com explosion of jobs in our region is sucking up the talent.” There’s some irony to the fact that Hogan’s audit office has its own resource issues (as do many of its peers). Hogan has had to delay several planned audits , because of staff turnover in her office, as well as staff turnover in other departments. We wondered why, in relatively robust economic times in California, capacity worries are escalating. One reason, she said, was that the large ambitious projects, made possible when there’s money available, eat up staff time like a school of killer sharks. For example, Berkeley, is tackling decades of deferred maintenance and the implementation of a new and much needed enterprise-wide technology system. Just as in 12-step programs, one of the keys to dealing with capacity issues is recognizing that they exist in the first place. Hogan is tackling  the problem head on with several of her planned 2018 audits including a look at capacity issues for public safety dispatchers and a look at workload issues for the city’s code enforcement.

Measuring performance and doing it well takes a huge amount of effort. So, it’s too bad that one of the most common complaints about performance measurement systems is that they are not sufficiently used to drive program performance. This past weekend, we were listening to the GovInnovator podcast – one of our favorites – and wanted to flag the recent interview with Reggie Bicha, executive director of the Colorado Department of Human Services. In the 12-minute interview with GovInnovator host Andy Feldman, Bicha provides a great description of how his department really uses the outcome and key process measures in its C-Stat system to drive better performance. “Every Wednesday, from 3 to 5 o’clock in the afternoon, I sit down in our C-Stat room . . . with my senior team and meet with various program directors from our department who are responsible for achieving the goals we’ve set out. We dive into the measures. We’re looking at data and asking ourselves where things are going well, why they are going well and what does the data tell us about our performance and how do we replicate that in other parts of the state? “Where things aren’t going so well, what does the data tell us about that? Why isn’t it going well and what can we do, in as real time as we can do it, to change our practice, our policies, our computers, whatever it’s going to take, in order to get the performance that the people in Colorado are expecting from us.” In the podcast, Bicha explains how the C-Stat system has required an evolution in the culture of the organization, including the hiring of new employees who understand how to gather, analyze and work with data. It has also meant developing ways to push performance measurement through the layers of the organizations to the counties and contractors who are delivering services. He describes how the data allows his department to move beyond anecdote and explode myths. The podcast also delves into major challenges – for example, the political fallout when your own data very publicly reveals program problems. One of the accomplishments described focuses on how the department used its C-Stat system to chronicle and better understand the use of physical restraints and seclusion in the two psychiatric hospitals it oversees. This led to the near elimination of the need for seclusion, through the development of de-escalation rooms (with soft music and recliners) instead.  “We recognize that the vast majority of people we serve . . . have experienced trauma multiple times in their life,” he says. “We need to make certain that the practices we’re implementing (don’t) exacerbate the trauma they’ve already experienced or, worse yet, create new traumas for them.” One more note about the podcast itself: Since 2012, Feldman has been running GovInnovator as a “personal, after work and weekend” project to share “practices and insights from public sector innovators and experts.” There are currently more than 150 interviews available on the website, covering topics central to results-focused public management and including all three levels of government: Federal, state and local.

“We will neglect our cities at our peril, for in neglecting them we neglect the nation.” President John F. Kennedy Special Message to Congress, 1961

We don’t have any personal opinions of whether New York should or shouldn’t hold a constitutional convention. But we have enormous sympathy for the advocates of the convention, who confront the continued existence of the widely publicized and inaccurate statement that the convention will cost the state $350 million. New Yorkers will vote yes or no on this issue in November and the convention, if it’s held, will take place in 2019. (The potential of a constitutional convention rises up in New York every 20 years.) Here’s the problem: According to a July blog post at The Rockefeller Institute of Government, the alleged cost of the convention has been used by opponents as an argument against. But the $350 million figure is an error. It stems from a miscalculation made by a reporter.  Here’s what happened: In the late 1960s, a constitutional convention was held in New York and it cost about $7.6 million (about 25 percent less than the legislature projected it would cost). During a “media boot camp” in December 2015, political scientist New York State expert Gerald Benjamin took the $7.6 million cost of the convention, added an inflation factor to present an estimated $47 million cost in 2015 dollars. Albany Times-Union Reporter Casey Seiler then used the $47 million figure in an article, presuming that this was actually the unadjusted 1967 convention price tag.  Once the article was published, the cost figure took on a life of its own, with convention opponents applying an inflation figure again and arriving at $350 million. As blog authors Peter G. Galie and Chropher Bopst point out, this figure is high enough to scare both conservatives and liberals.  They say the erroneous figure is now being used in anti-convention literature, and call it “manna from heaven for constitution opponents.” As the Rockefeller blog post points out, reporter Seiler nobly owned up to his error in a February 2017 article that is headlined “Only off by $300 million” and which has as its first line “Mistakes were made. By me.” It’s quite a funny article (unfortunately available only by subscription.) But the key point is in the last line. “If you hear anyone throw out [the $350 million] number, tell them it’s bunk — and tell them I said so,” he wrote.

The Massachusetts state auditor’s office is well-known for its work in utilizing sophisticated data analysis to uncover public benefit fraud. This work is continuing, but the office has focused lately on several other aspects of the social service safety net that relate much more to the quality of services. A key issue is access to service. As auditor Suzanne Bump said last fall, “It is essential that these programs operate with integrity. That means fighting abuse and fraud, but it also requires that we work to identify the barriers that prohibit Massachusetts residents from accessing benefits for which they are eligible.” The first of several planned audits on barriers to access came out last month and focused on the Catastrophic Illness in Children Relief Fund, which helped 500 families with about $5.4 million in assistance between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2015, the period covered by the audit. The program is designed to help families deal with seriously ill children who have expenses that aren’t covered or have been denied by health insurance. These medical expenses may include hotel stays for medical visits far from home or costs for equipment, medication, or home/car modifications. Bump said the audit showed the program is doing “the good work it was intended to do.” But, as with so many excellent public policy ideas, there are some aspects of implementation that fall short. The audit found that families, on average wait 289 days from the time they apply to application approval. During most of this period, applications “sat idle” waiting to be assigned to staff. Only when a staff assignment was made were applicants informed that additional financial or other information was needed. “Families of children with catastrophic illness face immense financial and emotional hardship,” auditor Bump said. “Our audit found that long delays in application processing is unnecessarily extending this financial and emotional burden.” The auditor’s office looked at the timing for processing applications in six other states that had similar programs. It found that Alaska, Idaho, Virginia and West Virginia processed applications in one to three months. New Jersey and New Mexico fell in a range more similar to Massachusetts, between 8 and 11 months.

As journalists, we don’t get squadrons of letters complaining about the things we’ve written. The fact that we don’t write about politics probably helps a lot (by definition, any political reporter is susceptible to attack by people who disagree — even if the article he or she has written is 100% based on accurate information and solid quotes). Still, it’s the nature of the game that journalists who publish to a wide audience are going to hear back from time to time from that audience — sometimes simply to correct a genuine error, sometimes to dispute the thesis of the piece, sometimes because there’s a desire to vent. It has long been a pet peeve of ours, that said, that many note writers (now, mostly communicating by e-mail) feel some kind of need (go ask Freud) to be vituperative in tone, whether or not they have a reasonable dispute with the journalist. Many a note begins with words like: “It’s unfathomable to me that you call yourself a journalist even though you clearly have no grasp of the topic about which you recently wrote, and have no respect for the facts.” With the expansion of media outlets, there may well be people writing who really have no respect for the facts. But we think they are few and far between. And that group doesn’t include us. Why be rude? It doesn’t do anyone any good. It doesn’t make it more likely to get a retraction, an apology or even a civil letter in return. So, rule number one is the same rule as we’d like to see governing the world: Be civil. That will get you more attention, and ultimately, more satisfaction.  Maybe you can persuade the journalist that there’s another side to the story told, and he or she will write a follow-up piece. We’ll never forget the note that Rich got some years ago suggesting that the writer hoped that his mother would be hit by a Mack Truck.  The combination of outright hostility and specificity was jarring, and went far enough that he never wrote back. A few other rules of thumb: Be clear as to what the errors you’re complaining about actually are. Indicating that “this article was so riddled with errors that I can’t believe it,” doesn’t even give a journalist the opportunity to provide a defense or admit failure. And if you can’t really cite a specific error, but just disagree with the conclusions of the piece, then say that. Tell the journalist exactly what you want. Are you looking for a retraction, or just to help the writer get things righter in the future? Try to avoid getting the journalist’s name wrong.  This is just silly. But you’d be surprised how many notes we get addressed to Mr. Barrett and Ms. Greene, when in fact our genders are the other way around. Unless there’s a good reason not to do so, let the author know who you are, beyond your name. This has become more of an issue since e-mail became ubiquitous. People sign off with a first name, and don’t give the writer any idea what kind of mindset they may have, given their job. (Of course, everyone who takes the time to write deserves equal respect — whether it’s a 12-year-old fulfilling a school assignment to write a letter to a journalist or the governor of a state.) Try not to sound like a lawyer, unless you are a lawyer. Be clear as to whether you’re writing in order to let the writer know about an error, or to dispute the conclusions. In our case, we’ve gotten far more of the latter group than the former, and — given the opportunity — will reach out to the correspondent to talk things over. Some of these conversations have actually resulted in long-standing, positive relationships.

We’ve written lately about the emotional side of some of the toughest jobs in government. Police officers, firefighters, emergency workers and corrections employees must find a way to deal with the ongoing stress – and inevitable tragedy — that is an integral part of their work life. Mary Guy, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Public Affairs has been studying the impact of “emotional labor” for many years. She wrote to us following our July 7th Governing column to ask us to focus more on the topic. “It deserves attention, not only from the negative side, but also from its positive side. Many public service jobs are emotionally intense — much more so than private sector jobs. People usually come to government for services on the worst day of the worst week of the worst month of their lives.” We called Prof. Guy to hear more. Over the years, she’s had dozens of conversations with government workers in emotionally intense jobs. The workers she has interviewed include dispatchers, people who are handling call lines, social workers, teachers, mental health workers, domestic violence workers and countless other individuals whose jobs entail as much of an emotional component as a cognitive one. Many of these jobs require people to cover up their own emotions, to wear a mask of sorts, in order to handle the situations they confront. “It’s the public information officer who has to give factual information while standing in front of a scene of devastation,” she says. “It’s a 911 call taker who has to deal with a hysterical child on the phone or has to control her own emotions when she hears someone screaming.” The qualities that help individuals successfully handle emotional labor “are never listed in any job description,” says Guy. “They don’t get rewarded in the annual performance appraisal.” One of the most important qualities is “emotive self awareness,” she says. One manager she spoke with in a victim’s assistance agency, for example, will always ask a job candidate how he or she has handled anger or emotional upset at a previous job. If someone denies ever feeling angry or emotionally affected, they don’t get the job. “Workers who are more aware of their own emotive state have less burnout than people who are not aware,” says Guy. “Developing awareness of how one feels and being able to articulate that and talk about that, significantly diminishes the degree to which burnout is going to happen.” An important part of handling emotional labor is talking about it – for example, in weekly sessions in which workers can share their experiences with peers who understand. This kind of emotional safety valve is more common in women-dominated settings, such as a domestic violence shelter. “Police try to do this, but it isn’t integrated as a norm. It’s treated as someone having a problem and it has to be treated as normal.” Guy emphasizes that jobs with a high emotional labor component also can be the most rewarding. “It has a downside, but it also has a tremendous upside in contributing to job satisfaction. They know their work matters. They know they’re making a difference.” If you’d like to read more about emotional labor in the public sector, Prof. Guy has co-authored two books on the topic as well as numerous journal articles. The books are: Emotional Labor and Crisis Response: Working on the Razor’s Edge by Sharon H. Mastracci, Mary E. Guy & Meredith A. Newman, 2011 Emotional Labor: Putting the Service in Public Service by Mary E. Guy, Meredith A. Newman & Sharon H. Mastracci, 2008

A couple of weeks ago, we wrote a column for Governing magazine that focused on the mental health issues that are all-to-often confronted by the men and women who perform some of the toughest tasks in America’s cities, counties and states: police officers, firefighters, emergency workers and correctional officers. We recommend that you take a look at the Governing piece, but thought that you might find some of the highlights we found about the topic in our research to be of interest. Six follow here: Over the course of the last couple of years, more firefighters died in suicides than they did actually fighting fires. In some cases, workers who take these dangerous jobs work long, intense hours — sometimes as much as 48 hours shifts (although they do get interrupted sleep time during those shifts. There can be a reluctance for stressed employees to speak up, for fear that such vulnerability to normal human reactions could conceivably put their job at risk. There’s a minimal amount of rigorous work on what works to counteract stresses. Recognition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and suicide risk in the military has influenced the recognition of similar problems for public sector employees exposed to violence and traumatic events. But government-run programs to respond to PTSD and other mental health problems have generally not caught up to needs. Non-governmental organizations such as the Code Green Campaign, which offers peer counseling and other support services to firefighters and emergency medical service workers, and the Firefighter Behavioral Health Alliance, provide much-needed help and research. Some enlightened communities are trying to take better care of these invaluable employees’ mental health. As the Governing piece related, “in Stockton, Calif., police learn to talk about their feelings and are encouraged to seek peer support or see therapists as part of the department’s wellness program and Phoenix is often cited for its “Friends Helping Friends” program, which offers firefighters counseling and resources to deal with issues like drug and alcohol abuse, depression, family problems and stress.

An ASPA webinar in partnership with the Center for Accountability and Performance is being held at 1 p.m. ET on Wednesday July 26. The topic is “bad data,” and the ways it impacts the smooth functioning of states and localities. Wednesday, July 26 1 p.m. ET Collecting data is very important to most government agencies and nonprofit institutions, but it must be quality data or there’s little utility for it. Join us for this webinar, which will delve into the ins and outs of flawed information. Katherine will be a panelist, and Rich will be moderating (as you’ll see below). With a growing emphasis on the use of data to effectively and efficiently run government, its quality is critical. All too frequently, the information used is out of date, inaccurate, incompatible, siloed, difficult to use and confusing. This panel will delve into the reasons data can be problematic, the ramifications and the reasons this issue is of paramount importance. This B&G Report item is especially aimed at members of ASPA, as they can sign up for free. For others, it’s a $75 fee. Presenters: Katherine Barrett, Partner, Barrett and Greene Inc. Stefaan G. Verhulst, Co-Founder and Chief Research and Development Officer, Governance Laboratory, New York University Ben Ward, Manager, Information Technology Audits Unit, California State Auditor’s Office Richard Greene, Moderator, Partner, Barrett and Greene Inc. To register please click here.

In 2017, Virginia became the first state to pass legislation allowing delivery robots to travel autonomously on its streets.. The legislation went into effect July 1 and you can read about it in this article by April Glaser in recode.net. With this information in mind, we decided to begin a series of fanciful animated features about state and locality firsts, scintillating facts and off-beat state and local information in our B&G blog, utilizing the skills of our son Ben Greene. They’ll follow. Please share on social media. (After the passage of the Virginia legislation, Idaho, Wisconsin and Florida became the second, third and fourth states to take similar action.)

Just last Friday, at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association, Minnesota’s Governor Mark Dayton added his state’s name to 37 others in targeting cybersecurity a top priority, according to an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The article pointed out that Minnesota “state agencies fend off approximately 3 million cyberattacks daily.” Minnesota’s pledge involved signing up to “A Compact to Improve Cybersecurity.” The compact, reported the Tribune involvement an agreement to “develop or build upon statewide plans to combat cyberattacks against IT networks and to protect both personal and government data shared on state systems.” According to statescoop, this was the culmination, though not the conclusion of “a yearlong initiative spearheaded by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the National Governors Association’s outgoing chair. As McAuliffe stated in a press release, “The goal of my initiative as NGA chair was to elevate the importance of cybersecurity on every governor’s agenda. To do that, we had to highlight why cybersecurity was more than just an information technology issue. I am proud that, throughout the last year, we have successfully engaged governors and their states on strengthening their cyber protocols and recognizing that cybersecurity is a technology issue, but it’s also a health issue, an education issue, a public safety issue, an economic issue and a democracy issue.” All of this sounds like good news to us. For a long while, we’ve been writing articles citing cybersecurity as one of the biggest issues confronting the states. In fact, we’ve repeatedly complained that people view state’s efforts to control cyber attacks as exclusively an issue of privacy — when we fear that a major breach could cost lives and millions of dollars. But even with the progress made at the NGA session, a question still stands in our minds: Why haven’t the other 13 states joined in?

A new audit from Washington’s King County sheds light on the adverse non-monetary impact of too much overtime. The audit looks at Sheriff’s Office overtime, concluding that both safety and performance can be compromised when individual officers work too many hours.  According to the audit, while overtime may be less expensive than hiring more officers, it can have “negative impacts on officer health, policing performance and community safety.” We wrote a bit about the overtime safety issue in a Governing column in May, 2016,  “Overtime: The Good, the Bad and the Unsafe.” But the information we found on the safety impact of excessive overtime was largely anecdotal. This recent audit includes data analysis that dramatically highlights safety and performance problems.  Auditors found that fatigue increased accident risk, impaired decision making and adversely affected hand-eye coordination. It also contributed to health problems. The chart above was created by the King County Auditor’s Office, based on a PeopleSoft analysis of King County Sheriff Officer hours, as well as additional information about off-duty hours worked during the 2014-2016 period. While it shows the risk of adverse events is still low, the chance of problems goes up as more overtime is worked. Four hours of additional overtime in a week increases the chance of “negative incidents,” including accidents, ethics violations, use of force or professional complaints by 12 percent, according to the audit. One of the problems in King County is that overtime is not distributed evenly. As is common generally,  some employees choose to work far more overtime than others. The audit makes a strong case that  disproportionate levels of overtime increase departmental risk.  Sheriff Department officers who work an average of  18 hours of overtime are 25 percent more likely to have “negative performance incidents” than those who work 10 hours of overtime per week.  For those especially high overtime users (about 1 percent of officers)  the chance of safety incidents goes up 17 percent. The King County audit makes a number of recommendations to improve the situation. It advises instituting limits on overtime, similar to those in other jurisdictions such as Los Angeles County. It also suggests that scheduling changes and the development of new staffing models could help reduce the need for overtime. One other recommendation focuses on off-duty private security work by sheriff’s office employees. While the audit cites several other entities that track off-duty hours worked, the King County Sheriff’s Office does not currently do this. Since off-duty hours of work can also contribute to fatigue, the audit recommends putting in place a system that monitors total hours of work, not just work for the county.