Search Results

In a “VOICES FROM ASPA" video that ran on this website   a couple of weeks ago, Valerie Lemmie, senior advisor of state and local government at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, told us that  “I am at times surprised how little our graduate students know about civics and then I am reminded that we don’t teach it in school anymore, you don’t learn it in high school. You don’t learn it in college. And so, it’s incumbent upon you, who are preparing for the profession (in public administration) to learn the history. . . “   We couldn’t agree more.   A 2024 study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , which evaluated survey instruments from 2,000 registered voters,  found that “more then 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz on topics like the three branches of government, the number of Supreme Court justices and other basic functions of our democracy. Just half were able to correctly name the branch of government where bills become laws.   “While two thirds of Americans say they studied civics in high school, just 25% say they are “very confident” that they could explain how our system of government works.”   And consider this: These are registered voters. While we don’t have data about this, it’s our guess that people who aren’t registered to vote are probably even less knowledgeable. But on the other hand, and we don’t want to seem overly cynical, if we’re right about that, perhaps we’re all better off if people who have little or no notion of how government works don’t vote at all. It’s kind of like our desire for people who don’t have drivers licenses to stay off the roads.     A couple of years ago, we looked at the state of civics education in the nation’s schools, and discovered a 2024   Hoover Institution  report that found that eight U.S. states — Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming — required neither a civics course nor a civics test for students to receive a high school diploma. Just four states — Idaho, Louisiana, Virginia and West Virginia — require a full-year civics course and the passing of a standard civics test.   Nationwide, there’s long been a dramatic shortage of funding to help young people get a grasp of how their government works. In 2024, the Carnegie Corporation of New York released a report titled “Connecting Civic Education and a Healthy Democracy.”  The study found “funding for civic learning (from both philanthropy and government) is woefully inadequate.” For example, the data shows the US invests “just 50 cents in civic education for every 50 dollars that goes to education in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) subjects.”   While the ignorance about government isn’t new, we’d argue that it’s even more important now than in the past. In a world in which disinformation about governmental policies has reached epidemic proportions, we can’t help but wonder how well-equipped Americans are to evaluate the actions their government are taking, if they don’t have a solid idea of how it functions in the first place. Meanwhile, and we’ve written about this before, there is clearly a widespread lack of comprehension about what level of government does what. While there’s general knowledge that the army and navy are run by the federal government, when it comes to basic interactions with the functioning of government, that’s hardly the case. People may complain about how bad their roads are. But do they know whether the pothole they’ve encountered is the responsibility of their city, county or state? They generally do not, in our experience. (Note that this was also a topic recently raised by Michael Jacobson, former Deputy Director of Performance and Strategy in a recent guest column on this website .) Though it’s likely that educated Americans are more likely to understand the basic questions of civics, even they often miss the idea that government is a lot more than just politics. We’ve complained about this in the past but it’s a never-ending source of frustration to us that when we meet someone new at a public gathering and try to explain what we do for a living and say we research and write about government, their immediate next question (assuming they find this interesting at all) is about politics. While there may be interest in the passage of individual policies, when it comes to discussions of policy implementation, that’s when our new acquaintances generally excuse themselves to get another glass of wine or use the restroom. Management of government simply isn’t on the radar for many. While they may complain about the so-called “bureaucracy,” meaning the people who they think are wasting their hard earned tax dollars, they don’t seem to get that it’s behind the scenes employees who ensure that their garbage is  picked up, their bridges don’t fall into the river, the elections are run fairly, their children are educated, and on and on. With trust in government low (and not just for the federal government, but for states and localities), this is all a real pity. It’s simply too easy to mistrust the unknown.    #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformance #AmericanSocietyForPublicAdministration #ASPA #ValerieLemmieVideo #CivicEducation #StateandLocalCivicEducation #CivicEducationAndTrustIn Government #TrustInGovernment #ValerieLemmie #CharlesFKetteringFoundation #FightingGovernmentDisinformation #CivicEducationRequirements #GovernmentIgnoranceGap #HooverInstitutionCivicEducationRequirementsReport #CivicEducationFundingShortage #CivicEducationVsStemEducation #CarnegieCorporationOfNewYork #ConnectingCivicEducationAndHealthyDemocracy #StateandLocalPolicyImplementation #MichaelJacobsonGuestColumn #CountyVsCityVsStateResponsibility #ScapegoatingBureaucracies #BureacuracyComplaints”  #StateandLocalGovernmentBureaucracy #StateandLocalGovernmentWorkforce  #StateandLocalGovernmentEmployees #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

There are certainly justifiable reasons to be concerned about the far-reaching ramifications of artificial intelligence. Nobody really knows for sure its impact on the workplace. And in the absence of guarantees that the benefits will outweigh the flaws, fear runs rampant. But when we talk with friends about AI, they forget that this isn’t the first technology to conjure up fear and loathing. In fact, historically almost every new scientific advance has led to public concern, and even terror among some – only to become adopted as the wrinkles are ironed out (which may, admittedly take a little time). With that in mind, we decided to see what people were thinking when new innovations first came on the scene. Back in the late 1700s, Edward Jenner developed a vaccine against the then deadly scourge of smallpox by exposing people to far less virulent cowpox. But when the government started to mandate that people receive the vaccines, concerns spread that government was putting poison into their blood. As the Morgan Library and Museum  states “opposition to Jenner’s vaccine was quick to emerge, with its bovine origins often provoking some of the most vehement criticism. Objections were made on both medical and religious grounds, condemning vaccination as a dangerous and unsanitary procedure involving the forbidden mingling of animal matter with human flesh.   “Outspoken opponents such as the physician Benjamin Moseley (1742–1819) sought to alarm readers with luridly worded arguments against the abominable practice of introducing a “bestial humour into the human frame,” while hinting darkly at the “strange mutations from quadruped sympathy” that might result as well as relating fantastical accounts of vaccinated children sprouting cow hair or developing facial features distorted “to resemble that of an Ox.” Later on in that century, when steam trains came into popular use, there were several frightening scenarios foist upon the populace. Traveling over 30 miles per hour could cause “delirium foriosum” some said. This was a kind of insanity that they believed could result from looking out the train windows to see the landscape whizzing by. There was even concern that the vibrations and speed could cause miscarriages or damage to women’s reproductive organs. By the late 1800s, there was yet another new-fangled innovation to fear: electricity. Some Americans were particularly concerned that electricity (like water from a tap) cold leak into a room from an empty socket if the switch was left on. Humorist James Thurber wrote in his wonderful “My Life and Hard Times” that his grandmother was fearful that electricity was “dripping invisibly all over the house.” When we first read this story, we assumed that Thurber was just making this up (even though “My Life and Hard Times” was intended to be a memoir.) But it turns out that his grandmother wasn’t alone in her trepidation. In fact, “ President Benjamin Harrison and his wife Caroline were the first to live in an electrified White House, but electricity was so new at the time that the couple refused to touch the light switches for fear of electric shock. The White House staff was in charge of turning the lights on and off,” reports the U.S. Department of  Energy . Then there was the radio. Some were fearful that this kind of in-home entertainment would effectively kill off normal social life, as people stayed home and listened to the new magical boxes. (And by the way, Ladies Home Journal reported that a similar phenomenon was afoot when people were able to rent videos from places like Blockbuster. We know this because we – and now we’re embarrassed by this – wrote the article over 40 years ago). But there were even more dramatic concerns about the advent of radio in the 1920s. “F armers of the 1920s used to blame too much rain, earthquakes, and droughts on the new technology of radio,” according to Paleofuture: The History of the Future . When television first came into American homes, just as with radio, there was similar concern that it would destroy any kind of social life. Finally (and there are many more examples) when computers came into broad use, just as with AI, there was widespread belief that mainframes (with less computing power than a cellular phone today) could allow automation to lead to mass unemployment as middle-class jobs would be rendered obsolete. In fact a 1957 film Desk Set,  featuring Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, was based on the fear that a new computer was going to put Hepburn and all of her compatriots out of work. This wasn’t just the kind of concern spread by entertainment. Consider the Time Magazine  article from 1961 titled “The Automation Jobless.” Time wrote that “ Dr. Russell Ackoff, a Case Institute expert on business problems, feels that automation is reaching into so many fields so fast that it has become ‘the nation's second most important problem.’ (First: peace.) #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentGenerativeAIPolicyAndManagement #StateAndLocalTechnologyManagement #FearOfTechnology #FearOfTheUnknown #StateandLocalAI #StateandLocalArtificialIntelligence #StateandLocalGovernmentWorkforce #StateandLocalHumanResources #StateandLocalHR #FearOfChange #AutomationJobless #DeskSet #PaleofutureTheHistoryOfTheFuture #AutomationAndUnemployment #FearOfInnovation #StateandLocalInnovation #BandGReport #FearOfSmallpoxVaccine #FearOfVideos #FearOfComputers #FearofElectricity #BarrettandGreeeneInc

Not long ago we were at a presentation by an academic about a topic that was of genuine interest to us. As is often the case, she had many interesting slides, showing all of the data she had gathered over months of research.   But when one of the members of the audience inquired about the meaning behind the data, her answer was simple. “I don’t know. I only know the numbers.”   This was frustrating to us, and we suspect other folks in the audience. But it’s been our experience at various conferences, webinars and other presentation venues that a great deal of academic work doesn’t seem to take the next step forward, beyond doing meticulous research in order to find out what the research really means.   Don’t misunderstand, we know that academic research is often limited by time and money. But we’d like to make a modest proposal (and maybe this isn’t practical, but that doesn’t stop us from suggesting it): After the heavy number crunching is done, we’d like academics to have a handful of discussions with experts in the field to see how they would interpret the information they’ve gathered.   The responses that could be garnered through this extra step wouldn’t need to be published as gospel – but could at least give users of the published work a sense of what it might mean, creating a starting point for their own reflections.   We hasten to add that we’re not saying that all research should be qualitative. We’d just like the important findings of quantitative research to be presented in a real-world context of some kind.   Some of those reading this B&G Report will remember the Government Performance Project (GPP), which was a Pew-Charitable Trusts effort that was published in Governing Magazine, with the goal of evaluating the management capacity of the states (and occasionally cities and counties).   The research included lengthy survey instruments that covered the areas of human resources, budgeting, performance management, information technology and infrastructure, in an effort to evaluate the management capacity of states. We were deeply involved in its inception, research and writing. (Actually, it was loosely based on a similar, far less rigorous exercise that we did for the now defunct publication, Financial World.)   The GPP included a cadre of very smart academics with small teams of graduate students to go through the survey instruments – had scores of sub criteria that were then pulled together to analyze how the governments fared on clear-cut criteria, and then brought a full step forward to come up with overall evaluation. That could then be translated into grades.   But we also had a team of journalists, who did many hundreds of interviews with people in all fifty states and tried to get answers and context for all of the sub-criteria that the academics were using. This wasn’t always easy, but we were able to get people on the phone, to work with the journalistic team.   The journalistic input provided two benefits.   First, it sometimes discovered flaws in information that came from the surveys. While the journalists made every effort to reach people who were at the higher levels of government, sometimes the surveys were filled out by interns who didn’t necessarily provide the most accurate answers.   When this happened, the academic team was able to re-evaluate, and the two groups came together to find a consensus that we thought approximated the truth.   On the other side of the coin, sometimes interviews were inclined to whitewash their stories and put the full emphasis on the positives. The academics provided an intellectual grounding that provided accountability.   The other advantage was that the journalists were able to tell the stories that allowed readers to get more than “just the numbers.” We didn’t just provide the total grades and the grades in the criteria, but we were able to publish the stories behind the most intriguing results.   We apologize for this little trip down memory lane, but this exercise and the collaboration between journalists and academics has been a highlight of our careers, and taught us a great deal about the potential flaws in relying just on interviews (the way that journalists are inclined to do), as well as the booby-traps that can be hidden in seemingly accurate and complete data.   The results bore out the process, and we were aware that a number of states actually took action based on the findings. And whether you’re an academic or a journalist what could be better than that?   #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformance #CountyGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentPerformance #GovernmentPerformanceProject #PewCharitableTrusts #GoverningMagazine #FinancialWorld #StateandLocalGovernmentData #GovernmentDataAndRealWorldContext #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #CityPerformanceManagement #CountyPerformanceManagement #JournalistAcademicCollaboration #StateandLocalInformationTechnology #StateandLocalInfrastructureManagement #StateandLocalHumanResources #StateandLocalHR #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #CityBudgeting #CountyBudgeting #StateandLocalFinancialManagement #CityFinancialManagement #CountyFinancialManagement #GradingStateManagement #GradingCityManagement #GradingCountyManagement #AcademicJournalistPartnership #StateandLocalData #StateandLocalDataMeaning #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

There are many important routes to heighten the likelihood of developing successful programs and policies in the public sector. But over the years, in dozens of conversations, we’ve had one factor that comes up repeatedly: It’s critical to be willing to take risks. Naturally we’re not talking about gambling with the public dollars without ample consideration, study and the search for evidence. Instead, we’re thinking about a truly calculated approach to entering new territory.   This isn’t a new phenomenon, but we’d argue that risk-taking has grown ever more important in a fast-moving world in which new problems and opportunities seem to be cropping up on a regular basis. The mantra that “we’re doing it this way, because that’s the way we’ve always done it,” is not just outmoded, but probably a path that’s destined to result in missed opportunities. We asked Don Kettl, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and a close colleague of ours for years, what he thought. Here’s what he had to say: “With inescapable demands and an enormously turbulent environment, state and local officials need to learn how to take risks—to experiment with new strategies for solving problems, to explore how best to connect with citizens, and to learn—fast—about how to adapt to unpredictable changes. It’s a hugely exciting time but one full of enormous challenges, and it’s a time where business-as-usual leaders are doomed to fail.” We also turned to William Hatcher, p rofessor and chair of social sciences at Augusta University, and he added that  “In our environment of political uncertainties and democratic backsliding, it is even more important for us in public administration to work toward solutions for the problems plaguing our communities. However, this will require state and local governments to take risks in solving public problems. But these risks need to be informed. Public administration can contribute through sharing expertise in helping policy makers devise evidence-based solutions and then implement those solutions in an effective, efficient, democratic, and fair manner.” Added Brooks Williams, the city manager of Ferris, Texas, “Real progress in state and local government does not come from preserving every existing process or waiting for perfect certainty. It comes from leaders who are willing to take informed risks in pursuit of better outcomes for the people and places they serve. That may mean redesigning outdated systems, challenging assumptions that no longer hold, or trying a different way of delivering services when the old way is no longer enough. Too often, government treats inaction as the safe choice, when in reality doing nothing carries its own consequences, costs, and failures.”   Why do some city, county or state leaders avoid taking risks? One big part of the answer is pretty obvious. Every risk has a chance of resulting in a failure. And in a day when many election campaigns are focused on pointing out the mistakes made by a previous administration, elected officials can be pilloried during a campaign for potentially sensible risks that simply didn’t pan out as planned. Some years ago, we came across a quote that summed things up rather nicely: “The more society becomes focused on success the more failure gets stigmatized.” Of course, fears of risk are the natural state of affairs for many human beings whether in the public sector or elsewhere.  Tim Maniccia,  chief fiscal officer and treasurer at the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District , pointed us to the work done by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, arguably the founders of behavioral economics. They theorized in their 1979 ground-breaking work  Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk , that humans fear losing what they have more than they value gaining what they do not have.   Williams adds a cautionary note: “Risk in government should never be confused with recklessness. Responsible public leadership means being transparent about tradeoffs, grounded in evidence, and accountable for results, while still having the courage to move before every variable is settled. The strongest institutions are not the ones that avoid risk altogether. They are the ones that build the capacity to take smart risks deliberately, learn from them, and adapt without losing sight of mission, stewardship, and service."    So, how do we take risks while continuing to be good fiscal stewards? Haley Kadish, policy and budget director for Bernalillo County, NM  suggests that “we must ensure that risk is productive. By this I mean we need to invest in measuring whether the risk we took worked. Having that answer builds credibility with both elected leaders and constituents so that we can take the risks necessary to be nimble enough to meet our communities’ changing needs while also remaining good fiscal stewards.” #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentRiskManagement #RiskManagementInLocalGovernment #RiskManagementInStateGovernment #CityGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentManagement #RiskManagementInCityGovernment #RiskManagementInCountyGovernment #GovernmentAversionToRisk #StigmatizingFailure #StateandLocalRiskAvoidance #StateandLocalGovernmentLeadership #StateandLocalFiscalStewardship #StateandLocalAdaptationToChange #DonKettl #BrooksWilliams #TimManiccia #HaleyKadish #WilliamHatcher #BernalliloCountyNM #CityOfFerrisTX #DemocraticBacksliding #StateandLocalEvidenceBasedDecisions #ConsequencesOfGovernmentInaction #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

Back on March 6, 2020, the IBM Center for the Business of Government hosted a glorious party in honor of our then-new book “The Promises and Pitfalls of Performance-Informed Management.” (Rowman & Littlefield) There was a lot of talk in the room about some mysterious new disease that seemed to be spreading. People were bumping elbows. On March 11 th , the World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. That night the NBA suspended its season, and a national travel ban from Europe was announced. As you can imagine, that didn’t do any good for sales of the book (which of course, was the least of the world’s problems for years to come). But one of the sections of the book, of which we were particularly proud, was a section titled Rx for Pitfalls, in which we provided a checklist of recommendations to optimize the use of performance management initiatives. For reasons that don’t bear going into, we’ve just reviewed that section and have decided that it is as timely now as it was then. So, with some modifications from the original, here’s our advice: ·         It is important to acknowledge that performance management systems are an integral part of government – like budgeting or procurement – and not just an adjunct effort. ·         Performance management efforts are more likely to be sustainable if they are not overly identified with an outgoing political administration.  It is better for them to be identified as a tool of the city than as the former mayor’s baby. ·         Narrative explanations should be presented side-by-side with performance measurement information or other data.  This provides the opportunity to put the numbers into context and to make sure that readers understand any exogenous factors that influence results. If numbers used in performance measurement targets are thrown wildly off by a forest fire, flood or hurricane, for example, it is important to communicate that. ·         Communication and reporting of performance measurements to legislators should be kept short and to the point to ensure they are considered. Knowledge of committee schedules and study assignments are extremely helpful in determining when information may be most useful and when it will overload legislators or their staff. ·         Sharing experiences with individuals in other cities, counties and states that are involved in performance management efforts provides an ongoing support system and way to share ideas and experiences. ·         The ability to gather together with other people who are working in neighboring or even faraway governments and dealing with the same issues and frustrations has enormous payoffs. ·         Building an organized information infrastructure can help both central offices and agencies know the work that has been completed in the past that may be relevant to current efforts. Central data inventories help managers know what information from other agencies would be useful to them. Centralized easy-to-access websites that provide retrievable copies of government reports and evaluations make sure that past work is not lost. ·         Caution should be exercised when utilizing incentives as an inducement to meet performance targets. Too often, incentives, whether in contracts, pay-for-performance plans or linked to increased funding, lead to gameplaying with performance results. ·         The beginning of a new program or policy initiative is the best time to consider the data that will be needed to analyze and evaluate how well it is doing and what changes may be needed to make it work better. ·         Building up workforce data skills is a pressing need that can be accelerated through both internal and external resources, with train the trainer and mentor relationships helping to spread the knowledge. ·         Training itself only goes part of the way. Coaching is also needed to keep building skills among workers without technical training.  Networks help to encourage participants to see performance management as a living breathing process that they can support through their collaborative forums, strategic conversations, and design workshops and which will break down silos, erase feelings of loneliness and fear of change and bring joy to the performance management effort. ·         Performance management benefits from a dash of realism in what can be accomplished with the resources available. This means avoiding over expectations and over-selling of the initiative and not under-projecting staff and resource needs. #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #CityPerformanceManagement #CountyPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #PerformanceManagementSuccessCheckList #CityandCountyPerformanceMeasurement #PerformanceManagementPitfalls #PerformanceMeasurementPitfalls #PerformanceMeasurementTargets #PerformanceInformedManagement #CommunicatingPerformanceInformationToLegislators #PromisesAndPitfallsOfPerformanceInformedManagement #StateandLocalPerformance #CityandCountyGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalData #StateandLocalDataGoernance #StateandLocalDataInventories #StateandLocalDataCollection #PerformanceManagementResilience #PerformanceMeasurementReporting #PerformanceMeasurementCommunication #PerformanceMeasurementNetworks #PerformanceManagementCommunication #PerformanceManagementTraining #BuildingWorkforceDataSkills #PerformanceMeaurementIncentives #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

We’ve been watching the Ken Burns documentary series about the history of the Vietnam War. It’s a difficult series to watch, but fascinating, nonetheless.   One point that the documentary makes is that, unlike other wars in which success was measured by the land overtaken, in Vietnam that didn’t apply as neither side ever really made any physical progress until after the end of the war, when North Vietnam prevailed and one nation emerged.   As a result, during the war, the measurement used was the number of dead bodies that could be counted (notwithstanding that it wasn’t always clear which side the bodies came from). The point Burns makes is that this was the easiest thing to measure and so was the metric upon which important decisions were made.   This struck a resilient chord for the two of us, thinking not of wars, but of the way states and localities often measure their success. They often focus on data that’s easier to collect but may be less helpful in achieving a desired result.   Take for example, crime rates, which are the measures upon which many police departments determine the degree to which they’re accomplishing their work. We won’t question that everyone wants less crime, but that measure leaves a great deal to be desired. For one thing, people can be fearful of reporting crimes (perhaps because of concern over retaliation or even when they don’t want to be identified by the authorities themselves). This can easily mean that there’s somewhat less crime than that which is being reported. The opposite problem also occurs when an apparent increase in crime comes from a shift in procedure or a change in reporting, leading to greater fears although the actual crime incidence hasn’t changed.   In our view, there may be somewhat better ways to measure crime-fighting success – and that’s the safety felt by the residents of a community.  Regular surveys can uncover this kind of data, but in many communities, surveys can be difficult to administer and unless great care is taken may not even reach the portion of the population that is most vulnerable to crime.   Then there are measures of success of tax incentives. Typically, cities or states turn to the number of new jobs created. But sometimes, these jobs are temporary, leaving a false impression. This is particularly true when it comes to incentives for data centers. Many new jobs are created when the centers are being constructed, but once they’re up and running, the jobs rapidly decline; it really doesn’t take too many people to keep a data center running.   It’s easy to proclaim victory when the first wave of jobs comes in, with few entities publicizing the reduction of jobs that follows, even though these are numbers that are available.   Homelessness provides another good example. Many places measure their success at dealing with this onerous problem by counting the number of shelter beds filled or the number of people who are processed into the system. But it would be more useful to consider the time-to-transition from temporary housing to more permanent abodes. Of course, this is much harder to measure, because fragmented state, local and non-profit systems often don’t share data, making it difficult to determine the results of a policy or how it’s implemented.   The purchase of new large IT systems can also be problematically measured. An entity may take credit for completing the installation of a new hardware or software system. But timeliness, while very important, doesn’t consider whether or not the new technology functions as intended. We can’t begin to count the number of times in which we’ve interviewed people at all levels of government who are woefully disappointed that new technology promises haven’t been kept. In that case, it matters less whether the IT was installed on schedule. It’s like having a train arrive at your station on time but then get stuck on the tracks.   In all these instances, there are no magic wands that leaders can wave to produce results measurements that can be put to good use. Our warning is simple: Be aware that the measurements you’re using are flawed and be careful about the ways they are used to make decisions.   #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalGovernmentData #CityGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #CountyGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #CityPerformanceManagement #CountyPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalCrimeMeasurement #StateandLocalCrimeData #StateandLocalTaxIncentiveResults #MeasuringResults #StateandLocalHomelessnessMeasurement #StateandLocalHomelessnessData #MeasuringStateLocalTaxIncentiveSuccess #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

We don’t get it. Over the years, many cities and states have handed out tax incentives with the notion that they are supposed to have a good return on investment. They’re supposed to bring in jobs and have a ripple effect in neighborhoods in which the incentivized project is located. But that often seems to be an illusion. Elected officials nearly always play up the potential benefits and downplay costs. Fortunately, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board has a standard that entities report lost revenue. But residents aren’t inclined to read government annual reports.   If they were more aware of the tradeoffs between education or health care and the money spent on tax exemptions, it’s our guess that they’d be less than thrilled when a governor or a mayor announced the exciting news about the next big tax-incentive-based economic deal. We’ve written about this in the past, but are moved to bring it up again, as the huge desire for rapidly expanding data centers has led some states – including Virginia, Illinois and Georgia to use tax incentives to attract these sexy new installations.   “Data centers are Exhibit A for what states should not be subsidizing in 2026,” Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, an organization that gathers much of the best data pertaining to tax incentives, told us.  “States themselves report losing 52 to 91 cents on the dollar on their sales and use tax exemptions. Data centers are causing stress on electric grids, driving up electricity prices, taxing water supplies, and creating very few permanent jobs.”   Consider some numbers from Georgia. Currently the state is expected to forgo some $2.5 billion to data center tax exemptions according to the state’s own data . “That’s 664 percent higher than the state’s previous estimate of $327 million,” according to Good Jobs First , “a reflection of the speed at which the industry is extracting public money from communities across the country.” Policy makers often use the so-called ‘but-for’ argument to make the case that if they weren’t forgoing millions, or billions of dollars in exemptions, they’d lose the potential for new economic development to other cities or states. But as we’ve studied this topic over the years, that’s never seemed to hold up in the real world. Far more important than tax incentives is the presence of a skilled workforce. This is particularly true in high-tech sectors, in which proximity to research universities is a major benefit.  Beyond that the costs of labor are a major factor. Then there’s the speed with which a company can move forward. High on the list of disincentives to businesses are lengthy periods – months or even years – to turn a plan into reality. Additionally, the quality of life of a city or state carries a lot of weight. Housing  affordability is a major factor for businesses. If workers must make a long commute to get to the office, that will mean that a company may have troubles in attracting sufficient talent – even in parts of the country in which there are ample talented potential workers.   There’s some powerful evidence that these other factors carry more weight to potential corporate employers. Georgia had a lot going for it in terms of existing infrastructure and low energy costs, and according to the Carl Vinson Institute at the University of Georgia . “in the absence of the exemption, 70% of data center construction activity in the state would have occurred anyway and . . . the remaining 30% could be attributed to the tax exemption.” David Brunori, Senior Director at RSM US LLP , has written extensively about this topic. We asked him to see if he could add anything. Here’s what he wrote; “A more philosophical reason for opposing incentives is that the government is literally picking winners and losers in the marketplace. The government has a hard enough time doing traditional governmental stuff. Government economic planning has never worked very well.  Data centers are a great example.  Many states have encouraged investment in data centers without regard to markets. Now in many states there is a glut of data centers. Moreover, most governments did not consider issues such as energy consumption and land use when providing incentives”   Finally, promises made by companies to deliver thousands of new jobs may not ever come to pass. In some instances, the jobs never materialize, in others the jobs aren’t genuinely new to the region but are simply a factor of shifting an employee from one employer to another.    At least entities that carefully measure the benefits of tax incentives are less likely to throw dollars out the door. But more often that doesn’t come to pass. According to Good Jobs First in 2025, only about 7 percent of U.S. cities disclose both the jobs promised and the jobs actually created. Without this transparency, the public never knows when a project has failed to deliver.   In a column  written by Ellen Harpel, Founder of Smart Incentives and Randall Bauer, Director, PFM Group Consulting, explained, entities should take the following into account:   “Consider both requirements (such as contractual obligations that the company must meet) and requests (information that would be helpful to have but may not be contractually required).” “Data should allow tracking of milestones to show outcomes achieved and incentive payments made. Data insights can also be used to address projects that are not in compliance.”   “Compliance data is valuable for both internal and external use. Internally, managers can see how well programs are performing and which programs are most effective at generating the outcomes the government cares about.”   #StateandLocalManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement  #StateandLocalTaxIncentives #StateandLocalTaxIncentiveCosts #StateandLocalTaxIncentiveTransparency #StateTaxIncentives #LocalGovernmentTaxIncentives #CityGovernmentManagement #CityTaxIncentives #CountyGovernmentManagement#CountyTaxIncentives #TaxIncentivesAndDataCenters  #StateandLocalTaxIncentiveTransparency #CityTaxIncentiveTransparency #CountyTaxIncentiveTransparency #StateandLocalFinancialManagement #CityFinancialManagement #CountyFinancialManagement #StateandLocalEconomicDevelopment #CityEconomicDevelopment #CountyEconomicDevelopment #TaxIncentiveCost #TaxIncentiveCostAndOutcome #StateLocalDataAndTaxIncentives #TrackingTaxIncentiveOutcomesWithData #TaxIncentivesAndPerformanceMeasurement #GovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoard #StateandLocalJobCreation #StateandLocalGovernmentWorkforce #StateandLocalDataCenterCosts #DavidBrunori # RSMUSLLP  #EllenHarpel #SmartIncentives #RandallBauer #PFMGroupConsulting #GovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoard #GASBTaxAbatementStatement

We know that most people who run for office in states and localities do so because they have a passion for doing good for the people they will represent. After all, there’s not a lot of money to be made, the hours are long and they’ve got the pressure of quickly handling unpredictable natural disasters. But we’re concerned to hear that perhaps the gratification of doing good for people may not be enough anymore. In fact, according to an article in The Conversation  by Charles Hunt, Associate Professor of Political Science at Boise State University, “In dozens of states, an increasing number of state legislative seats are going completely uncontested by one of the two major parties.” Hunt attributes this phenomenon largely to the uphill battle confronted by a representative of a party that isn’t backed by sufficient voters to mount a vigorous challenge. We’re confident that he’s right. But we believe there’s something else afoot – particularly for top-level elected executive branch positions. We used to think idly about putting the knowledge we’d acquired in writing about states and localities to practical use by running for a position of some sort. But now, we couldn’t imagine even considering that (notwithstanding that we kind of like what we do already). The world out there has simply gotten way too tough, with the nation’s political polarization generating an arduous battle for getting things done. In fact, it’s gotten so bad that we find ourselves filled with joy whenever we see an initiative for which there’s been bi-partisan support. What’s more, the political attacks that were always part of any campaign have become fiercer and more filled with attacks on individuals, with less attention to the policies for which they stand. As Elaine Cariati, chairwomen of the Meriden (Connecticut) Republican Town Committee told the Ct. Examiner  recently, “Social media has become a ruthless business. They post whatever they want about any candidate and that goes for either party. They go after the candidates and they will say whatever they want and there’s no consequence.” That’s not the only problem with social media. As we wrote  not long ago, “ Our greatest concern is that the amount of incorrect information that is out on the internet can make civic leaders want to tear their hair out, as misinformation builds up from one resident to another until the sheer mass of falsehoods makes it appear to be the truth. Ultimately, this has the potential of diminishing the already low level of trust in government, and that doesn’t do a community any good.” A great deal has been written about state preemption of local decision-making. And then, there’s the federal government’s increasing encroachment on the ability of mayors, other local leaders and state officials to run their own shows. It’s been dubbed a “war over federalism.” Beyond the incursions of ICE, in which federal employees have effectively invaded a number of cities in search of illegal immigrants, another troublesome example has taken place in at least ten  cities, including Charlotte, North Carolina and Washington D.C. where national guard troops have been called in from elsewhere  “despite local crime data showing reductions in violent crime, including homicides, in several of those cities,” according to an article in Capitol B , a non-profit news service. Though the Trump administration appears to have backed off from this effort, it still leaves a chilling effect. The problems just start there. Notwithstanding the sentiments – or even the party affiliations -- of elected officials there’s a sense that the federal government can punish states or cities that don’t go along with its policies. Depriving mayors and governors to make those kinds of decisions themselves neuters their capacity to fulfill the agendas for which they were elected. Even were the federal government is not a part of the picture, this is a particularly tough time to be in elected office in a city or a state. High on the list is the fiscal cliff that many are now confronting as pandemic-based federal aid runs out, even while expenditures on things like health care are rising. These days, no matter how politically astute a city or state leader is, many are faced with an impossible choice: raise taxes or cut services. As Farhad Omeyr, Program Director of Research and Data Analysis for the National League of Cities. explained, “since last December, which was the ARPA cliff, cities’ 2025 budgets have actually started to tap into their fund balances. . .Cities are still feeling downward pressures because of the impacts of tariffs, inflation, infrastructure needs and so on.”’ Further, a great many elected officials are about to face one of their least pleasant tasks: negotiating new labor contracts or coming up with the cash to pay for old ones that were negotiated in the aftermath of the pandemic. We’re optimists by nature, and think that there are still plenty of competent, capable industrious people who will choose to run for office.  And we don’t want to overstate the case and argue that we’re on the edge of a crisis. But we fear that as the life of an elected official is less and less attractive, we may run short of the kind of people that we all need running the show.   #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalLeadership #StateLeadership #CityLeadership #LeadershipChillFactor #ElectedOfficialChillFactor #StateandLocalPoliticalCandidateShortage #StateandLocalPublicAdministration #PoliticalCandidateChillFactor #IntergovernmentalRelations #StateandLocalUncontestedElections #UncontestedCityElections #StateandLocalSocialMediaUse #CityGovernmentSocialMediaUse #SocialMediaMisinformation #StateandLocalTrustInGovernment #TrustInGovernment #StateEncroachmentOnLocalGovernment #FederalEncroachmentOnLocalGovernment #StateandLocalFiscalCliff #PoliticalPartisanshipAndStateLocalElections #CityCrimeExaggeration #NationalLeagueOfCities #TheConversation #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

For some years now, when driving on busy highways there are inevitable moments when we need to merge to a right-hand lane to easily get off at our exit. Maybe there’s a touch of paranoia here, but it feels to us that as soon as we signal to move from our lane to the right, the car on the other lane seems to speed up and not slow down. Our trick – and this works much of the time – is to have the one of us in the passenger seat open the window and put out a hand to signal our intentions.   Suddenly we’ve become human beings not just slabs of metal, and more often than not, we’re able to merge without effort.   This little bit of life experience came to mind when we were listening to George Saunders, the writer best known for his novel “Lincoln in the Bardo” when he was interviewed by David Marchese on the New York Times’ podcast, “The Daily.”   Saunders was, he said, dismayed by “The rate at which we're being encouraged to forgo human-to-human activity.” He went on to remark on the number of daily interactions he experiences that are impersonal. “It’s skyrocketed and I think it’s corrosive,” he said.   In the old days when we did interviews for magazines, frequently we’d make arrangements to meet the interviewee in person in their office and sometimes their homes (we were particularly delighted when then Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker served us tea in the governor’s mansion). Relationships with people we’ve met in person, we can attest, tend to last longer, be stronger, and engender more mutual trust than those that are developed on the telephone, or even worse through e-mails and worst of all through texts.   There are a great many advantages when people can conduct transactions with their state or local government through websites or online forms. But increasing technological interactions can also risk creating de-personalized government. And when technology isn’t perfectly attuned to a person’s needs – and nobody can be reached in person – that doesn’t help the public servants to gain the appreciation they deserve.    A similar phenomenon can be clearly seen in the workplace. While we understand the need and the benefits of remote work (we’ve been working out of our home for decades), there’s something missing when co-workers aren’t able to communicate in person. In our experience, people are more inclined to cooperate with one another when they actually have a sense that they know one another. Even small talk, which seems like a waste of time, can bring out commonalties that forge relationships and nurture collaboration.   For some years, we were contractors for the Pew Charitable Trusts, working on a long series of projects. Though most of our communications took place through e-mails or phone calls, we made a point of visiting the office in Washington D.C. (or earlier on, in Philadelphia.) for a couple of days every month. Naturally, most of our time was taken up in formal meetings, but in between scheduled interactions, we’d wander down the halls, finding colleagues who were in their offices and weren’t too busy to chat.   We enjoyed these conversations, but we also knew that when it came time to collaborate on a project, these face-to-face interactions led to the kind of relationships that made decisions easier to reach. They engendered mutual trust.   That was an unusual kind of situation, but we’re confident that face-to-face conversations that are entirely about work are often rather productive. For one thing, body language can help to diminish misunderstandings. Even virtual meetings limit the value that can be gained when watching someone else’s hands turn into fists, a sure sign that something may be going awry.   Based on a great many off-the-record conversations that we’ve had with people in state or local government, we’ve heard that the lack of human interaction can easily lead to stressful communication with a supervisor, and unhappiness at the job. Getting negative feedback, in written form or even on the phone, can easily make it difficult to understand how serious a problem is.   One way in which people in the public sector can help fend off the impact of a faceless society is by attending conferences. When more than one person from an organization attends, there’s an easy opportunity to engage with one another in a way that will pay off when everyone returns home. Additionally, the chance to spend time with people from other jurisdictions opens the door to learning practices, programs, policies and management techniques that are working elsewhere.   We have to admit that, with the exception of conferences, given the nature of our work, we tend to fall into the category of people who don’t have much chance to have real in-person contacts. Even some of the organizations with which we work lack an office to visit – the work is all done online.   Certainly, there’s an efficiency that can be gained by the current state of affairs. Joni Mitchell wrote a beautiful song called Both Sides Now, in which one lyric is “Well somethings lost but something’s gained in living every day.”   In this case, we’d like to flip around those words and, suggest that in this case, the lyric could be changed to “Somethings gained but something’s lost in living every day.”   #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentAndHumanInteraction #OdeToHumanInteraction #StateandLocalHumanResources #StateandLocalHR #StateandLocalWorkforce #EmployeeResidentContact #HumanResourcesMinusHumans #StateGovernmentAndPublicInteraction #CityEmployeesAndHumanInteractionn #StateEmployeesAndResidentInteraction #StateandLocalPublicAdministration #StateandLocalResidentInteraction #PublicSectorDepersonalization #LocalGovernmentAndHumanInteraction #StateGovernmentAndHumanInteraction #CityGovernmentandHumanInteraction #AuthorGeorgeSaunders #LincolnAtTheBardo #DavidMarcheseInterview #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc.

It’s long been known that exposure to bad news can be genuinely unsettling. As long ago as 1997, a study originally published in the British Journal of Psychology found that just 14 minutes of exposure to negative news can significantly increase anxiety and sad moods. Nearly three decades after that study, its conclusion leads to greater concern than ever. The future is wildly uncertain. The media is full of alarming stories, from the growing number of natural disasters to a political climate in which candidates threaten that if their opponent wins, it will mean that the nation will head straight into the pits of hell. With all this in mind, we’ve had a couple of interesting conversations with people who are encouraging public servants (and for that matter the rest of us) to make an effort, more now than ever, to look on the positive side of things, and acknowledge that with careful thought and planning good things can get done. A couple of weeks ago, we had a conversation with Rita Reynolds, formerly CIO of the National Association of Counties and she had this to say: “Is the glass half full? Is it half empty? I prefer to look at a problem in terms of ‘Okay, that didn't work. What else can we do that will meet the need or meet the deliverables on the time frame we established?’ And if it can't, then let's be honest and upfront about what we're going to do to get us close. That's a positive attitude, that's finding solutions. That's the type of skills that are needed in today's world.” More recently, we chatted with Erica Broome, revenue planning manager for Rock Hill, South Carolina who is also an advocate of positivity in the workplace. As she told us, “Negative people like company, and if my team starts to drift negative then performance drops and collaboration collapses. I don’t want to spend my whole week managing people’s moods instead of what I’m here to do which is to manage the city’s finances.” There’s been a great deal of talk for the last several years about burnout among public sector employees. Assuming that work overload that leads to burnout isn’t going away, one source of relief from burnout is keeping an upbeat attitude. Consider these two options, when a public servant is faced with a difficult problem. They can have an internal conversation in which they tell themselves one of two things or something in between. The negative person thinks: “I’m confronting a task that is going to make me want to cry. The positive person thinks: “Well this is really difficult, but I can find a way to manage it.” Which one do you think will make a staffer stay productive and avoid burnout? Fortunately for people at the local level the results of their work can be felt by the residents they serve. The local press may be tilted toward the negative at the federal level, but at least there’s a chance that it will give credit to the completion of a new bridge, a youth opportunity initiative, or a community garden. Since public employees aren’t usually attracted to their jobs because of high pay, a sense of accomplishment – and the positive feelings that inspires -- can be a major motivator toward working still harder.  In the little Connecticut town in which we live, the community got credit for quickly clearing the snow and providing guidance for residents who may have lost their power and heat -- lists of warming centers, for example. Kind words from  neighbors and constituents are key to maintaining a positive outlook. Norman Vincent Peal had powerful advice for keeping up that kind of proactive attitude in his famous 1952 book, “The Power of Positive Thinking.” Most of the people reading this weren’t born when that best-seller came out, but his guidance continues to be worthwhile, we think. A few quotes: “Believe in yourself. Have faith in your abilities. “If you have zest and enthusiasm, you attract zest and enthusiasm.” Become a possibilitarian. No matter how dark things  seem to be, or actually are, raise your sight and see possibilities” “Stand up to your obstacles and do something about them. You will find that they haven’t half the strength you think they have.” “Every problem has in it the seeds of its own solution.” Not only can a brighter outlook help public employees stay the course in choppy seas, it can also be beneficial for people who are applying for public sector jobs. Interviewers aren’t inclined to be attracted to people who have a sour attitude toward the world. Rather, they’re looking for employees who take pleasure in solving problems, rather than dwelling on them. Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein offered good advice to this point, in their musical the King and I, when they wrote, “W henever I feel afraid. I hold my head erect. And whistle a happy tune. So no one will suspect, I'm afraid.” #PositiveAttitudesAndGovernmentSolutions  #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateAndLocalGovernmentWorkforce #StateandLocalHumanResources #StateandLocalHR #StateandLocalHiring #StateandLocalProblemSolving #CityProblemSolving #CountyProblemSolving #StateandLocalEmployeeEngagement #PublicSectorProblemSolving #StateandLocalEmployeeBurnout #AntidoteToEmployeeBurnout #PositiveThinkingAndPublicSectorProgress #PositiveThinkingAndStateandLocalGovernment #PositiveThinkingAndResidentOutreach  #PositiveThinkingAndEmployeeBurnout #StateandLocalGovernmentCulture #PositiveThinkingAndGovernmentResults #CityManagementAndPositiveThinking #CityPerformanceAndPositiveThinking #CountyManagementAndPositiveThinking #CountyPerformanceAndPositiveThinking #PositivityAndResidentOutreach #StateandLocalHiring #RitaReynolds #RockHillSouthCarolina #NormanVincentPeale #BandGReport #BarrettandGreene

Back in 1871, Lewis Carroll began to use the term “portmanteau” as a description of words (which he made up) that blended two meanings into one. One of those that has lasted over the years includes  “chortle,’ which  was originally coined, in the poem Jabberwocky by Carroll, as a combination of “chuckle” and “snort.” Others that followed included “brunch” for breakfast and lunch; “motel” for a motor hotel; “smog for smoke and fog,” and “infomercial” for the combo of “information and a commercial.” It struck us that there are ample opportunities for us to come up with our own portmanteau words to apply to state and local government. We don’t expect them to become part of the English language, but it was sure a pleasant game coming up with them. And we invite our readers to try to think of more and send them our way. Try it. It’s fun. Procurementality – For the careful thought that should go through the minds of agency heads when they consider the kind of goods and services that they’re going to need in order to carry out the missions of a program. Artificial-Intelligentsia  – This is the group of people, who believe that they really understand a great deal about the future of AI (whether they’re right or wrong) Medicadence  – The hoped for future in which the Medicaid program ceases to be a hugely contentious area, but settles down into something that’s far more predictable. Appropriateation – The state in which in which dollars spent by a government (appropriations) are used for the programs and efforts that are proven to be essential or have the chance of providing a reasonable return on investment, as opposed to the cash that goes out, for example, to benefit political donors. Referendummy  – When something comes up for voter approval, and is passed, despite the fact that it really doesn’t have the remotest chance of helping the people who supported it or even those who didn’t. Jurisdictionary – A guide to all the jargon and acronyms that are commonly used in cities, counties and states, but which nobody outside the field really understands. Having come up with these first seven of our own, we decided to see the results we’d get if we asked an artificial intelligence program to help come up with more.  Following is a list of more public sector portmanteau words, courtesy of AI (and sadly, for us, we like some of these better than the ones we came up with ourselves): Bureaucra-chat : The lengthy, circular conversation that occurs during a public hearing where nothing is actually decided.   Zonarchy : A local government system where the zoning board holds more power than the actual mayor.   Potholery : The specific brand of wizardry or "creative accounting" used to explain why a road hasn’t been paved in a decade.   Taxasperation : The feeling of looking at your local property tax assessment and realizing your "shed" is being taxed as a luxury villa.   Munici-pals : The unique brand of midnight pizzas, and talk about the latest football game, that accompanies the kind of "pal-ship" shared between city council members during a late-night budget session.   Legis-late : The act of waiting until 11:59 PM on the final day of the session to pass a 400-page bill.   Ordin-ancestry : The ancient, outdated local laws that no one follows but everyone is too afraid to repeal (e.g., "no horses on Main Street after 8 PM").   Quorum-rumor : The frantic whispering in the hallway when it’s unclear if enough board members will show up for a meeting to be legal.   Votivation : The sudden, intense surge of energy a local official gets to fix your sidewalk exactly two weeks before an election.   Gover-natter : The polite, non-committal small talk a governor engages in while touring a county fair.   Permit-igation : The grueling, multi-month process of trying to mitigate the headache caused by a simple building permit application. #StateandocalGovernmentWordPlay #PortmanteauWordsForStateandLocalGovernment #PortmanteauWordsForCityGovernment #PortmanteauWordsForCountyGovernment #PortmanteauWordsForBudgeting #PortmanteauWordsForStateandLocalTaxation #PortmanteauWordsForStateGovernment #StateandLocalGovernmentAndLewisCarroll #StateandLocalGovernmentAndJabberwocky #PortmanteauWordsForPublicSectorManagement #PortmanteauWordsForPublicSectorPerformance #DedicatedToStateandLocalGovernment #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc

For a while our Facebook account was out of order. It required the intervention of our son (a native in the world of social media) to figure out how to get it running again. And now we’re not so certain that we’re better off than we were before. In truth, we’re not huge social media users. We have an Instagram account but rarely use it. Every couple of months we fool around with Tik-Tok. We don’t quite count LinkedIn in this group, as it’s far more professionally oriented in nature, and we’re heavy users of that service. Since we tend to view most cultural phenomena through the lens of cities, counties and states, we’ve set about thinking about whether social media has been a force for good or for evil. And as is typical with these kinds of binary questions, our conclusion is that it’s some of both. On the positive side, for example, we’ve been grateful for information about public emergencies, which can be communicated in real time. A couple of weeks ago, we found the following information on Facebook from the nearby city of Danbury, which indicated that “The State Cold Weather Protocol will be in effect tomorrow January 15, 2026 at 5;00 pm through Friday January 16, 26 at 12:00PM due to dangerously low temperatures and strong winds.” The post went on to list the City of Danbury Warming Centers for people who had no way to get out of the cold. Pretty amazing, we think, for officials to be able to communicate to citizens the information they can use just when they need to use it. Beyond that, social media can offer up live-streaming town halls. And even though these meetings can be tedious and sometimes antagonistic, this gives the residents of a community the opportunity to hear directly from their communities’ leaders, without having their comments filtered through the lens of the local television, newspaper or radio station. We also see the use of social media outlets to recruit talent and boost tourism and small businesses. Finally, social media offers residents the opportunity to make their feelings heard and to complain about potholes, slow service at city hall or argue against changes in zoning that may affect their lives. For communities that pay attention, this can allow a way to find out what some residents are thinking and tap a broader crowd than show up at town meetings. Lest you think that we’re huge advocates of social media, you missed the idea that any article which has a section that begins with “on the positive” side is likely to lead to another series of paragraphs that begin with. “But on the negative side. . .” And here we go. Our greatest concern is that the amount of incorrect information that is out on the internet can make civic leaders want to tear their hair out, as misinformation builds up from one resident to another until the sheer mass of falsehoods makes it appear to be the truth. Ultimately, this has the potential of diminishing the already low level of trust in government, and that doesn’t do a community any good. Then too, functioning as an echo chamber, social media can encourage quick responses and distorted information, “undermining the potential for informed discourse and contributing to societal polarization,” as the California Resource Learning Network  aptly put it. We’d be surprised, in fact, if public sector staffers who are regularly exposed to uninformed comment, outright lies and online vitriol, don’t find it increasingly difficult to go to work each day. It’s only human nature to want to be appreciated, and to be unfairly attacked by the online voices is counterproductive for everyone concerned. Even in times when natural disasters hit, and governments use social media to get out good information, this useful material can easily be buried beneath rumors and falsehoods about the nature of the calamity that can jam up social media sites in a way that is counterproductive. Meanwhile, working in social media makes a government a great target for hackers, which means that there’s an ever-growing burden on an entity’s budget just to fend off the daily efforts to compromise city, county and state accounts. Then there’s the digital divide that crops up for people who are uncomfortable with social media for privacy purposes, individuals who have not yet acclimated to the world of online communications and people with disabilities who are unable to navigate online material that frequently doesn’t comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.   Finally, there can be some confusion between the social media posts that are put out by governments themselves and elected officials who may be simply stating a strong opinion and are not actually reporting official government information. While many consultants to states and localities advise that they get out their messages through social media – particularly as the old-fashioned conduits like newspapers have faded, it’s critical that governments think their social media use through clearly, and not simply as an adjunct to other means of reaching the populace, that can be easily utilized because it's cheap. #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalGovernmentCommunications #StateandLocalSocialMediaUse #StateandLocalSocialMediaAdvantages #StateandLocalSocialMediaDangers #StateandLocalPublicOutreach #CityGovernmentManagement #CityGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentCommunications #CityGovernmentSocialMediaUse #CityGovernmentPublicOutreach #CountyGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentCommunications #CountyGovernmentSocialMediaUse #CountyGovernmentPublicOutreach #SocialMediaMisinformation #SocialMediaAndPoliticalPolarization #PositiveStateLocalUseOfSocialMedia #NegativeStateLocalUseOfSocialMedia #PublicSectorDigitalDivide #SocialMediaEchoChambers #StateandLocalPolarization #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc