Search Results

In researching the 26-year-old Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program recently, we had the chance to talk with Mary Beth Vogel-Ferguson, a University of Utah research professor who has spent the last 23 years in a state-funded project to interview TANF clients and share results with agency management and senior leadership. “My role, which I really appreciate, has been in kind of translating what folks who are experiencing the program say and helping the people that run the program better understand what the impact is on the frontline,” Vogel-Ferguson told us. The long-running interview effort stands out. As we wrote in our June 13 Route Fifty column, there have been too few efforts at evaluating and assessing the results that the TANF program has produced. A PhD in Social Work, Vogel-Ferguson also has directed research studies and program evaluations with state and regional level government agencies and is the principal investigator of studies on other topics, including refugee support, employment of formerly chronically homeless individuals and the implementation of trauma informed approaches. The following Q&A has been edited from a conversation in late May. B&G: You’ve been involved with the University of Utah Social Research Institute project to interview TANF individuals for more than two decades. Could you sum up what the purpose was for state government? Mary Beth Vogel-Ferguson: The Utah Department of Workforce Services (DWS) wanted to get a better profile of who is seeking benefits and also find out what part of the program is working or not. I started 23 years ago and the process itself started a couple of years before that. I give the department all the credit. They recognized that they didn’t really know who they were serving. They needed a better sense of their customer base. B&G: Could you explain to us how the Utah survey approach has changed since this research started? Mary Beth: At the beginning, we were only talking with people who reached Utah’s 36-month time limit. Those are the ones who had the most struggles. It was not representative of the whole population. You have hundreds and hundreds of people who come in, get a little help, get what they need, move on and never come back. In 2006, we started interviewing people as they began their experience, then we went back 12 months later and then 12 months after that to be able to see what changed over time. We went through this process twice – once starting in 2006 and then again in 2012. We started another set in 2018, with the last person interviewed on January 28, 2020, just before Covid. I am not sure of plans for the future. B&G: We know that when TANF began there was still a lot of concern about “long-termers”, individuals who become dependent on cash assistance that they collect without having to work. That was a big part of the political drive to reform Aid to Families with Dependent Children with the current federal program, which has a federal five-year lifetime limit, with shorter time limits in some states, like Utah. Were the concerns about welfare dependency justified? Mary Beth: Everybody was worried about the long-termers. But the reality is that very few people hit time limits. We found the concerns were not anywhere near reality. The perception was that people stay on benefits as long as they possibly can. But of the individuals we interviewed in 2006, only 20% were still on TANF twelve months later, with only 12% receiving cash assistance twelve months after that. The vast majority of people had come and gone. The data has remained very much the same. B&G: Have your surveys told you why people leave the program? Mary Beth: People don’t necessarily like being on benefits. They use them for the time they need them and then they get back on their feet. In some cases, you lose people because the services you provide don’t match with the services they need. B&G: How big is the variation in what people need? Actually, we found that the population is very diverse and thus have very different needs. About 25% of the people come in with so many issues and so many barriers, the idea of complete self-sufficiency, probably even in their lifetime, isn’t realistic. And then you have another 25% who have dealt with whatever crisis led them to seek benefits and they’re ready to launch into employment. They just need help with their resume and interviewing skills. Often when they encounter a TANF system that has them jumping through all these hoops, they feel like they’re going backwards. B&G: Nationally, the percentage of families who receive TANF cash benefits is low. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, for every 100 families living in poverty, only 21 received cash assistance from TANF in 2019/2020. In Utah, the number of families receiving assistance is even lower: Just 9 families for every 100 families living in poverty. Why aren’t more parents accessing cash benefits? Mary Beth: Well, I think Utah is low for a couple of reasons. One of them is that there's an incredible social services system run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So, there's a lot of social supports that come through that program and that makes a difference. While the bulk of the supports go to LDS church members, sometimes others can also access this assistance. But there’s also a mismatch between what many people need and what the programs have to offer. And so that's a challenge. There are a lot of people who don’t access any services You really do need a certain level of functioning --or some good supports -- to get on benefits. It can be confusing and overwhelming. Because of this, and many other reasons, a large segment of people living in deep poverty never access benefits. B&G: Have policy or management changes in Utah come from what you’ve learned from your interviews? Mary Beth: Yes. People told us that one of the most precarious times is when they are moving from cash assistance into work. Utah instituted a program called “Transitional Cash Assistance.” It enabled workers to continue on full benefits for two and a half months after they got a job so that they could bridge the time between relying on cash assistance and income. There are so many companies that don’t provide pay until two or three weeks after you start. Another program was Work Success, which was targeted at the 25% who came in ready to work. Instead of tying them into volunteer programs or other ways to fill required work time, they engaged them in a program that was focused on resume writing, interview skills, building self-esteem and other things that might bridge them back into the workforce again.” B&G: Your most recent research report on the latest interview findings shows an improved relationship between Utah caseworkers, employment counselors and customers. Did your interviews with TANF customers contribute to that improvement? Mary Beth: Yes. They helped us focus on what we’ve learned about adverse childhood experiences and early childhood trauma and the link between that and being on cash assistance. The difference between the general population in Utah and the folks on TANF was just mind-blowing and it really created an ‘Aha moment.’ There’s a strong correlation between early childhood trauma and ending up on cash assistance. B&G: Could you explain more about what you see as a correlation? Mary Beth: It’s what we now know about how childhood trauma (and of course adult experiences) can affect the brain and the body. It’s not just about getting people motivated or trying to improve their work ethic. They might have executive functioning skill challenges. They might really have physical health problems or immune system deficiencies that come out in adulthood. These outcomes can occur when you have childhood trauma and your body has been repeatedly flooded with cortisol. We knew it was important for caseworkers to have a better understanding of how this all works. B&G: How did you communicate what you learned? Mary Beth: We did workshops with the caseworkers in the agency. It was wonderful because we were able to use the stories and the experiences of the clients. We were able to help them see that it’s not about blaming the person but understanding where they’re at and seeing what could be done to support their customer in moving forward. We used stories we heard to point out where workers had made a difference in a positive way, as well as when what they did made it more difficult. #TANF #Welfare #TemporaryAssistanceForNeedyFamilies #HumanServices #SocialServices #PerformanceManagement #Evaluation #StateandLocalGovernment #PublicSEctorWorkforce #PerformanceMeasurement #StateGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #PublicSectorHumanServices #Equity #GovernmentOversight #PublicSectorHumanResources #MaryBethVogelFerguson #UniversityofUtahResearch #HumanServicesResearch #EvaluatingTANF #TANFProgramEvaluation #HumanServicesManagement #HumanServicesEvaluation #UtahTANFInterviewFindings #ChildhoodTrauma #StateGovernmentPerformanceMeasurement #TANFTimeLimits #UtahHumanServices #UtahDepartmentofWorkforceServices

It would be a wonderful thing, we think, if the federal government could move forward on environmental issues. But as recently as a few hours ago, the Washington Post reported that Congress is still squabbling over details of a clean energy proposal, with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia holding out on one of the key elements of the bill that much of the remainder of his party supports. We’re not going to get involved in this particular debate. But reading the Washington Post story about a Congress that has troubles making progress turned our minds to a column of ours that just came out in the Government Finance Officers Association’s Government Finance Review (GFR). In it, we made the point that there are some simple straightforward things that procurement offices can do to make for a cleaner environment. True, these efforts aren’t going to turn the world on its head, in the way a massive federal action could. But any progress is better than none and at least a number of states and municipalities are making progress on this front. So, we wanted to share some of the details of the GFR piece with those of you who may not read that publication. It focused on something called “environmentally preferable purchasing.” “The idea,” we wrote, “is simple: If an entity is purchasing a good or a service, and can spend the same (or potentially even less) money in a way that’s beneficial to the environment, why not do it? There’s a seemingly endless list of purchases which can be made with an eye toward sustainability and environmental soundness, just beginning with lawn mowers, leaf blowers, fleets of vehicles including buses, paper, cleaning fluids, and on and on.” As Stephen Gordon, a veteran of 45 years in the public procurement arena, who is coordinator of the all-volunteer advocacy group, The Continuity of Supply Initiative, told us, “Procurement can establish itself as a strategic contributor.” As is often the case in this kind of thing, King County, Washington is a national leader in environmentally preferable purchasing. One simple example was the county’s decision to carefully consider the cleaning fluids it uses (and goodness knows, in the days of the pandemic, it’s boom time for cleaning fluids). Some of them, it ascertained, contained potentially toxic chemicals, the kind of stuff we really want to keep out of our air and water. As we wrote, the King County solution has been to “Buy concentrated cleaning fluids that hadn’t been diluted by water, as is the case with the kind of product that would be found in any large hardware store. By and large, such cleansers are about 80 percent water and 20 percent active ingredients. But by purchasing 55-gallon drums of pure chemicals, and then adding water ‘You’re saving money by buying more bulk solutions and then diluting them to an appropriate strength, which minimizes their negative impact on the environment’ according to Karen Hamilton, the county’s sustainable purchasing program manager”. Of course, it’s not necessarily the easiest thing in the world for procurement offices to adopt this kind of approach, in which procurement offices consider environmental concerns in the same way as they would other elements of so-called best-value procurement (the superior, and increasingly used, alternative to the old-fashioned low-bid only policies). Hamilton candidly told us that “Some people in the agencies are concerned about change. They’ve been buying the same thing from the same company for a long time. And you have to persuade them that the products are going to add value.” Still, as we pointed out in our column, “done properly, with safeguards in place to make sure that the benefits outweigh the costs, green purchasing can ultimately be a cost-effective way to keep our air and water clean.” #PerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernment #CityandCountyManagement #PublicSectorData #StrategicProcurement #PublicSectorProcurement #EnvironmentallyPreferablePurchasing #SustainablePurchasing #GovernmentCultureChange #CountyGovernmentProcurement #KingCounty #EnvironmentalImpactofProcurement #ContinuityofSupplyInitiative #GovernmentFinanceOfficersAssociation #GFOA #GovernmentFinanceReview #PublicSectorGreenPurchasing #KarenHamilton #StephenGordon #KingCountySustainablePurchasing #CountyGovernmentPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalClimateChangeAction

by John R. Bartle, University of Nebraska at Omaha and Can Chen, Georgia State University John Bartle Can Chen Modern life cannot exist without good infrastructure. Travel, water, toilets, electricity, internet, and heating and cooling for buildings all rely on good infrastructure systems. The wealth of cities depends on public investments in infrastructure. Right now, it might seem as though there is all the money in the world going for these investments. After all, President Biden’s 2021 Infrastructure Bill allowed for the largest investment in public transit in history, the single biggest flow of cash to bridges since the construction of the interstate highway system and huge amounts of dollars flowing toward broadband. But investments in infrastructure are an ongoing proposition, and these federal dollars are one-time money, and often require local matches as well. There needs to be a long-term connection between revenues and expenditures and citizens need to be involved in the decision-making of infrastructure investment. Financing approaches that link the benefits from the projects with revenues can provide long-term, stable, sustainable sources of funding that can be a permanent solution to the challenges we have faced in this area. ​ In our new book, Innovative Infrastructure Financing, we point to several new financial tools and explain where they can best be used to achieve these goals. One such tool is civic crowdfunding. This involves raising money for a project by relying on contributions of small amounts of cash from many people, generally through outreach over the Internet. While this approach has gained public attention for its utility in personal and social needs, it has also been used with success to fund various small-scale infrastructure projects. Crowdfunding is a decentralized, voluntary way to gauge the demand for a project that can involve both residents and non-residents. Rather than going through the often cumbersome and slow process of public approval, if a project can gain support, the funds can be raised quickly, facilitating fast project completion. ​ One example of a successful crowdfunding project is the Arapahoe protected bike lane project in Denver. In 2014, the project raised $36,085 from 250 donors, most of whom were within five miles of the project. The Downtown Denver Project (DDP) secured $120,000 from the Gates Family Foundation and the Downtown Denver Business Improvement District (BID), reported Kate Gasparro, a researcher and currently director of land development at Bedrock Detroit. The city pledged to cover $35,000 of the design fees and construction costs if the DDP would raise $35,000. The DDP engaged interested residents in the design process and re-worked the design to respond to concerns about parking, access routes, and access to fire hydrants, Gasparro found. The project was completed in less than a year. While this project was successful, there were concerns expressed from both residents and members of the BID that public funds should be used instead of soliciting the community. A similar cycling infrastructure project was successful the previous year in Memphis. There, $75,000 were crowdsourced from individual Memphians to connect a low-income neighborhood to an existing bike network. ​ Of course, the amounts that can be raised by crowdsourcing will likely be relatively small compared to the overall project expenses. The Memphis bike lane, for example was a $2 million venture overall. ​ Still, we believe that the advantages of crowdsourcing could make it a relatively common means to get infrastructure projects started, or finished, once the federal dollars stop flowing. That’s because the strengths of civic crowdfunding include: The ability to raise funds quickly, Provision of project enhancements desired by users, Reduced risk to investors, as funds will be returned if the target amount is not raised, and Involvement of funders in a decentralized, voluntary way. The weaknesses include: The fact that they are unlikely to raise amounts necessary to fully fund large projects, It requires effort to initiate a funding campaign, and There’s a risk of damage to reputation if the online platform closes or if funds are not returned. Projects such as the ones in Denver and Memphis show how civic crowdfunding can provide additional funds from donors who are supportive of a project. At the same time, research has shown that government involvement can enhance public trust in a project. This illustrates how the public and private sectors can leverage each other’s strengths to complete an infrastructure project more quickly than might otherwise be the case. ​ The contents of this guest column reflect those of the authors, and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc. #StateandLocalGovernment #StateAndLocalInfrastructure #StateAndLocalGovernmentBudgeting #FederalGrants #PublicSectorFinance #PublicSectorBudgeting #CivicCrowdfunding #IntergovernmentalRelations #JohnBartle #CanChen #TransitInvestment #InnovativeInfrastructureFinancing #CityandCountyManagement #CitizenInput #CitizenCrowdfunding #FundingSmallScaleInfrastructureProjects #AraphahoeProtectedBikeLaneProject #DenverCivicCrowdfunding #DowntownDenverProject #MemphisCyclingInfrastructureProject #Crowdsourcing #CityandCountyofDenver #CityofMemphis

Over the last months, we've written a series of columns for Route Fifty and elsewhere about the difficulties states and localities are having in staffing up. We've tended to focus on the reasons why they are short on qualified workers, and ways they can attract more. But it's important to go beyond the turnover data and look at the real-world ramifications of the current hiring and turnover crisis that real human beings can feel in their day to day lives. An audit report that caught our eye this morning makes just that point. It was released by the Illinois Office of the Auditor General in May. The audit focused on Child Safety and Well-Being, and how well the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) was meeting the requirements of a 2019 public act, dubbed Ta’NaJa’s Law, which was designed to improve protections for children in the department’s care. The act was named for a two-year-old who died of dehydration, malnutrition and physical abuse six months after being returned to her mother’s care. The audit makes it clear that the department has not yet been able to fulfill the requirements of the public act. It seems to us that one important reason may be because it simply doesn't have the staff to do so. A summary of the audit’s findings points out that 55% of the 6,037 positions listed within DCFS Operations are “categorized as unfunded.” Of 2,746 positions that are funded, 21% are vacant. The audit contains a mildly-worded recommendation that staffing needs should be reassessed. But we think that may be a bit of an understatement. For example, while the act requires Home Safety Checklists for homes in which a child is returned after being in foster care, the auditor’s sample showed the department could not provide 98% of the documents that the act required. While “aftercare services” were required for six months after a child was returned to a home, the auditor found that 58% of its sample did not have at least six months of these services. Other issues included shortcomings in well-child pediatric visits, problems in immunization data and shortcomings in the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System that made it difficult for auditors to otherwise test compliance with the 2019 act. In the past, we’ve often noted staff capacity issues cited as the reason behind audit findings – most recently in a blog post, headlined "Understanding Understaffing" in March. In the coming months, we’ll be looking to see how much the lack of staff is having an impact on service delivery. In the meantime, we can just hope, for Illinois' children's sake, that the audit there will help to focus the state on redoubling its efforts to get enough people to fulfill the promises the legislature has made. #PerformanceAudit #StateofIllinois #StateandLocalGovernment #PublicSectorWorkforce #PublicSectorHumanServices #GovernmentOversight #ChildWelfare #PolicyImplementation #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #PublicSectorStaffShortage #PublicSectorStaffCapacity #PublicSectorStaffVacancies #ChildSafetyandStateStaffShortages #Understaffing #HumanResources #humanresourcemanagement #TanajasLaw #StateGovernmentStaffShortage #IllinoisStaffCapacity #HumanServiceUnderstaffing #HumanServiceStaffShortage #StateGovernmentPerformanceAudit #IllinoisAuditorGeneral #StateGovernmentUnderstaffing #HumanServices #StateGovernmentTurnover #StateandLocalGovernmentTurnover #FlawedPolicyImplementation

by Neil Bergsman, Senior Policy Analyst at Maryland Nonprofits with a 35-year background in Maryland government finance, both executive and legislative branches. ​ In the federal government, and in many states and localities the budget process is contentious with lots of drama. It’s exciting: red lines, brinkmanship and shut-downs. But excitement isn’t a good thing for budgeting. In Maryland, there has been plenty of contention about budget priorities, what’s in and what’s out. But, despite sometimes intense debates during the process, the state goes beyond the statutory requirement that it pass a balanced budget – it does so a couple of months before the beginning of the new fiscal year, even in particularly difficult years like 2017, when 11 states failed to pass their budgets on time. . For the past 105 years, Maryland's budget has been unique in that the legislature could not add to the budget proposed by the Governor. It could only cut or restrict the use of funds. Many observers of state budgeting believe that this limitation on the legislative budget power is what makes Maryland's budget process less contentious. Next year that changes. The voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2020 that allows he legislature to add to the proposed budget, as long as they do not increase the total. They will have to find offsetting cuts. While this is still less budget power than many other states’ legislatures possess, it will be a big shift for our state. Will this change make Maryland’s budget more dramatic, and more dysfunctional? I don’t think so. I generally think that organizational culture is more important than formal structures. And I think Maryland has developed an organizational culture around a constructive and responsible budget process. I’ve been involved in state budgeting in Maryland for more than 35 years. I’ve been the director and deputy director of the executive branch budget offices - both operating budget and capital budget. I’ve been an agency CFO, and I’ve been a nonprofit advocate. Here are some things I’ve observed that I think will help Maryland avoid damaging budget drama. Successful budgeting is mostly communications Back when we actually “dialed” phones, I used to say that the most important numbers I know in the budget are phone numbers. Frank communication among the people in the budget process can lead to better decisions and a smoother process. We always taught budget analysts to reach out to agency staff if there was a part of a budget request they did not understand. If the analyst sees that there is logic and justification behind the request, either a compromise can be made or mutually acceptable changes can be agreed upon. At the policy level, the budget moves from request to proposal to adoptions more smoothly and with better decisions when people are talking to each other. I’m including the staff people communicating about the nuts and bolts, and about the agency heads, budget chief, and legislative budget committee members talking about the thinking behind the budget decisions. I have noticed a decline in the degree to which there are day-to-day communication among decision-makers over the years. However, in the end they have seemed to come together and agree on a budget deal before the scheduled end of the 90-day legislative session. Getting the numbers right is good. Getting agreement on the numbers is better. In Maryland we are blessed to have long-established processes for agreeing to a lot of the basic numbers in the budget. We have consensus revenue estimating overseen by a board that includes the independently elected comptroller, the treasurer (elected by the legislature) and the budget chief (appointed by the governor). Once the Board of Revenue Estimates issues its report, everyone uses that number. It may not be right (though the track record is pretty good), but it removes one element of contention which complicates budget processes in many other states. There are similar processes for a lot of the technical assumptions that go into building the budget, like pension rates and debt service estimates. When the governor, senate, house, democrats and republicans can all be working with the same numbers for these things, it allows the decision makers to focus on their more substantive disagreements. A boring budget process is good for people I’m proud of Maryland’s budget process. . When there are revenue losses or unexpected expenditure increases, the executive branch and legislative branch leaders have come together to negotiate a solution, normally one that combines expenditure cuts, transfers, reserves, and sometimes revenue increases. Dramatic and contentious budget processes are harmful. They cause uncertainty and disruption for local governments, school systems, public employees, and people who depend on government payments. They erode confidence in government. They result in bad budget decisions that can waste taxpayers’ money and cause excessive liabilities in future years. So, I urge everyone to make your budget more boring by agreeing on key estimates and assumptions, appreciating the pressures on the other people in the process, and communicating very actively. I ​ The contents of this guest column reflect those of the author, and not necessarily those of Barrett and Greene, Inc. #ConsensusEstimating #StateandLocalGovernmentBudgeting #PerformanceManagement #StateCulture #PublicSectorFinance #StateandLocalGovernment #StateLegislation #Maryland #NeilBergsman #LateStateBudgets #LegislativeExcecutiveBalanceofPower #GubernatorialPowers #StateConstitutionalAmendments #StateBudgetAnomalies #StateAdministrativeVariation #MarylandOrganizationalCulture #MarylandStateBudget #PublicSectorBestPractices #MarylandBudgetProcess #MarylandNonprofits #StateofMaryland #StateGovernmentBudgetVariation #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateGovernmentBudgeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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