Search Results

Over the years, we’ve had many discussions about the disconnect between  research that goes on at public universities and governments’ own needs for policy research. Universities and governments have different concepts of time, are motivated by conflicting goals and speak in different languages. Result: Frustration on both sides We bring this up because we just watched a really excellent half-day forum that was focused on bringing policymakers and academics together. The February 17th session, “Bridging Research and Policy” was sponsored by the Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management (APPAM) and the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Its three panel discussions centered on ways to get legislators to pay attention to research; on building better relations between policy makers and universities, and on evaluation and evidence-based policy making and the uses of government administrative data. More details about the forum are available in this write-up. The forum itself is available in its entirety here. (The intro and first panel discussion actually start about half an hour after the camera was turned on.) Some of the major messages that came across to us: Trust is critical, particularly where sensitive government data is involved, and relationships need to be nurtured. Both researchers and policymakers need a safe space to have discussions with each other in private, without the threat of publicity. Both would be helped if there were a systemized way for governments to know what research universities are currently engaged in. Interaction is more effective than reports. Easy-to-digest visual material is better than lengthy text. Academics could use the skills of marketers when presenting research and should consider the learning styles of individual legislators. Governments should consider research needs for a new program or policy upfront. Timing is critical for everyone. Legislators, particularly part-time legislators, have a narrow window in which they can engage on research topics. Research on program and policy direction should include more attention to implementation issues and cost.

A few years ago we gave a speech to the annual conference of the Association of Local Government Auditors about what keeps auditors awake at night. One reason, often cited: Departmental obstructionism. We were reminded of this recently when we saw the controversy emerging in Richmond over the city’s unwillingness to cooperate with the auditor’s review of tax collections. At last count, the city was owed about $53 million by taxpayers. In a nicely reported piece by Ned Oliver at The Richmond Times-Dispatch, interviews with council members showed broad support for the auditor’s examination of tax collections. But Oliver found that state rules laws limit the ability of a local auditor to access tax records unless this is requested by a city’s finance director. The Richmond finance director, and other top city officials have said that they don’t see a need for the audit. “I was embarrassed to see someone from the administration say they’re not willing to give information to our auditor. Whether it’s state law or not, we all talk about transparency. Transparency can’t be selectively entered into and out of, “ said council member Michael Jones. We hear about issues like this cropping up all the time. On March 6, the New York Comptroller’s office issued a summary of an audit report for the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs.  “We were unable to draw conclusions about several of the most important parts of our audit because the Center did not provide us with access to most of the relevant information needed to achieve our audit objective,” the summary said. As it happens, we were on the phone last week with Drummond Kahn, the director of audit services in Portland Oregon. Do auditors often face departmental roadblocks we asked. “It happens all the time,” he said. Often, a department’s excuse is that it’s just not the right time for an audit.  “Either there’s a new manager or the manager is about to leave or it’s budget season or they’re going into budget season or budget season has just finished. Or they’re putting in a new technology system or they need to replace their technology system.” It’s no wonder auditors lose sleep.

They are the states that have the highest population of residents, aged 65 or older, as this “map of the month” from the Pennsylvania State Data Center shows. For each one of them, the population 65 and over represents more than 17 percent of the total, compared to around 10 percent for states like Alaska and Utah.  According to a recent issue brief from the center, the number of older people in Pennsylvania grew 10 percent between 2011 and 2015, while the general population rose 0.5 percent. The Data Center’s Maps of the Month can be found here.

Over more than 25 years of covering state and local government, we can’t recall ever talking to a public sector manager who loved going to meetings. Clearly, somebody out there must like them, because there are so many. We just haven’t run into the meeting-mongers in the government management world. It always seems to us like many gatherings are called without any thought about the value of the time that will be expended. Say, a manager brings seven supervisors into a conference room for a two-hour session. That’s eight people, including the manager, times two hours or a total of sixteen hours — or two full days of work for one person. That doesn’t even count the amount of time people should be taking to prepare for the gathering, and the  inevitable chit-chat dissecting the interpersonal relationships betrayed at the meeting. (“Did you see the way Connie rolled her eyes, when Ralph interrupted?”) We believe that this equation should run through the mind of anyone who is mandating exclusive use of a number of other employees. Following, based on a number of conversations we’ve had over the years, are seven ideas for making meetings more productive, and possibly cutting down on resentment at their very existence. Whoever called for the meeting should be there exactly when the meeting is supposed to start. There are few things more galling than to have a bunch of busy people sitting in a room, awaiting the appearance of someone who gives the appearance of being too busy to get to his or her own meeting on time. Somebody should be taking really good notes, and — without taking too much time — distributing them to the men and women who were in attendance. If you set a meeting for an hour, and it doesn’t need an hour, don’t wait for the Red Sea to part. Just let those people go. Meetings should end with some time to discuss “next steps,” so that attendees will feel like this session led someplace except to the graveyard of hours they’ll never see again. Make sure the people in the room all get an agenda in advance. And by in advance, we don’t mean an e-mail that pops up 10 minutes before the gathering begins. Don’t fall into the trap of believing that there’s infinite time for the meeting during the first third, moving along at a decent pace in the second third, and then rushing in the last third — which often is when the group is trying to come to some conclusions. There are lots more ideas, but here’s one that’s near to our hearts: If people are joining into the meeting by telephone, make sure they have the chance to actually participate.

Construction contracts are often selected based on the lowest bid from a responsible bidder.  That certainly seems like a sensible starting point — although it’s probably a good idea to take the quality of previous work into account. It’s not so hard to be labeled responsible and offer a low bid, but to produce a service that’s inferior to competitors. But that’s just the beginning of the story. Line items in bids themselves can sometimes be misleading — either accidentally or on purpose. If elements of an agreement are underpriced, the contractor recoups missing dollars through change orders that adjust and diminish original plans. There’s also a problem when bidders structure the payments in such a way as to make them higher than it may appear – for example, front-loading costs at the beginning of a project. This phenomenon – items priced too low or too high — is dubbed “unbalanced bidding.” It can lead to project costs that are greater than estimated and it can lead to bid awards that are ultimately unfair to competitors. Recently, the Oregon Secretary of State’s audit division released an audit examining this issue in the Department of Transportation. It looked at how bids compared to the DOT’s estimates and also analyzed changes in project cost over time. It found that 61 percent of 413 projects completed between 2011 and 2015 had “one or more unbalanced bids that were at least double their estimated costs.” In 69 percent of projects, the final contract costs exceeded the bid amounts, although the total project costs of $1.8 billion were still slightly under the original budgeted amount of $1.9 billion. (The contract cost is only one part of the total project cost, which can also include a variety of other factors such as fuel or steel prices.) The audit stated that Oregon “could potentially realize significant savings by better tracking and scrutinizing bids” and thereby avoiding project cost increases. It also emphasized that unbalanced bidding can “undermine fair competition.” As Secretary of State Dennis Richardson said in a press release: “Unbalanced bids allow some contractors to game the system, and ODOT is not providing proper accountability.” The accuracy of the audit’s calculations were questioned by ODOT, which pointed out to the Oregonian that final contract costs include many other factors that don’t appear in project bids. The DOT did agree, however, to step-up its monitoring of bids.

Last month, we gave ourselves a new tool to keep an ongoing watch on what executive orders governors are signing. It’s an interactive map that we created (with the help of our son, Ben Greene), with links to executive orders for all the states. (Well, almost. We couldn’t find good links for Kentucky or West Virginia.) We’ve shared the map with our readers and you can find it in our Resources section. And now, we’re planning to add a regular feature to the B&G Report on our website to help readers keep track of some of the more interesting and important of these orders — many of which often go ignored by the public and the press. Right now, even as we’re watching an alarming blizzard outside our window in Manhattan, weather emergencies are getting lots of ink out of governors’ pens. At least two governors – in New Jersey and Virginia – signed executive orders yesterday declaring states of emergency due to the storm which was projected to drop loads of snow through the Northeast, stretching south to Virginia. We expect more executive orders to come from neighboring governors through the day. Weather emergencies are the most common reason for governors to sign executive orders. In addition to the ones stemming from today’s storm, in February and early March, governors  signed orders relating to flooding (North Dakota), drought and/or wildfires (Oklahoma and Kansas) and snow or other severe weather (California, Missouri, Montana). But proclamations related to weather are just the beginning. Executive orders are commonly used to address policy issues and improve management. We took a look at all of the links in the last few days and came up with the following observations. A number of executive orders signed in the last month and a half established new task forces or study commissions. These included the “Grocery Tax Task Force” in Alabama, established on February 22 by Gov. Robert Bentley; the “Government Efficiency & Accountability Review (GEAR) Board, established by Delaware Gov. John C. Carney Jr., on February 16th; the Black Advisory Commission, set up on February 23rd by Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and the Two-Generation Family Economic Security Commission and Pilot Program, created by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan on March 9th. A few dealt with new government positions or other management initiatives. One example is Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s March 8 executive order, which established a Homeland Security Advisor and created the Michigan Homeland Protection Board. That same day, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed an executive order “promoting open and transparent government through continued implementation of best practices and performance dashboards.” Two executive orders appeared to directly address White House actions. As we mentioned in our February 13th post, Gov. Kate Brown in Oregon, signed an order on February 2, “Renewing Oregon’s commitment to protecting its immigrant, refugee and religious minority residents.” On February 23, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed an order affirming “the protection of students from discrimination based on sex, including gender identity or expression.” Several Governors either reiterated their concern or joined the growing list of chief executives who have used executive orders to help combat substance abuse. On February 16, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker used an administrative order to “outline a plan to address the heroin and opioid epidemics and overdose related deaths.” On March 1, Gov. Hogan followed up on his January creation of an interagency heroin and opioid coordinating council by declared a “State of Emergency within the entire state of Maryland, “regarding the heroin, opioid and Fentanyl overdose Crises.” A few other February and early March executive orders we found interesting: An executive order signed by new Gov. Eric Holcomb in Indiana declaring and then extending a “disaster emergency” in East Chicago due to “certain lead conditions in a portion of East Chicago” and concerns about slightly elevated blood lead levels found in 18 children under the age of 8. A series of executive orders in New York assigning special prosecutors to investigate and prosecute the deaths of civilians by law enforcement officers An executive order appointing several retired justices to lead an “Independent Review of Security Issues” at the Delaware Correctional Facility, signed by Delaware Gov. Carney.

In the early years of our marriage, a favorite activity was clipping magazines to find interesting story ideas. We carried our own clip kits, including staplers, X-Acto knives, pens, paperclips, etc. At one point, we fell so far behind that we invited our friends to a help-us-clip party – our version of an old-fashioned quilting bee. Finding fascinating articles, studies, reports, commentary, surveys, etc., has gotten a lot easier since then, thanks to the Internet. But we scour dozens of state, local, university, organization and foundation websites each week to find new ideas and insights to write about. We treasure other organizations’ compilations of studies, particularly when the organizations are unbiased and selective. It helps us make sure that each week we see some of the best of the hundreds of reports that are published about state and local government problems, policies and programs. Today, we wanted to bring to your attention two of our favorite weekly study summaries. One comes from Florida and the other from California. Although researchers for each will sometimes focus on studies relevant to their own state, the selections gathered each week are often of general interest and just as relevant to other states, and often local governments, as well. Our two recommendations: PolicyNotes from the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability in Florida. This comes out on Fridays. Typically, there will be summaries of a few studies each in criminal justice, education, government operations and health and human services. As a sample, the March 10 version included OPPAGA’s own report about the declining number of young people in Florida currently being tried in adult courts; a report from the Midwest Regional Education Laboratory about the difference in educational expectations for rural and non-rural 10th grade students, and an Urban Institute study about past-due medical debt. There is often a lag in getting the newest version into the archive. For timely access to PolicyNotes, you also can subscribe. Studies in the News is published by the California State Library. It comes out on Wednesdays. Topics covered each week vary slightly, but generally include education, “culture and democracy,” the economy, health, general government, transportation and several other areas of state policy. The most recent version, dated March 8, includes study summaries about the effect of job change on the timing of retirement for older adults, from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College; a look at regional differences in child poverty in California from the Public Policy Institute of California, and the impact of student debt on young people returning to live with their parents from the Sociology of Education Journal. Note: We will periodically provide reading recommendations in this space, including books, websites, blogs, reports, and other generally useful compilations of materials. We also welcome suggestions from readers (particularly those that aren’t self-promotional).

“When the burdens of the presidency seem unusually heavy, I always remind myself it could be worse. I could be a mayor.” — Lyndon B. Johnson

Rock Regan is director of the public service practice group at Kronos, a leader in workforce management. A former chief information officer (CIO) for the State of Connecticut and former president of the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO), he is widely recognized as an expert in the public sector IT industry. He contacted us recently with some interesting thoughts about the impact of daylight savings time, beginning on March 12, on public sector workers. Here’s what he had to say: “Employees and employers may not realize that the time shift – even just an hour – has a significant impact on workforce productivity during this week. On average, Americans lose between 40 minutes and an hour of sleep the Monday after we “spring forward,” and those lost rapid eye movement (REM) cycles can result in a tired and less productive workforce. “In the public sector, where mission-critical jobs such as police and firefighters are essential for public safety, employers must take the necessary steps to ensure that their workers have the tools and support to mitigate the issues of adjusting to Daylight Savings Time. Following are tips to ensure workforce productivity. Offer guidance from health experts or share resources: Remind workers several days ahead about the time change and associated productivity and safety risks due to disturbances to circadian rhythms and sleep. Research from Dr. Claire Caruso, a research health scientist at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, shows that people assimilate better to Daylight Savings if, starting about three days before, they gradually move up the timing of awakening and sleeping  by 15-20 minutes each day until these are in line with the new time. Empower Employees with Self-Service: Employees, both workers and supervisors, should be encouraged to feel empowered in the process of requesting shift changes. If a police officer is running late due to the time change, s/he can use a mobile device to view his/her schedule, and ask another qualified police officer who has the same skills, certifications, and pay codes to cover the shift. Keep Employees Engaged: If you have automated important employee centric processes, lean on those more this week. Minimizing errors in critical functions such as payroll go a long way at all times to boost employee engagement and productivity.”

Last week, our blog featured the startling results of a survey conducted last year by the Institute for Public Sector Employee Engagement. It’s been a truism for a long time that public sector employees are less engaged in their work than the private sector. But when you disaggregate survey statistics, it turns out that the same percentage of private sector employees and local government employees are engaged in what they do — 44 percent. Federal workers (34 percent engaged) bring down the public sector average, but it’s state workers with a dismal 29 percent showing who most dramatically lower the government results. This isn’t a trivial matter. Simply put, engaged employees do a better job. They’re proud of what they do and they are committed to seeing their organizations succeed. In our previous post, Bob Lavigna, the director of the Institute, gave us some ideas about why his survey had disappointing results for state workers. To recap, he cited budget cuts, criticism of government and less attention focused on employee engagement at the state level. While the federal government has embraced the idea of employee surveys and the importance of engagement, state governments have been extremely reluctant to conduct statewide engagement surveys. The Institute has found only seven that do so. We’re eager to get input from others on this question and asked two other human resource experts what they thought. Here are their comments: Neil Reichenberg is executive director of the International Public Management Association for Human Resources and a well-known expert in workforce management. “Interesting findings and I agree with the possible explanations. I recall after our 2012 engagement survey, I was invited to talk to a group of HR directors from state agencies. One person said that in his state, they could not undertake an engagement survey, since the governor’s office would not allow any employee surveys to be done if the results might reflect negatively on the governor. I asked the group if this was the case in their states and almost everyone said yes. ‘It’s always unfortunate when politics triumphs over good management.” Sally Selden, the vice president and dean for academic affairs at Lynchburg College, is a highly accomplished management professor who is nationally known for her work in the human resources field. “The results are fascinating and a little bit discouraging, yet not surprising given our political and economic climate.  I also think the lack of recovery from the 2009 recession contributes and the size of the organization matters. Local governments are smaller and more connected to the citizenry. People within smaller organizations are typically better connected with each other, often an important part of engagement “At the state level, employees probably identify more with their agency than their state and are not likely to ever interact with their boss (the Governor) as compared to city/county employees.  Mayors and city/county managers are much more accessible and visible in the day-to-day experiences of employees “The pressure of tight/constrained budgets takes its toll on people and on organizations.  It is time to focus on public service and elevating it – it will help people connect to the larger mission and feel good about the work they do.”

Today at 2 p.m., e.s.t., we moderated a Council of State Governments webinar called “Civics in the States: What it is and Why it is Needed.” This is a subject that is very near to our hearts. For the past nine months, we’ve been researching civic education, particularly as it relates to state and local governments, and our report for CSG, “Civic Education: A Key to Trust in Government” was published in December. Today’s panelists came from the National Center for Learning and Civic Engagement, the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), the Illinois Civic Mission Task Force, and the Constitutional Rights Foundation. Although there are many resources available that would help states do a better job in educating young people – and adults – about how their government works, civic education has taken a back seat in public education and at the nation’s universities. We are very cautious about using the word crisis, but that’s sure what it looks like. Each year, the Annenberg Public Policy Center surveys the public on its basic knowledge of how the government works. The news is terrible. Take a look at the chart below, which was based on Annenberg data and put together by the Office of Program and Policy Analysis & Government Accountability in Florida, and you’ll see a steady decline in civic knowledge.  In 2016, only 26 percent of adults surveyed could identify the three branches of government. In a few days, the webinar will be posted on the CSG website, where a list of past webinars is maintained here. (The OPPAGA chart was prepared for an excellent February 15, 2017 presentation to the Florida House PreK-12 Quality Subcommittee about post-secondary civics education.)

Years ago, a coach for one of our daughter’s softball teams confided to us that, as a police detective who was about to retire, he was working as many hours of overtime as he could. It wasn’t that he wanted to work late into the night at a dangerous job. It was simply that he was legally feathering his retirement nest. At the time, New York City, like many others, had very liberal limits on the amount of overtime pay that could be included in final years on the job for the purposes of calculating a pension. More overtime in the last few years of employment could mean a dramatic increase in pension pay for the rest of his life. As taxpayers, we were a little dubious. But since he was a friend, and a fan of our daughter’s play, we wished him the best of luck in toting up those extra hours. In scanning audits from around the country, we’ve noticed that this particular use for overtime has come up frequently. But we’ve seen a shift in the emphasis of audits lately to ones that focus on overtime that is necessary because of reduced staffing. Sometimes, the employees aren’t even happy about getting paid a few more dollars in exchange for a diminishment in time at home with spouses and children. In our blog post last week, we noted that a hiring freeze in Pennsylvania produced costs rather than savings for the Department of Corrections because of overtime for prison security. Report highlights from the Pennsylvania Budget & Finance Committee noted that in Fiscal Year 2016, the total cost of overtime to provide prison security was $105.3 million. Overtime amounted to nearly 12 percent of total security hours in 2016 up from 6.4 percent in 2010. Although the Pennsylvania manpower shortage was substantially self-inflicted due to the hiring freeze, a number of governments are experiencing recruitment, hiring and retention problems in their police departments, sheriff’s offices and prisons. (In our Governing column in September, we covered hiring problems for police departments. In February last year, we wrote about human resource problems in jails and in November, 2014, we wrote about the shortage of correction officers.) Hiring troubles and high overtime often go hand in hand. For several years, San Jose auditor Sharon Erickson has been shining a light on police hiring woes there. In a report to the city council last fall, she noted that overtime has grown in tandem with department vacancies. It tripled in the last seven years and peaked at $36 million in Fiscal Year 2016. Interestingly, the increased use of overtime has also resulted in an increase in sick leave usage, which then increases the need for still more overtime. Talk about a vicious circle. In Syracuse, NY, an audit last fall found police overtime had doubled since 2012.  The audit targeted decreased manpower as the primary driver of greater overtime, though it also cited problems in tracking overtime usage and negotiated union rules which increased overtime hours. An audit in Buffalo found the police department there under-estimated the amount of overtime that would be used by officers by 40 percent in 2015 and 28 percent in 2014. It said that 25 percent of the Buffalo Police Department had earned more than $25,000 in overtime. A few days ago, Baltimore’s mayor called for an audit of police overtime there. Of course, there are also other intriguing issues raised in audits that focus on overtime. The most unusual audit – and audit controversy – we’ve seen recently was in Parkersburg, a small town in Butler County, Iowa. A state audit questioned $32,600 in overtime paid to the city administrator between 2009 and 2014. The audit stated that his position made the administrator ineligible for overtime based on the Fair Labor Standards Act. The city, with its population of 1,870 (as of the 2010 census), is disputing the auditor’s criticism, arguing that it has a legal opinion ruling that the city administrator has multiple city jobs that qualify him for overtime. According to the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier, the city administrator also acts as “city clerk, public works director and cemetery sexton which includes digging graves.”