Examining the PA Program

What’s in a course?  As I was perusing my transcript from my MPA program I noticed something, in my pursuit of my Masters degree to become a Public Administrator, I was actually learning to be a Jack of all Trades .

My program included:  Organizational  Theory & Behavior, Management of Human Resources, Public Budgeting & Finance, Statistical Applications for Public Administrators, Intergovernmental relations and Research Methods.

Each of these courses, in my opinion, can stand alone.  I could specialize in each of these as they are all career fields in themselves.  I found my program to be exploratory; which of course is not a bad thing at all.  Because of the calibre of the courses, my interest was peaked however; to pursue Public Policy.  Some say that Public Policy and Public Administration go hand in hand, however; there weren’t any policy content or courses in my program.

Also, when I reviewed other MPA programs, I found that courses that were not in my program were required in others.  For instance, some programs have at least one class that address nonprofit management, grant writing fundraising, policy administration and my favorite find, emergency management; which is a field all to itself.

So what does this say about the field of Public Administration?  It is a very diverse general field and the PA programs are reflective of this point.  So, my question is: should the BA & MPA  programs mirror each other or be more parallel?  If so, how would this be done and what purpose would it serve?

Vanessa

What’s in a Plan?

In the current professional literature of the various fields that we as “public administrators” find ourselves, there are always discussions and articles regarding networking or sustainability and green building. On the surface they seem like two different topics but they are not mutually exclusive.

How can we put our networking skills to good use to create a more sustainable community and policies for the future? One, example is schools and sustainable planning. Recently an article in the Journal of the American Planning Association quoted some statistics for the number of children that are driven to school by their parents. According to the article “In 1969, 41% of all trips to school in the United States were made by walking or biking. By 2001, this had declined to 13%. Over the same time period, the proportion of children being driven or driving themselves to school rose from less than 20% to 55%” (McDonald and Aalborg, JAPA Vol. 75 No. 3 Summer 2009 p.331) This coupled with the fact that many schools are no longer located within walking distance for many of its students. This adds to the local traffic congestion, number of cars on the road during peak commuting hours and emissions contributing to local pollution. As planners, school officials and public safety officials, perhaps we need to get together and start thinking about putting new schools back in neighborhoods, and provide safe walking and biking lanes to enable and encourage other modes of transportation to and from school.

Additionally, allow the schools to have a duel purpose, such as using the gymnasium for Boys and Girls Club and other youth oriented organizations for their after school programs, which will save resources and put these activities in the neighborhoods, rather than building a separate building perhaps even in a different part of town for such activities. Joint library facilities for the school as well as the surrounding community by combining the public library with the school library for that neighborhood is another way to combine resources and space, that is in practice in some areas.

By using our networking skills with our planning skills, we can create communities where people can travel shorter distances to accomplish daily tasks, and provide access to students to use an alternative form of transportation to get to and from school each day.

This may be more suited to urban and even suburban areas, but every little bit we can do to work together as a community to make our communities more sustainable, will benefit us all.

Making Sausage

The current health care debate is a forceful reminder of the truth of the old adage that the last things you would want to watch being made are sausages and laws.

President Obama wants to reform our dysfunctional health system. 

America doesn’t have a socialized system, like England, where doctors work for the government. We don’t have a single-payer system, like several European countries where medical care isn’t socialized, but health insurance is. And for better or worse, neither Congress nor the President is proposing that we emulate either approach. Instead, Obama wants to control costs, crack down on insurance company abuses, and create a public insurance option to compete with insurance companies—much as Medicare competes with private coverage for older Americans.

 Seems like a no-brainer. Thirty percent of Americans get their health insurance from government now, and government at all levels currently pays over 60% of all American medical costs. Curbing the waste and inefficiencies that characterize our current haphazard health delivery would save taxpayers a lot of money.

 But it has become clear that reform of any sort faces long odds; for one thing, there is too much money and power being deployed by those who are richly rewarded by the current system.

 A couple of weeks ago, my local newspaper ran an important investigative report about our own Senator, Evan Bayh, whose wife Susan raked in over two million dollars in two years for her “service” on the boards of several healthcare companies. The Senator seemed shocked—shocked!—that anyone might think this bonanza constituted a conflict of interest. (For those who believe it isn’t a conflict, or that this is an isolated case, I have some underwater land in Florida I’ll sell you…)

Public interest watchdogs report that insurance and pharmaceutical companies are spending huge sums to spread fear and disinformation about reform proposals. Since public understanding of these issues is thin, to put it mildly, they’re making progress; the New York Times recently told of a man who screamed at a public meeting “the government better keep its hands off my Medicare!” Others evidently believe that reforms will include “death panels” to expedite killing off old folks. 

 Meanwhile, ironically, insurers profess concern that “bureaucrats” will get between you and your doctor.  Those would be the same companies that list the doctors you can see, specialists you can consult and for what symptoms, and tests your doctors can or cannot perform for a given set of symptoms.

The lobbyists’ most recent tactic has been sending angry mobs to shut down discussion at public forums. This is faux populism, sometimes called “Astroturf” because it’s meant to look like a genuine grass-roots movement. Leaked memos confirm that the intent is not to argue the merits of particular provisions, which would be both useful and legitimate, but to drown out discourse and intimidate lawmakers.     

 It would be immensely productive to have an honest debate about what is actually proposed, how those proposals would work, and how they would affect our economy. Unfortunately, special interests from all parts of the political spectrum are determined to hijack that debate.

 We can give up eating sausage, but we have to live with the laws we pass. It would be so refreshing if at least some of those were based on a thoughtful consideration of actual evidence.

Rethink the Attitude of Training

I am a government employee who trains employees for a living.  When I have my students introduce themselves at the beginning of a class, I find that the students tend to fall into two categories:  employees who are attending the class because they want to learn something new, and people who are there because their boss says they have to attend the training.  It always amazes me that out of the people who are attending because they want to learn something new, at least half of them tell me that they get guff from their supervisors about being away from the office for training.  It’s not just my classes either; I hear this from other trainers as well.

I suppose that some people might abuse the opportunity to be away from the office.  I choose to think, however, that employees are using training opportunities to better themselves and make themselves more valuable as employees.  It bothers me that employees would be made to feel bad about attending training. I don’t think there is anything much worse than trying to better yourself and improve your ability to do your job, and simultaneously feel like you are letting someone else down.

I am biased.  I believe that what I train (Geographic Information Systems) is a critical skill for employees of the 21st Century.  Many other skills should be considered critical as well.  Writing and general communication skills are also critical parts of any employee’s ability to do work.  Training for these skills, and others, should be encouraged. Instead of thinking that employees are trying to get away with somethiing, we need to rethink this attitude, at an organizational level, and focus on encouraging employees to develop these and other new skills.

A Public Administration Shocker

Why is it that public administrators do not know how to save money?  I think they do not consider themselves professional public administrators.  Did this headline catch your eye:  “In a Savings Shocker, the Government Discovers Paper Has Two Sides.” With instructions from the President of the United States to reduce the departmental budgets, the Department of Justice has figured out that “double-sided photocopying ” will help.  Indeed even the Forest Service will no longer repaint its new white vehicles green…funny about that, you can see the white vehicles better on the trails and in the woods.

Indeed such reductions are a tip of the iceberg in belt- tightening – but didn’t these people learn how to save pennies, whether from their personal government pay check or from their professional departmental budget.  Or through precedent, do they believe, “They can always ask for more?” Isn’t it time to recognize that tax dollars unwisely spent comes out of our personal pockets, too?  Ethics and morals come in every size, whether pennies or millions.  ‘Tis time to have government bureaucrats take responsibility for their actions and free-spending ways.

Professional Development: A Speakers Perspective

Whenever I think of professional development I think of some form of training that is going to include me having to sit, listen and watch.  There is always someone talking, reading or clicking a gadget making slides move on a huge screen.  All of which, as I recollect, reasons that I don’t attend a lot  of conferences as a participant.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of workshops and conferences that are very productive, interesting and purposeful, we are not talking about these.  We are strictly talking about the ones that make you sit and wonder why you are there in the first place.

Today, as I received the call that I have been waiting for, another invitation to be a conference workshop speaker, I thought about some of the things that conference speakers do that make professional development seem like work.  I mean really, the purpose of a conference and the workshops are to provide an environment of professional growth, hence the term “professional development”.  However, can we really grow when we are being bored to death, talked at and talked over? I thought about this seriously today because although I am a public speaker and I like to teach and train, I would also like to develop professionally and I don’t want anyone to feel this way about me .  Understand that it is very flattering to have a conference request your presence year after year. However, what about those that are not ever asked to return?  What are some of the reasons why? This is what I was thinking .

I also thought about conference attendees, why are there some conferences that people attend every year, and some you see once and never again?  True, there are various reasons such as the economy, budget, availability etc.  Let’s just say that these are not an issue.  What are some reasons that participants do not return?

So, my question for you is:  What are some of the reasons that you have not participated in a conference more than once?  What was your experience?

Vanessa

The benefits of grant writing certification

As the economy shifts slightly and appears that it is recovering, conversations regarding grants are starting to resurface, not that it had ever completely stopped. However, along with the increase in conversation as well as interest it is a commonly known fact that public administrators are having to add grant writing to their already full job description.  As a result grant writing courses are being heavily sought after.

Because of the increased interest in grant writing and certification, I decided to include an article that I wrote a couple of years ago.  It is still relevant today.  As you read the article, my quest for you as a public administrator is to identify why or if a certification would be of benefit to our profession.  Your thoughts?

Vanessa

The Truth About Grant Writing Certification©

by Vanessa S. O’Neal

http://www.families4lifeinc.org

Ironically, the interest in grant writing certification is increasing daily and rightly so.  But the problem is the particular area of interest. In order to understand the problem with the certifications you must first understand professional terminology.

Profession: A vocation or occupation requiring advanced education and training and involving intellectual skills as Medicine, Law, Theology, Engineering, Teaching etc.

Certified: Vouched for; guaranteed, having o, or attested to by, a certificate

Certification: A certified statement

Grant writing, although a very technical form of writing and an extremely important position within any non-profit, is NOT a profession; it is a position.  Most grant writers are not just grant writers.  They are Board Members, Executive Directors, fundraising specialists, etc.

Grant writers are not hired on a degree status nor does it require advanced training and, more times than not, the person assigned the task may not have been formally trained at all.  According to professional standards, a grant writer does not have to be professionally trained to occupy the position.

Have you ever been asked by an employer, “Do you have a degree in grant writing?” No. I bet you have, however had an employer ask if you have experience in grant writing or have you taken any classes.

Why then is there a lot of hype regarding grant writing certification?  The reason is that there are several For-Profit companies advertising workshops and seminars as certification classes.  I have even sat in on a class where the instructor stated that the certification advertisement was just to get you in the class.  Companies offer workshops and seminars and then, after completion, they allow you to place initials behind your name (examples:  CGD = Certified Grant Developer, CGWE = Certified Grant Writing Expert).

The question then becomes, What does it all mean?  In a nutshell…NOTHING!  There are certain criteria that have to be met when certifying someone in a profession.

1. Education:  There must be a standard form of education to which everyone in that profession must adhere.  If you look at police officers they must go through a basic law enforcement training academy and, regardless of the geographic location of the academy, the training must include the same standard components.  Of course each academy can add to the curriculum, but still the basics must be met.

Similarly, for grant writers a standard curriculum must be organized in each subject area that pertains to the field for training.  A re-certification plan must be completed for continuation of the certification.  Additional training must be offered and made available so that the certified professionals will have opportunities to keep their certification.

Not only does the curriculum have to be organized, a criterion for certification has to be discussed and adopted.  For instance, is certification given upon completion of a class and an exam or should it be based on a certain number of grants written and awarded? Better yet, how about combining both?

2. Governance:  There must be a form of governance regarding the profession; an entity that decides what is acceptable.  There needs to be some way of knowing that all entities are certifying in the correct manner and that the basic standards are being met.  They would also handle violations.

3. Code of Ethics:  The ethics of a profession are universal.  All of the members of that particular profession adhere to the same Code of Ethics.

Normally, all of the foretasted criteria are conducted by Board of Professional standards in the field.  Because there isn’t a true governing entity for grant writers, independent non-profit organizations have taken on the task.  I applaud organizations such as the National Society of Grant Writing Professionals, The American Association of Grant Professionals and others for trying to do something about uniting the field and making it a profession.

 

4. Registry Database:  Believe it or not, individuals that are certified in any profession must have a database.  There has to be a way for people to inquire, complain, comment, etc.  What is the best way for you to find out whether or not the dentist you have been patronizing has an actual dental degree? Who do you call?  How do you find out if an attorney has been disbarred in their career?  Who do you call?  When you are truly certified, there will be a database.

These are the very basic components necessary to adopt true certification of a profession and remember that these standards must be universal.

Now ask yourself one question? Does your grant writing certification meet these basic standards?  I am inclined to believe that 99% of you said “NO!”.

Here is the deal.  Most organizations that offer certification for grant writing are not certifying you.  They are certifying that you took a class on the topic of grant writing.  They are certifying that, for a period of time, you were formally instructed in an area of interest.

The credentialing sounds good but does not amount to much.  There are no guarantees that the curriculum you are being taught is enough to make you a good writer of grants or make you successful at it.

 

So, where do we go from here?  Understand that although the concept of certification is  good in theory, the true issue here is the training.  Grant writing is a very technical form of writing and it takes skill. An astonishing 85% of the grants submitted are not awarded and more than 35% of those because of the lack of form, information, budgeting errors, etc.

Most companies that offer grant writing classes will give the student a certificate of completion and that is good.  After polling 100 grant writers with the question, Do you feel that certification is necessary to be a grant writer,
93% responded, NO!

 

However, when following-up with the question of the importance of training the 86% of the participants stated that training is Extremely important, 9% stated that training is Very important, and 5% stated that training is Not important

It must be understood that training is more than necessary in the grant writing field and, although it is human nature to want to have something tangible to show that you have participated in some form of training, it is not necessary. The real tangible evidence of training will come in the form of a grant award.

Government Employee or Bureaucrat

I am almost always irked at the response I get when I tell people that I work in Government.  Usually it is something along the lines of “Oh, you’re a bureaucrat.”  It irritates me when I hear that comment, so I usually say that I’m not a bureaucrat, “I am a government employee.”  Or sometimes I say that I am a “public employee.”

Recently, I was pondering why the term bureaucrat bothers me so much.   I think it’s because the connotations are so awful.  When I hear the word bureaucrat, I think of corrupt government officials or 1984-ish, anonymous drones working in some dingy warehouse of a government building.  It’s the same reason I don’t like the term “public servant.” Apparently I am not the only one who feels this way, because I found many blogs and articles discussing similar issues. (Try an internet search for “connotation bureaucrat, and you’ll see what I mean.)

The American Heritage Dictionary defines bureaucrat as:

1. An official of a bureaucracy.
2. An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure.

Government employees do follow procedure, so that’s not inaccurate or particularly distasteful.  The term rigid is maybe a little bit stronger than I would use, but at the same time, it is still fairly accurate.  Part of the purpose of a bureaucracy is the adherence to administrative procedure and the fact that things in government don’t change at the drop of a hat.

Dictionary.com gives the following definitions for the term bureaucrat:

1. an official of a bureaucracy.
2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.

The “without exercising intelligent judgement” part of bureaucrat is the part that rankles me so.  Unfortunately, a lot of people that I meet feel this way about government employees.  I’m not going to say that there aren’t government employees who just show up for the paycheck, but I firmly believe that those employees are the exception rather than the rule.  Hey, I have a pretty good head on my shoulders, I work hard, and I have the constituent letters of thanks to prove it!

I like Roger Shuy’s analysis about the word bureaucrat:

Several words in the English language rise to the level of making us mad and bureaucrat seems to be one of them. When our tax filing gets challenged, we blame those nasty bureaucrats at IRS. When we’re bogged down with pages of needless forms to fill out, it’s the fault of those anonymous servants of the government who are the problem. When a statute is incomprehensible, it’s the bureaucrat’s fault, even though we might better place the blame on the legislators who wrote it in the first place.

from Language Log

The next time someone asks me if I’m a bureaucrat, I’ll have to think on it for a moment.  I’ll probably continue to answer with my standard “government employee” response, but I might just start a discussion about what it means to be a good bureaucrat.

Eva Stern is a Geographic Information Systems analyst and trainer for the District of Columbia. Ms. Stern manages the GIS training program for the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and relishes her role in the bureaucracy.  You can find her Twittering (unofficially, of course) @EvaStern

The Importance of Credibility

Just in time for my second post,  I’m coming off of a five-day trip to Washington, DC, as part of my role as a program manager for oversight of the federal government’s efforts to develop a repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in the southern part of my state (Nevada).  This effort has been underway for more than two decades, and as one can imagine, it is controversial and politically sensitive.  I’ve been in my position for eight years now, and the Number One lesson I have learned is the “Importance of Credibility.”  So much of what we do in local government depends on whether the people we serve, and the stakeholders with which we interact, trust us. Credibility goes beyond “saying what you mean and meaning what you say.” It also means developing a team of people with a strong work ethic, who value integrity and professionalism, and who are willing to stand behind the work they produce, even under intense scrutiny or criticism.  Credibility is vital to all public adminstration professionals. We are the ones, of course, on whom elected and appointed officials, as well as the public, depend on to analyze problems, research issues, develop solutions, and tell the truth about what the results and potential consequences are.  Building credibility allows you to “tell your story” to a variety of stakeholders, even if they disagree with your position.  My travels to DC usually involve 15-20 meetings in a three day period, and I meet with everyone from staff for my own congressional delegation to different agencies within the federal government, to industry representatives, and environmental groups, and sometimes even the media.  It gives my team and me a great sense of pride and accomplishment to know that our credibility encourages people to listen to what we have to say, and perhaps to help influence an outcome to a situation or problem.  As effective public administrators that’s our job, and sometimes the best we can hope for, after all.

Irene Navis, AICP, Southern Nevada ASPA Chapter President