Student-Practitioner Collaboration: Creating Value Both Ways

As a part of my first-year student curriculum, I am involved in a team project with a local grant-making organization. Our team, comprised entirely of students from my MPA program, has been conducting research for this organization on promising practices in grant monitoring and evaluation; this involves both review of academic literature and performing phone interviews with grant-making organizations around the country. The project has been an invaluable learning experience for us, and is creating a product that the organization would likely not otherwise have the time or staff resources to create. While we are reimbursed for our expenses, we are not paid for our work; costs have been minimal and the value created great.

I do not know the situation in other areas, but my MPA program has a formalized system where government and nonprofit organizations submit project proposals to staff, who then present students with a list for selection. I performed similar, smaller-scale projects as an undergraduate through a service-learning program. These projects gave me interesting experiences like creating a twenty-year organization history and working to boost a marketing campaign, while involving minimal commitment of time from practitioners.

I would encourage practitioners to take the time to look for opportunities like this. As I stated above, there have been minimal costs associated with our project, and the result is valuable on both ends. Practitioners are presented with a product they might greatly need or want, but do not have the time or staff to create.  Students are able to learn and gain real-world experience that is valuable for both shaping career interests and boosting marketability during the job search.

Katie O’Connor Sirakos
MPA, 2011

Census Data Collection – Implications for Rural and Small Urban Areas

In 2010, every residence in the United States will receive a short census form of 10 questions.   The 2010 Census asks for name, gender, age, race, ethnicity, relationship and whether the head of household owns or rents their home. More detailed socioeconomic information previously collected through the decennial census will be asked annually of a small percentage of the population through the American Community Survey.

The use of the American Community Survey (ACS) is good, because sample data is, and will continue to be collected every year. We will be able to continue to model how the country’s population changes year to year.  However, what data is available and when it is available, will depend on where you live.  It is my understanding that for statistical reasons, the sample ACS data available for populations of 65,000 or more can be based on one year estimates while the data for geographies under 65,000 have to be averaged over a three or five-year period. This means that rural areas and smaller urban areas will not see any new information until at least 2013.

I will be interested to see what this information gap will mean for these areas, and the under-served populations who live there.

Leadership Development and Community Exposure for Public Administrators

Public managers and employees who are looking for their next opportunity to further develop leadership skills, increase personal and professional networks, improve community awareness, and benefit their agency should consider community based leadership programs (CLP) as a viable option.  Numerous CLPs are located both in urban and rural areas nationwide to meet your training needs.

While individual program formats vary, typical CLPs meet once or twice per month for six months to one year in a half-day or day-long workshop format.  The programs are typically thematic or issue focused and frequently provide participants with an opportunity to tour community resources or contribute to volunteer projects.   CLPs are often available in areas where access to traditional classroom based higher education is challenging, and the investment of time is significantly less than that of a college degree program.  Additionally, the financial commitment is usually reasonable, and many employers are able to cover the cost as training or professional development.  As a result, CLPs are viable options for individuals who want to pursue educational or training opportunities, but who have not been able to access higher education, as well as for those individuals who have attended college, but who would like exposure to additional skill sets.

CLP participants are afforded opportunities to network and develop relationships with leaders and emerging leaders from the public and private sectors as well as an opportunity to hear from and network with elected, appointed, and business officials within the community.  In addition to gaining greater access to community leaders and candid insight into critical community issues, CLP participants often receive some training in applied and theoretical leadership skills from program staff, instructors, consultants, and other qualified individuals.  Leadership skills developed throughout CLP participation can be utilized immediately to accomplish personal and agency specific goals.

CLPs are typically non-profit organizations, which are often affiliated with Chambers of Commerce, colleges, universities, and community extension programs.  CLPs are close to the communities they serve and function as connecting webs, which often lead to deeper community engagement among CLP alums.  Communities, CLP participants, and agencies all stand to gain through improved community connections and employees who possess increased leadership competence in the increasingly interconnected and competitive environment we face.  

Russell “Rusty” S. Horton, MPA

PhD student, Gonzaga University

Under the Broadway Bridge

I am glad that the recent recession is making national media talk about poverty and child homelessness in America.  But surprisingly enough, in Arkansas local media has almost nothing to report on homeless children who have nowhere to live. Not only is there a lack of permanent housing for children, but there is also no statewide campaign to make concerted efforts to stop more families from becoming homeless.  The deepening recession means more home foreclosures and job losses.

Since last year, I have been thinking seriously about homeless children. Over the years, rarely did I see any homeless children on the streets until that September night when we gathered under the Broadway Bridge which connects the cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock to sleep out with the homeless, an event organized by the Arkansas Homeless Coalition. I have never seen such a huge homeless population at one time. I was more shocked to see homeless children in the crowd. Their eyes were blank, their attitude completely emotionless. However, there was a little bit of a smile left on their faces. I still don’t know what that means, but maybe that’s the last ray of hope that they want to preserve for the future which enables them to live for another day on the street. For a second, I took pity on them, but they didn’t care about anything happening around them. To be a part of this event, to experience an evening with homeless advocates and community volunteers had no special meaning to them. They were probably aware that it is only a temporary showcase of love and affection and tomorrow they will be forgotten as others did in some other times.

Today,  it is hard to ignore what is happening to homeless children who are on the frontline of the nation’s economic crisis. Arkansas has a history of ignoring its homeless population and that is probably why Little Rock once became the “meanest” city[i] in the nation for its treatment toward the homeless. More recently, America’s Youngest Outcasts[ii] report card cited Arkansas’ poor role in addressing the issue of child poverty and homeless children living on the streets or living at a temporary location with their families. There is no such program that would make ending child homelessness a statewide campaign in Arkansas. The shelters that house families and their children are only temporary when permanent housing are mostly needed to give homeless children stability in life. With our economy, creating more affordable supportive housing, emergency shelters and outreach programs for the homeless are required for solutions. To this end, our representatives should learn to work together with local governments, law enforcement officials, homeless service providers and advocates to prevent and end child homelessness.

Like yours and mine, these homeless children are also a part of our future. They deserve to go to school and seek every opportunity in life that America gives hope for. In this recession, if government could provide stimulus package money to Wall Street elites, then why not give a little extra to these children to ensure a possible way out of this vicious cycle of homelessness. Something needs to be done now. Otherwise, a homeless child today will become a homeless adult tomorrow and we, the fortunate, will blame ourselves for this dark episode of our society.

After that night, I never saw those children again under the Broadway Bridge or anywhere else.  Maybe they have moved to a different city or to another welfare state. I am not sure about any progress in their journey, but I wish them all the best of everything.  Most of all, I wish for them a place called home.

---

[i] National Coalition for the Homeless, 2004

[ii] National Center on Family Homelessness, 2009

Reefa Mahboob, M.P.A.

The Government News Gap

The media often covers the business of the media. One area of enormous change in mass media over the last 30 years has been the virtual death of the traditional American newspaper, which has critically important implications for American understanding of, and awareness of what the government does.  Depending on how old you are, you have a different view of the value of the newspaper and, understandably so.  If you came of age during the last 20 years, when coverage had already begun to change, you probably wonder what all the fuss is about when older folks lament falling subscription rates  and the loss of quality coverage. If you are older, and you remember more traditional newspaper journalism (local papers that included a daily, two-page spread of current events during the state legislative session, for example) you understand what has been lost. Newspapers were available on every corner, every grocery store, or were delivered to our doorsteps.

Certainly we can find news online but the big difference is, you need to know where to look for it. You have to have a computer, a comfort-level with the Internet, and first-hand trust in the credibility of the author (since no one really regulates news content on the Internet, nor have Internet news producers yet devised ways of keeping each other honest through shared codes of ethics).  As a result, what stops any of us from only reading the news sources and stories that already agree with our preconceived notion of what is right? Unless presented with both sides of an issue, a tenet of traditional journalism, it is human nature to seek out only the information that does not produce dissonance. In mass communication theory, this is called Uses and Gratifications and it is simply what we do when faced with news product choices.

Newspapers have their origins in Europe before there was a United States. Early American newspapers kept colonists informed of events in Europe as well as the latest updates on tension with Britain. If not for intentional manipulation of that coverage, the early colonial government probably could not have rallied a disparate and far-flung mass of colonists to fight (and win) against the British Empire. The same was true for the French and Indian Wars and the Civil War. 

By the industrial revolution, the American newspaper came of age and many more Americans were literate and could vote. During the muck-raking years (1900-1912) newspaper journalists turned a critical eye on the wealthy and abuses of government power, serving the needs of the people. It was also during this time that journalists took on codes of ethics and commitments to reduce bias in reporting.  By the 1930s, there were hundreds of papers in most large cities, printed in multiple languages, keeping everyone informed of politics, government, scandal, changes to laws, where to vote, and the location of the community pot-luck.

Pew Center and The Council for Excellence in Government’s 2003 report “Government: In and out of the news” examined government news coverage patterns over approximately 30 years. In that review, coverage of national government news decreased 39% between 1981 and 2001. The tone of government news stories has also changed, with rates of positive stories ranging from 26% for the executive branch to a high of 37% for the judicial. At a time when a great deal of federal responsibility has devolved to state and local government, the coverage patterns of local government news is virtually unknown, but the similar demise of local newspapers suggests a similar fate.  Other things have contributed to this landscape:  non-local, corporate ownership of newspapers focused on profit; changes in media coverage laws that allow for one-sided reporting; and a growing lack of interest in newspapers by readers.

As public administrators, it is important that we consider the implications of the demise of traditional news.  In the past, information about what government does in communities was a common good and was a part of the information environment, but this is no longer the case.  Public leaders will need to consider new ways of getting the news of their good work to the public.

Anita Larson, Research Fellow and Doctoral Student, St. Paul, Minnesota

Saving Detroit’s Legacy as the Gateway to Canada

Cross Border Management & Administration in the Detroit-Windsor Region

When you think about the city of Detroit, several images might come to mind.  You may think of the American automobile industry, or even the famous soul stirring music of Motown Records that made the city a music capital.  Whatever your image of Detroit might be, it probably does not include the reality that the city is indeed an international metropolis.  Detroit has always been the gateway city to Canada, and it is likely the only place in America where Canada is the neighbor to the south.  The shared water border with Windsor, Ontario is one of the most distinctive attributes of the city and the region, yet it is often a second or third thought. 

Due to its geographic location along the Detroit River, the cities of Detroit and Windsor have always maintained a close relationship and unique partnership.  Moreover, the surrounding communities, as well as the state of Michigan and the province of Ontario have strongly benefited from the goods, services, labor, capital and tourism that flow through the U.S./Canada Border.  Canada and the U.S. are each other’s largest trading partners, and share the longest non-militarized border in the world.  Subsequently, the Detroit-Windsor crossing is the busiest commercial crossing in North America, handling a quarter of all U.S./Canada trade equating to approximately $130 billion.  Border management crosses economical, political, and social lines; furthermore, the Detroit-Windsor crossing provides a unique opportunity to innovate the way in which all border crossings are managed.

While there is much promise to further enhance this border crossing and redefine the Detroit-Windsor region, significant projects are in holding patterns and at risk of moving forward.  The Detroit-Windsor crossing currently entails an underwater tunnel as well as the famous Ambassador Bridge.  The bridge, which is privately owned by Manuel Moroun and managed by the Detroit International Bridge Company, carries most of the commercial and recreational traffic.  The problem with the status quo is that the structure is 80 years old, very outdated, and not equipped to facilitate the amount of traffic that crosses the border each day.  As a result, wait times are always long, which can affect businesses and even the casual traveler.  This has resulted in the governments of both Canada and the U.S. calling for a new bridge.

The two proposals currently on the table involve another private bridge and a publicly owned bridge.  The former, would be a twin span right next to the Ambassador Bridge and owned by Mr. Moroun.  The latter, is a project called the Detroit River International Crossing, which would create a public bridge jointly owned by both nations, with new customs plazas and new highway connections on both sides of the border.  The projects are somewhat opposed to each other, and it is very unlikely that both will be built. 

Mr. Moroun’s plan to build a second bridge, has recently hit a roadblock on two accounts.  The first is that it is caught up in litigation with the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan, regarding land disputes and travel routes around the bridge that were previously agreed upon.  The second is that last week the U.S. Coast Guard terminated the twin span plan due to these disputes.  Mr. Moroun is battling on both fronts to keep this project alive.

The Detroit River International Crossing project faces its share of opposition from Mr. Moroun and his allies in the Michigan Legislature.  While the project has made significant advancement, coordinating the efforts of the Canadian and U.S. federal governments, as well as the State of Michigan, and the Province of Ontario, there is still a long way to go.  Canada is further ahead than the U.S. in securing land and rights to build the new bridge, but Michigan must still decide if it is going to pay for further work on the project.  State officials must make a decision by June.  Even with an official go ahead, this project could still be several years from completion, and a new bridge would not be opened until the latter part of the decade.

The bridge war in the Detroit-Windsor region not only represents a classic case of political and economic interests, but takes a different spin on how the border is and should be managed.  International relations are often thought of from purely the federal or even supranational levels of government.  However, the actual facilitation of a border is largely a practice of intergovernmental relations.  Border management not only affects the bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States, but improvements and enhancements at a specific crossing, like Detroit-Windsor, require intricate communication, coordination, and cooperation among state and provincial governments, county governments, municipal governments, and other local entities. Thus international relations among nations actually become intergovernmental relations at the ground level.

These types of projects not only require collaboration between governments, agencies, and private enterprise, but it also calls the public managers involved to have an interdisciplinary understanding of the various project components.  This is one area of public administration where training in state and local management, politics, planning and land use, transportation and international affairs all intersect.  This is not the first or last time that such a project will be embarked upon; however, in future endeavors it is incumbent upon governments to create mechanisms that allow efficient cross-border administration between various levels of government. 

Few would argue against the fact that this issue is one of significant importance to the national and local economies on both sides of the river.  From an academic and historical standpoint, this scenario presents a very interesting case study and future projects will be determined and measured by what happens at the Detroit-Windsor crossing.  As a public administrator I am intrigued by the intergovernmental relations at play.  However as a resident and concerned citizen, I simply want to see all the parties working together to get a new bridge built.   Yet another Detroit legacy is at risk.  The city, the state, the nation, and the continent cannot afford to let this issue fall by the wayside.

Marlon I. Brown, M.P.A.

Motivations of the Public: Will the same old incentives still work?

Much has been written about how we can incentivize our public service workers.  What has motivated or encouraged a Baby Boomer will not be the same tactic that will work with a Generation Xer or a Millennial.  While we ponder the impact on our workforce, we would do well to think about the same kinds of issues as applied to the public we serve.

Implementing public policy is about bringing about some kind of change in behavior or actions in the public.  In the past, we have used taxes, penalties and other consequences that create a negative environment.  If you do wrong and engage in the unwanted behaviors, you pay in some way.  There is a cost to continuing that action.  But will this same negative system of disincentives work for coming generations of the public?  How can we best motivate the public to change in coming years?

There are a number of ways we need to consider our encouragement of positive changes in future generations.  First and perhaps foremost, we need to consider the communications styles that appeal to generations coming of age in a time when technology has always been a part of their lives.  For Millennials, a more casual communications approach must still embrace a direct style.  Implication and nuance may not be as effective as straightforward messages.  Social networking as a means to both spread the desired message and track performance may be a very appropriate means of change in society.

Homelanders, the generation still in development today, will likely be use to being tracked carefully by their techie parents and may in fact be much more protected as a result.  While their parents appreciate public praise and are very close to familial or quasi-family social networks, this upcoming group may well respond to more personal incentives for future change and therefore may need to understand more about what is in it for them.  Highly competitive Millennials are proving to be civic-minded and open to positive change; their children may likewise be models of public participation and service.

These generations that will drive future societal adjustments through their acceptance or denial of change will be the people that we as public administrators will be attempting to influence through our policy implementation.  If we select the wrong incentives, change will not occur as we would hope.  Taking the possible tax on sugared sodas as a current example, some Millennials have already raised a cry against this as a punishment for something that people should have a right to buy.  How is this different from existing cigarette or alcohol taxes?  It is not, but the people who are most impacted by it, the people whose behavior and actions we wish to change, are!

By Yvonne J. Kochanowski, DPA, MBA, yvonne.kochanowski@capella.edu

Civic Education and Why it’s Important

In addition to moonlighting as a public administration student at night, I am also what could be considered a front line state employee. I often find myself seeing several sides of an issue whenever something procedural is changed; and given the current economic climate for the states, something changes at least every week.

In between commiserating with coworkers when a process is adjusted for the 4th time in as many weeks, part of that also involves involuntarily reverting to a student and understanding why certain decisions are made, particularly as a government employee and as a student who has studied state and local government throughout the duration of an MPA program.  I’m sure everyone remembers junior high school where teachers explained the three branches of government, the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives and other basic parts of the American system. But that seems to be where most education ends for those of us not studying government or politics.

In my line of work, clients file employment discrimination charges against current or former employers. Part of the filing process is explaining to clients that, 98% of the time, they are dual-filing with the state and with the “Federal” EEOC . If there is any confusion, I explain that they are filing with the state agency and the federal agency at the same time, in one location. I explain this process only so the following example makes more sense. One client in particular was adamant that the “national” level was above the “federal” level. Practitioners and students can almost always assume that in the United States, the terms federal government and national government are synonymous.

This lack of education about more than the basic parts of government could also explain the general, and some could argue much deserved, antipathy towards Congress. I often look across the border at Canada or to the U.K. or other European nations pass legislation much more quickly than in the U.S. But is inherently different in the American federal system where, even if one party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, a minority party can still have the power to put the brakes on legislation. It’s this frustration that many Americans feel about why health care reform still has not come to fruition and why many practitioners struggle with patience when explaining the basic layers of government.

As practitioners, we must keep being reminded that the people we serve are not experts in the purpose, functions, or limits of government as we are.

A Healthy Economy

This month’s conventional wisdom—the seeming consensus of the pundits and other self-important folks who make their livings by pontificating on such matters—is that the Obama Administration should forget about reforming health insurance and concentrate on jobs and the deficit.

The problem is, these issues are related. You can’t reduce the deficit unless you create jobs, and you can’t create jobs unless you fix health insurance.

Job creation reduces government spending, because we pay less for unemployment and other social welfare costs. It also increases government income, because more people pay taxes. 

The cost of health insurance is the single largest drag on new job creation. The difference between what it costs an employer to create a new position and the amount the employee actually receives is the employment “wedge.” As health insurance premiums escalate, the wedge grows larger, and inhibits hiring additional workers. In good economic times, that is troubling; in times like these, it can be catastrophic.

Our costly, patchwork approach to healthcare distorts the operation of markets and inhibits the economic development needed for deficit reduction. For example, not too long ago, Toyota was looking for a site for a new factory in North America. Several southern states were offering tax abatements, infrastructure improvements and other incentives worth millions. Toyota went to Canada, which wasn’t offering anything. The company explained that in Canada, they didn’t need to provide healthcare. Smaller companies—the real engines of economic growth and job creation—are increasingly unable to offer health insurance, putting them at a competitive disadvantage when they try to hire good employees. Over fifty percent of personal bankruptcies are attributable to medical bills, and those bankruptcies cost businesses and taxpayers millions.

Opponents evidently believe reform will add to the deficit because they think taxpayers will bear more of the costs of care. They don’t believe Congressional Budget Office projections that reform will actually reduce the deficit. But governments at all levels currently expend huge amounts for healthcare, through Medicaid, Medicare and other federally required programs, through health care research grants,  through insurance for public employees (Universities, police, public school teachers, state and municipal workers, etc.), and through support for public hospitals.

By most estimates, American taxpayers already foot the bill for over 60% of American health care. We just do it in the least efficient, most wasteful way imaginable. (In single-payer countries, by contrast, governments pay an average of 70% of all health costs.) The brutal truth is, America already has “socialized” medicine. We have socialized our medical care through the private, for-profit insurance industry. As a result, we have the worst of both worlds. We pay more than twice as much per capita as any other country for a system that is regularly ranked thirty-sixth or thirty-seventh in the world.

The bill that is pending in Congress is far from ideal. If it passes, it will need plenty of tweaking and amending in the future. But it’s a start. And make no mistake: we cannot tame the deficit or create jobs until we fix healthcare.

Health Care and Tax on Unearned Income for the Wealthy

Health Care is a hot topic in the U.S. today and I would like to raise the question of whether unearned income should be taxed further? According to the Council of Governments (COG) (2010), on February 22, 2010 the White House provided a press release of President Obama’s Health Care proposal.  Some key features of the proposal expand medical coverage to those who are 133% below the poverty line.  States are required to move to the new levels by 2014.  It was also noted that the federal government would send states 100% of the costs to cover eligible individuals staring 2014 to 2017.  After this time, states will be required to fulfill 95% of the cost by 2018 which will drop to 90% in following years (Council, 2010).

Of course this money will have to come from somewhere. If taken at face value the financial implications could be devastating to American citizens especially low income earners.  Cannon (2010) pointed out that “mandates, subsidies, tax penalties and healthcare insurance regulations would penalize workers and reward Americans who refuse to purchase health insurance” (p.  1).  He noted that mandates and subsidies could impose effective marginal rates 53% to 57% on average while more affluent individuals would see average rates of no higher than 47.9%.  Middle income earners could save approximately $8000 by dropping health care coverage and purchasing it when needed (Cannon, 2010, p. 1). This is definitely not fair to workers who can’t afford to say no.

One answer addressed in President Barak Obama’s healthcare proposal is to reforming the High Cost Plan Excise Tax. The argument is that insurance companies are not encouraged to reduce the premiums they charge policy holders. Overpriced insurance premiums would be taxed and motivate insurers to comply. This should lead to a reduction in insurance premiums and the massive deficit as pointed out in the President’s proposal (White, 2010, para 3). However the policy would not be enforced until 2018 to allow companies enough time to correct pricing. The reform also comes with increases to exemption from assessment for single member and families from $8,500 to $10,200, and $23,000 to $27, 500 respectively (White, 2010).

Regarding the issue of taxation for health care, it was raised previously that lower income workers were at a financial disadvantage because affluent and even middle class workers could elect to pay for insurance when necessary under the House and Senate proposals (Cannon, 2010, p.1). President Obama’s plan would require high income earners or those who have substantial amounts of unearned income (individuals earning $200,000 and families earning $250,000) to pay 2.9% on their income from “interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents, other than such income which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business which is not a passive activity” for Medicare Hospital Insurance Tax (White, 2010, para 4). This is not currently required but it is being propose to engender a since of fairness. Is it fair to be taxed on money that has been already taxed especially when that is your sole source of income? I make nowhere near $200, 000, but that makes me uneasy.

Reference

Cannon, M. (2010). Obama’s prescription for low-wage workers: High emplicit taxes, higher premiums. Cato Institute, 656, 1-16.

Council of State Governments (2010). What does president obama’s healthcare proposal do to state’s medicaid program. Retrieved from http://www.csg.org/policy/health.aspx

White House (2010). Policies to contain cost and to ensure fiancial stability. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/whatsnew/cost-sustainability