9/11: Ten Years Later

In a few days, the country will have the 10 year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. It’s a day of infamy that many of us can still recall vividly. In the wake of the attacks, federal and state officials rallied loudly for better collaboration between agencies, increased funding for various public servants, especially first responders, and enhanced equipment that would improve national security. At the federal level, there was  reorganization of national security agencies.

On the cusp of the anniversary, two surveys were released that addressed the nation’s administrative and management preparation for another attack. The first report conducted by Capella University addressed the question ‘How Prepared Are We 10 Years After 9-11?’ The second report conducted by Partnership for Public Service (PPS) and consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton examined government reorganization in the wake of 9/11. The reports come to some similar conclusions, albeit from two different perspectives.

The first general consensus is that the country is better prepared for another attack as a result of the changes that came immediately following Sept. 11. Second, the reports agree that public administrators play a major role in reorganization and preparation.

The Capella report, conducted in conjunction with several national organizations including ASPA, asked 1,000 public service and public safety professionals for their opinion on issues regarding funding, collaboration, staffing, and response.  The findings revealed that while 71 percent of the respondents believe that the country is better prepared for another attack, there is still 61 percent that is worried that the government (federal, state and local) is not giving enough attention to the issue of preparedness.  Among the other findings by the Capella survey:

• Eighty-eight percent said that funding is distributed according to politics and not the needs of organization and agencies that provide emergency response;
• Fifty-eight percent have seen a decrease in budgets;
• Forty percent expect that their organizations and agencies will have fewer staff in five years;
• Forty percent said that collaboration between state, federal and local agencies has improved somewhat since 9/11.

These are not far-fetched conclusions from the PPS/Booz Allen Hamilton report on government reorganization. Within the public administration sphere, reorganization is a common response from governments to a crisis.  The PPS/Booz Allen Hamilton report found that the reorganization of federal agencies post 9/11 i.e. the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was beneficial to developing a structure for national preparedness but there was a lack of attention to the management processes.  The PPS/Booz Allen Hamilton report found that:

• Chain of command is necessary but not sufficient in government reorganization;
• The intangibles such as vision, mission and culture of the proposed organization, must be integrated into the reorganization process;
• Development of management systems and processes must be integral to the reorganization;
• Establishment of the new organization must be integrated and considered within the larger system.

While some of these conclusions may seem obvious, they reinforce the need for extra action within the next few years by elected and public leadership to improve the disaster and crisis response system in the U.S. Both the PPS/Booz Allen Hamilton report and the Capella survey reveal that the work to protect the nation is NOT done.

SECoPA in New Orleans

New Orleans is a city rich with history and tradition. In recent years, its history has also been comingled with tragedy and disaster.  Yet, even these challenges in the story of New Orleans have not reduced the city’s magnificence. From its experience with Hurricane Katrina to the response to the BP oil spill, New Orleans provides an interesting case study for public management.

It’s the reason why New Orleans is the site for the Southeastern Conference on Public Management (SECoPA) in September. The city and surrounding area has seen its fair share of public management challenges, from federal and local response to Hurricane Katrina to the BP oil spill. The weeklong conference will focus on the various areas of public administration and management under the theme “Building Trust and Confidence in the Profession of Public Administration.”

Both those who watched via television the horror Hurricane Katrina wreaked on New Orleans and those who experienced its impact personally – like many ASPA members in the southeast- the importance of skilled public administrators and effective public management skills and structures during disaster rings loud and clear.

As Isaac Lozado pointed out, following Katrina, New Orleans followed a top-down government system that placed the federal government with the most control. A system that he contends is ‘suitable’ and common.

As an American city, New Orleans is equally subject to the top-down, federal, state, and local government hierarchy that typifies all other cities in the US. Hence, as proven by example from a plethora of other cities, such a chain-of-order is completely suitable for the city and will be more than sufficient to address the needs of a city-wide rehabilitation.

However, New Orleans is different.

John Keifer, SECoPA conference chair and professor at University of New Orleans noted in his article ‘Learning from Katrina: Transboundary Disasters and Intergovernmental Challenges’ that New Orleans has historically struggled with inter and intra governmental relationships.

Intergovernmental failures were attributed to a wide range of causes, from misunderstanding and misinterpretation of roles, responsibilities and plans to a long history of mistrust among local, state andfederal governments. … It is these two conditions, intergovernmental (and intragovernmental) misunderstanding and misinterpretation of roles and responsibilities, and lack of multiple opportunities to practice and refine response and recovery, that will most seriously impact an effective response to transboundary crisis, particularly a biological event.

And with New Orleans’ public administration history and experience, it seems only appropriate that SECoPA is returning to New Orleans since 1987. The city is in the midst of rebuilding and some stages of recovery still.

At this stage, the city is ripe with examples for observation in the PA petri dish. ASPA members heard the real-life experience of Admiral Thad W. Allen, former Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, who was selected by President Obama to head recovery after Katrina and the federal response to the oil spill.

Hear what Admiral Allen told ASPA members at the 2011 Annual Conference.

Now, SECoPA will take it further. The SECoPA conference is bringing together practitioners, scholars, and students to examine and learn best practices related to public administration. The goal: to build a stronger and improved network of public managers, both on the theoretical and practical side.

Join SECoPA in New Orleans and learn more about strengthening the public image of public administration. And if you are an administrator, learn how you can improve your skills to better serve the public.

How Local Governments Benefit from Social Media

By Justin Mosebach

You hear it all the time: Facebook this, Twitter that, social media… blah, blah, blah.

A ton of Federal Agencies use social media. Even the White House is all about it.

But why should local governments care (especially when many are in a pinch for resources)?

Well for starters, two words: Time & money.

Now saving time and money are not the only reasons to use social media in government (for example, it can provide greater transparency, reach citizens where they are – online, and provide easier access to services and information for citizens). Citizens want to get answers quickly through the mediums that they’re most comfortable with – how often do you use Facebook to communicate with your friends/family? But saving time and money are definitely still of high importance when it comes to why governments should consider using social media.

A lot of social media tools are free to use. However, they do take time (and thus money) to manage and do properly – so don’t think of them as completely free. But when you compare them with other options, they can have the potential to save time and money (get the theme yet?).

Here are a few quick ways how using social media might be able to help you save time and money. If nothing else, let these thoughts help you come up with your own ideas and let us know what you’re thinking in the comment section below!

1) Newsletters

• Save Money: Postage. If you’re a local government and you have a newsletter that gets mailed once a year (or whenever), how much is that costing you in the time it takes to stuff envelopes and mail them (let alone the postage it could take)? But… if you had a Facebook Page, then you could easily post a link to that newsletter online. And… for those citizens who don’t have Facebook, why not just set up a blog on your website or have an email list that people can sign up to? GovDelivery’s blog has a bunch of info about email communication for government. It might just be worth your while to do some research on it.

• Save Time: You won’t have to stuff envelopes (nor will your assistant). You won’t have to order the right paper or wait for the printer to return the finished product.

• Plus, because this is where citizens are congregating naturally, they might just choose to pass the newsletter onto their friends. And it can be quite an easy way of pushing information out to a large group of people.

2) Call Centers

• Save Money: Number of phone calls could be reduced. By using Facebook or Twitter, you can quickly get answers to citizens (while not having to pay for phone calls over a 1-800 number).

• Save Time: Citizens can do the answering for you. If you have enough citizens who are signed up to receive your posts, your Fans might just jump in and answer the question themselves.

• Save Time: Send them a link to the answer. Instead of wasting your time answering basic questions that you have already addressed elsewhere, you can just send them a link to the answer on your website (possibly even a FAQ page) or send a quick copy/paste answer.

3) Tourism

• They say that word-of-mouth is the best type of marketing that there is. Well, social media can be one way that information is spread by word-of-mouth.

• Save Money: Advertising. You could spend lots of money to create and broadcast a TV ad promoting why a neighboring state’s residents should visit your city. Or… you could create a website that crowd-sources photos of local events (provided by your citizens) on a social photo-sharing website and promote that through social media. This could also get your residents fired up about why they love your city. In turn, they might even promote it on their social networks (which most-likely include out-of-state friends) on Facebook or Twitter. All of a sudden, you could have plenty of reach without the expense of a TV ad.

• Save Time: Easily spread the word about events. You can quickly spread the word about an upcoming (or even current) event to people both near and far. Even those who haven’t opted-in to receive your updates might still find out about the event if they come across a re-post that their friend has made regarding it.

So there you have it! What are some more ways that governments can potentially save time and money by using social media? We welcome your feedback! Let us know below!

Now, I’m no lawyer and this shouldn’t be taken as legal advice. There are definitely things to consider before governments jump right into using social media, so make sure you get some legal advice (as well as a strategic plan) first.

Water: A Test in Governance

By Lisa Beutler

Mark Twain is oft credited with the phrase “Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over” and many futurists predict future wars will be over water.

For some of the ASPA members scattered across the globe, the issues of blue gold, water, may be abstract, but in the American West, where the whiskey phrase was coined, fighting words are already being leveled.  The public is alarmed as drought as severe as any in recorded history is projected to last at least another year and aging infrastructure is literally crumbling beneath us.  For the public administrator, these declining conditions wreck havoc with an ancient water governance structure so complex and inconsistent that most policy makers need a road map to even follow it.

For Texas Policymakers, drought has exposed limits of power.  A recent article in the Texas Tribune asked the question, “So what can the government do to help those who are hit hardest?”  They reported experts told them, “Not much at the state level.”[1]

They went on to report, “Droughts are tricky to manage. Their effects vary significantly from place to place, so local authorities generally assume primary responsibility for drought management. Different counties or cities not only get different amounts of precipitation, but they also may draw from different sources of water, below the ground or in reservoirs or rivers.”

This bifurcation of responsibility is not exclusive to drought.  From the beginning, civilizations have organized themselves around water sources and the West is no different.  The water governance structure has ancient roots and the oldest surviving common law in history, the Public Trust Doctrine, is central to this issue.

Roman Emperor Justinian is credited with codifying Public Trust concepts in the period around 530 AD when he published rules and edicts from his predecessors.  In this he dictated, “By the law of nature these things are common to all mankind, the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.”

This fundamental concept carried forward through wars and numerous successor empires. This concept was particularly extraordinary as during the same time frame many people did not have what we might now consider other basic rights.  Rights were granted by the sovereign and this was one of them.

As the United States gained its independence from Great Britain, this idea of responsibility for the Public Trust was furthered through the conditions of American states joining the original 13 colonies.   The states were granted sovereign rights to the commons (water, air and land) and sovereign responsibility for its care.

Since then the doctrine has been used extensively to protect the public’s interest in water. The Courts have ruled water is owned by everyone and no one, thus protection must be provided by its steward — the state. This interpretation has been upheld all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the West, water governance is rooted in these very ancient common laws and further complicated by additional terms and conditions of statehood granted by the Federal Government, pre-existing rights transferred from Spanish territorial claims, state constitutions, code, statute, regulations, and increasingly, court mandates .

In the case of the Texas drought, public administrators have a role play even as jurisdictional issues and public pressure complicate action.

After a state declaration of emergency and a request from the state, the federal government has taken lead on disaster aid.  Last month the US Department of Agriculture declared nearly all Texas counties disaster areas so that farmers and ranchers statewide can apply for low-interest loans for relief. They have also relaxed some farming requirements to allow hay to be grown and provided some emergency relief for wildfires, including for small businesses.

At the federal level a National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) has been created.   A collaboration of 37 federal agencies, offices and departments, as diverse as the Forest Service and Internal Revenue Service, the NIDIS operates www.drought.gov, a website with real time drought information.  The agencies also seek to develop leadership and networks to implement an integrated drought management approach at the federal, state, and local levels; encourage research on risk assessment, forecasting, and management; create a drought early warning system; and, and provide public awareness and education. In Texas, a Drought Preparedness Council, [2]  consisting of multiple state agencies, meets regularly and tries to improve drought-response coordination.

Ultimately local jurisdictions will continue to be central to managing the drought.  According to Chris Brown, executive director of the California Urban Water Conservation Council, more options exist in places like California where water can be moved from one part of the state to another, but, “In a practical sense, drought plans are implemented at a local level.” [3]

Given these realities, public agency collaboration will be an essential part of addressing this crisis.  Absent that, many say a change in weather will be the only final solution.  Carmen Fenton, a spokeswoman for the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, summed it up for many Texan’s. “Really what everyone’s doing,” she says, “is praying for rain.”[4]

---

[1] http://www.texastribune.org/texas-environmental-news/water-supply/texas-policymakers-drought-exposes-limits-power/

[2] http://agrilife.tamu.edu/drought

[3] Quote from http://www.texastribune.org/texas-environmental-news/water-supply/texas-policymakers-drought-exposes-limits-power/

[4] Quote from http://www.texastribune.org/texas-environmental-news/water-supply/texas-policymakers-drought-exposes-limits-power/

Where’s the Good Society?

The PA TIMES has an interesting article that features a discussion on Dwight Waldo and his theory about public management. The author of the popular book for public administrators The Enterprise of Public Administration offered an insightful analysis of public service and in particular the future of public administration. But thirty years after his book was published, Jan Kallberg, an ASPA member and University of Texas at Dallas graduate, asks whether his theories are still relevant. Her answer: a resounding yes.

Her examination of Waldo’s writing in the face of a staggering economy, rising federal debt and an ever leaning trend towards austerity, reminds us that there is still value in Waldo. As Kallberg points out:

Waldo raised the question that if the central glue that holds society together is the expectation of more, what does that lead to? Waldo meant that if we build our society around a government that always delivers more services, benefits, and progress, what would happen if there were less in the future? Today, facing a large federal debt and an unprecedented federal deficit, we might have arrived at the point Waldo described when we no longer can promise more.

It’s an interesting thought when, on closer examination, we recognize that the debates in Congress have essentially been a discussion about what can government afford to provide and what  individuals should be responsible for on their own. But is ‘services’ the only question to be raised? Or should a consideration also be given to the concept of the ‘good society.’

Admittedly, there are a variety of opinions about what makes a ‘good society.’ Winton Bates in a post on Citizens Economist expounds that a good society should include some classic elements such as peace, opportunity, and stability/economic security to name a few. Kallberg adds to those notions an agreement between the people and government of trust and confidence that each is looking out for the other. There also must be a good faith effort.

Waldo’s predictions about the future for public administration describe five areas that would be problematic in the future: legitimacy, authority, knowledge, control, and confidence. Legitimacy includes not only that the government is legally legitimized but capable and focused on an intention to deliver the “good society.

In light of the current state of the US (rising deficits, high unemployment, wavering stock markets and reduced social services), from the federal government to state governments, we wonder whether Waldo had it right all along. Has our governments been stretched too thin? Or have we just lost focus on the ‘good society’ and in doing so continue to miss our opportunities to grow in a healthy way that benefits all?

Divided Government Impacts Agency (In)Action

Summer days in DC are known for humidity, heat and lots of tourists. It’s also when Congress goes on break and the President takes a vacation. But this summer has been busy with activity as Congress and the President debate feverishly over budget, programs, and legislation.  This may not seem unusual, especially in the case of the two-party control government that is in place. Republicans control the House, Democrats control the Senate while a Democrat President sits in the White House. While it may be easy to guess that the reason for the tension is the mix of political ideologies dominating the legislative corridors of Congress, there may be more. And the impact of those differences has a real impact on what agencies can get done, says Cole D. Taratoot and David C. Nixon in the July/August issue of PA Review.

We saw this recently with the fiasco behind the shutdown of sections of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). When the divided chambers of Congress were unable to come to agreement on funding levels for the FAA, the agency was forced to furlough more than 2,000 workers and shutter or at least put a pause on some 200 construction projects. The closure also meant that the government would not collect more than $200 million in airline taxes.

Taratoot and Nixon argue that this type of impact on the bureaucracy and agency inaction should be expected.

“Inter-branch conflict between the President and Congress leads legislators to seek to retain legislative control over the bureaucracy. As a result, periods of divided government increase statutory control and reduce agency autonomy.”

The result of this tension is that the pendulum between the executive branch and Congress swings widely depending on the level of division between the governing bodies. But a default position, the authors discover, is that the executive branch tends to obtain more control.

“Our examination of the guiding statutes of federal agencies leads us to conclude that divided governments delegate authority to the executive with significantly more detailed and constraining statutes than unified governments.”

And as it relates to the ability of agencies, such as the FAA, to perform, the authors note that divided government, such as the one currently in place, create a stifling atmosphere for agencies that are often strangled by overly restrictive statutes.

“If a federal agency is created under unified government, clientele groups tend to be rewarded with an agency that is less bound by statutory controls and more able to serve the needs of clients.”

The end result is that the actions of a divided Congress has an impact on the bureaucracy, the body thought most outside the reach of political maneuvering. But the reality is that agencies experience a shift in power and statutory control which could mean a busy summer or days of languish in the DC heat.

The bureacracy

The Budget Deal: A Repeat Phenomenon?

     After weeks of legislative posturing, stalemate, and public debate, Congress and the President finally reached a deal on the federal budget and spending limit. The weeks-long impasse shone a bright spotlight on the budget-making process. As ordinary Americans watched the entire episode unfold, scholars and practitioners watched with a mix of awe and incredulity at the expected eruption.  As Matt Andrews had pointed out in an article in the May/April issue of Public Administration Review:

“Federal budgeting challenges reflect embedded ways of thinking about government in the United States. Beliefs embedded in doctrines, principles, and other social scripts entrench ideas, practices, and rules about separated powers, limited government, assertive and dispersed political competition, exceptionalism, and the American dream. The combination of such “logics” generates an ambiguous and opportunistic budgeting environment that is conducive to unsustainable spending behavior.”

Andrews in a poignant and well-researched article notes the need for more voter education and the importance of voter engagement on budgetary issues.

“Future solutions lie in citizens demanding better coordination and compromise between Congress and the president. It is doubtful whether this will be achieved through improving voter education on budgetary issues, however.”

Andrews borrows from historical studies on budgeting to show the weak and poor logic that feeds and accompanies federal budgeting, a point that rings true in the wake of the recent budget melee. Even states faced their own fears as the deadline drew near and state administrators remained uncertain about funding and the future. As the PA Times Online reported, while a deal was reached several states still expects major cuts to their funding and programs.

While the budget process is a common and central fact of life for many public servants, it is a management tool that is constantly under the microscope from scholars and practitioners alike. Most recently ASPA’s Public Administration Review highlighted this discussion as it relates to performance based budgeting, particularly in use at the state level.

Most welcome the compromise between Congress and the President, but as Andrews noted it is unlikely to mean the end of future similar situations.

“Crisis is needed to force attention on such ambiguity and to allow a path to solution. Past mini-crises have led to temporary balancing acts involving short-lived congressional and executive compromise. A more permanent fix is required, however, to clarify the illogical situation that currently exists. It seems that the appetite for ambiguity now dominates the will for radical change. The potential for game-changing crisis is high, however, and such crisis will create opportunities for transformational reform.”