Government Knowledge Gaps: Can public agencies begin to fill them?

Throughout my previous posts I have mused about the changes in the American information environment (primarily newspapers, general media, and reductions in civics curricula in schools)  and how these changes probably affect what citizens know and understand about what their governments do each day. My concern lies in the basic relationship between awareness, understanding, and the ability of citizens to make informed choices about what they do and do not want provided as public goods.  To me, a basic understanding of what we pay for and value in government services is fundamental to dealing with budget shortfalls as well as incorporating the sentiments of our anti-government neighbors into meaningful policy discussions.  Tea Party activists need to be able to tell others exactly what they do not want to pay for (or use) and why and those who support the preservation of services need to be ready to argue for the need for those services.

The media environment is fragmented and since it is now more challenging than ever to find the information we need about government all in one place, I have posted questions to ASPA readers about the roles of their public affairs and communication offers. One response suggested that agencies may no longer staff these positions – if they ever staffed them – and the scholarly literature is silent on their effectiveness.

What does all of this mean for public servants who deal with citizens every day? Might public agencies begin by taking advantage of the citizen contact that is part of ordinary service delivery to inform and explain more about what it is they do and why? Would it make sense for a licensing clerk to explain to the irate citizen who has been handed a new form to complete that the form is intended to assure more efficient data processing so that their license is received 3-5 days earlier than usual rather than simply “the new form is required”? I realize that many of my colleagues over the years have indeed taken the time to do this type of informing in their public work, but how intentional are agencies in this task?  Can it become a priority for all service delivery?

Of course government informing cannot become advocacy and communication cannot become propaganda.  But in an age where the sources of government and civics information are fragmented at best and completely misleading at worst, might agencies begin by filling small gaps in knowledge as a part of direct service? In education, these are called “teachable moments”.  Perhaps it can work in citizen interaction as well.

- Anita Larson, Public Administration Doctoral Student, St. Paul, MN

Communications & Public Affairs in Government: Who do they serve?

In the course of exploring dissertation topics for my doctoral program, I attempted a literature search on the role of public affairs offices and communications officers in local government. I found that there is nothing out there on the subject that explains the nature or roles of these officials in a typical government setting.

It is possible to find mission and vision statements from academic programs that educate public affairs staff, but when these individuals enter the profession, the absence of scholarly study of their work lives and contributions to civic knowledge implies that they enter a black hole, never to be seen again (or at least not studied).

Part of my interest in this topic is based on my own (admittedly limited) experience working with public affairs staff in a large county in which I was employed some years ago.  Our public affairs staff were knowledgeable and kind people, but they were unabashedly at the service of our elected County Board. This meant that inquiries that came to us from the media or the public had to go through what felt like a cleansing process whereby we as county staff had to have our statements re-written and information considered sensitive to a particular commissioner or other elected official might be  stricken from the response.  This step took extra time that made it look from the outside as if we were stalling and maybe even “packaging” our response (which we were) and sometimes the effect was to water down answers, sanitize them, and often miss an excellent opportunity to educate our public about an important policy or issue.

I also know that dealing with a public affairs department or staff person is increasingly rare as local governments cut non-critical staff, which might also partially explain the lack of research.  There simply may be very little public affairs work to study.

I am interested in hearing from others about their experience with public affairs and communications staff in their agencies.  Do you think they serve the public interest?  The elected leadership?  Someone else?

These are important roles to fill in local government agencies and we are wise to consider how we staff them and just which masters they serve.

Anita Larson, Research Fellow and Public Administration Doctoral Candidate, St. Paul, MN

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

Don’t Know Much About Government? (We might start out that way)

In this week’s online management newsletter from Governing Magazine, Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene would like to know if readers can share information on any “excellent civics education efforts” around the country. They correctly link current lack of awareness of what government does (“…who is responsible for picking up the trash….what does a city manager do…does state government have anything to do with education?…”) with civics education in our schools.  Some early research is revealing that the situation is quite bad indeed.

In the wake of No Child Left Behind many states scrapped their civics curricula to dedicate resources to reading and math. (What gets measured, gets done.) In late 2007, Mitsakos & Ackerman (2009) found that only 27 states retained civics in their public school curricula. More disturbing are findings that there is variation in the type of civics education being provided, depending upon the community. In 2005, Julie Jenkins presented at the Western Political Science Association annual conference on her research that showed that in wealthy communities, public schools taught very active forms of citizenship. In contrast, students living in poor communities were given instruction that socialized them to be passive rather than active citizens, suggesting that even if public schools in your area offer civics (and they may not), the message given may not be to participate, be active, or that young people can have a voice in governing. Gravois’ 2006 study showed that four years of college fails to improve civics knowledge in any measurable way, either.

Why does this matter? Would you pay for something if you had no idea what you were getting in return? I wouldn’t. And no wonder so many of our fellow citizens balk against taxes (even in good times), vilify a government they don’t understand, and join movements like the Tea Party.  It appears that this lack of understanding begins early.

Get in touch with Katherine or Richard if you have a good civics education model underway where you live.  No Child Left Behind should absolutely include civics, for without a broad understanding of the nature of democracy and government, we are all left behind.

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

Office Parties & Holiday Dinners

In the 1990s, I was a welfare worker and fresh out of college, wanting to help people and change the world.  Like most of my young, wide-eyed colleagues, I learned that work in public service was unexpectedly complex, rule-bound (most times for good reasons, like equity), and a matter of balancing the needs of a variety of important constituents. As so many have learned before me, Wilson’s public-administration dichotomy was just an idea: nearly everything we did required the expertise of educated, well-trained public servants with a knowledge of law and policy, but political considerations were woven throughout.

After this realization that public service was much more than good intentions. I developed a healthy and respectful appreciation for the dedication and expertise of my profession and rolled up my shirtsleeves. As I’ve moved through a variety of levels of local government over the past 20 years, from case worker, to supervisor, to planner, and now a researcher in academia, I’ve had the privilege to serve my fellow citizens, develop an array of skills, and continue to learn about the fascinating relationship American’s have with their governments.

One important realization has come to me at family dinners and office parties (usually for my spouse’s private-sector company) where individuals hate government and feel it is my obligation to respond to their complaints and questions.  People hold the most amazingly inaccurate or uninformed perspectives of government and what it does. These perceptions range from musings about just why there are always so many forms for every process (usually because someone’s rights may be or have been violated, not because government workers like them) to a failure to connect their property tax cap (which they appreciate) to the fact their streets aren’t cleaned as often.  Occasionally these conversations are unproductive and partisan and I’ve had to walk away but more frequently, they are rich opportunities to talk with others about the good work done in government. Oftentimes my dinner companions will say “you’ve given me something to think about” or “thanks for explaining that to me”.  It has made me realize how little people know about what we do in public service.

It wasn’t until I returned to school for my doctorate that I began to examine American public knowledge of government in earnest.  I am not alone in suspecting that citizen lack of awareness, or lack of “civic literacy” as Milner (2002) and Delli Carpini & Keeter (1996) call it, is behind a number of damaging trends in government like negativity and chronic defunding. Occasionally an editorial or polemic (Goodsell, 2003)  addresses misconceptions and reminds us of the importance of our governments, but many believe that the future of public agencies is exemplified by continuous belt-tightening (Osborne & Hutchinson, 2004).

Lots has also changed in terms of how ordinary Americans obtain their “civic” news and learn to think critically about government. It will be important for governments to re-think their approaches to communicating with their citizens.