As city, county, and state budgets are being discussed and finalized around the country, one thing is clear: those who allocate resources are asking the wrong questions. As a result, recipients of government services are being short-changed because resources are being misallocated.

During city/county/state budget negotiations, the primary questions generally are:

1. How much must we cut so that our city/county/state has a balanced budget?
2. How much must each agency cut so we can achieve this outcome?

The problem is that these are the wrong questions. Instead of focusing on money, politicians and administrators need to begin with the end in mind – i.e., the services to be provided. Here are the questions they should be asking instead:

1. Is this service something that (city/county/state) government should provide?
(If it is not, stop it!)
2. If it is, what level of service do we (decision-makers) choose to provide?
3. What is the best way to provide this service?
4. How much are people willing to pay for it?

Using public safety (i.e., fire departments and police departments) as an example, here are the questions decision-makers should be asking:

1. Should the government provide public safety services?
2. What level of public safety do decision-makers choose to provide?
3. What is the best way to provide this service?
4. How much are people willing to pay for it?

When the conversation is all about cutting the budget, then guess what becomes the #1 priority? (You are correct if you said “cutting the budget.”) Focusing on cutting the budget can lead to dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., proportional sharing) and outcomes (e.g., ineffective resource allocation). (Elsewhere I explained why the tactic of proportional sharing as a budget cutting tactic is an ineffective way to allocate resources.) As a result, the public loses. In terms of public safety, for example, there may be fewer fire fighters, emergency medical personnel, and police officers available to respond to calls. Fewer civilian staff as well as outdated equipment and infrastructure also are consequences of cuts to public safety budgets. Together these results mean longer response times in situations in which seconds or minutes matter. Are longer response times okay with the public? If so, then there’s no need to change the question. But if public safety has taken a hit because of misdirected questions and stakeholders are not okay with longer response times, then it’s time to insist that decision-makers stop asking and answering the wrong questions.

The bottom line: if you want different answers, you have to change the questions you ask. If the public is at greater risk due to budget cuts and the heads of fire departments and police departments are not okay with that, it’s time for them to re-direct the conversation by changing the questions. While re-focusing the discussion won’t change the reality of scarce resources, it can ensure a much more effective resource allocation process.

What are you waiting for?

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

When the Long Beach Press-Telegram reported recently that Long Beach’s Chief of Police had vowed that the police would “get the job done” regardless of what they were tasked with doing in the face of drastically reduced resources, I had two immediate and contradictory reactions. As a Long Beach resident and business owner, I felt relieved to hear that the police still plan to provide “…the best possible service for the people who are accustomed to that service.” As an expert in resource allocation, however, I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding!” By publicly promising to maintain the normal level of safety no matter what, the Chief essentially gave the City Council the green light to take resources away from the Police Department and give them to other agencies. In short, he metaphorically shot his department in the foot – unless the Police department has been greatly over-funded, and recent budget cuts merely reduced its budget to an appropriate level. Somehow I doubt this is the case.

I’m not picking on the Long Beach Police Chief; he just happened to be a local example of what I’m hearing and seeing in law enforcement and fire service agencies. In both these professions, members tend to downplay the significance of their roles in keeping people safe while routinely putting themselves in danger. “It’s just my job,” they often protest when grateful recipients of their services try to express their thanks. As a result, over time the public began to believe them, and subsequently was lulled into a false sense of security because these public servants make what they do seem almost easy. Few people stop to think about what is required to keep our law enforcement and fire service protectors at the top of their respective games so they can perform at high levels at a moment’s notice. Thus when City Council members or other decision-makers adopt deeply flawed policies like proportional sharing instead of stepping up to the plate and making the tough decisions they were elected or hired to make, there is relatively little resistance from the public about whether the resources are being prioritized appropriately. As a result, we witness scenarios like the one in which a Los Angeles City Council member vowed to save the jobs of the City’s calligraphers (employees whose job is to produce the pretty certificates that Council members like to hand out to constituents) at all costs – even though “essential” jobs such as those of teacher, police officer, and fire fighter were on the chopping block.

The fact is that when law enforcement and fire service leaders continue to assure the public that all is, and will remain, well despite fewer and fewer resources each year, they are doing a serious disservice to the public and to their own employees. While service levels may be maintained in the short-term, they are not sustainable over time: employees get burned out due to overwhelming work loads, and critical, life and death decisions are made by people who are tired and stressed out. When equipment malfunctions, when (or even if) it can be repaired will depend on factors such as when overworked mechanics can get to it, and/or how long it takes for the parts to arrive after someone realizes that no one ordered them since the clerical personnel who handled the ordering were laid off, and/or whether the money to pay for the parts can be found somehow.

In short, the “things will continue to be normal” mantra is a charade that must stop. Decision-makers and the public need to be educated about the trade-offs that result from allocating fewer resources than required to maintain service levels.

Here’s my advice to leaders in law enforcement and the fire service, and to public sector decision-makers: stop it! More specifically:

1. Leaders in the fire service and law enforcement: I’m sure you believe you’re doing the right thing by assuring the public that you will keep us safe. And I think you are sincere when you say you will do everything possible to make sure that happens. But the truth is that you can’t, at least not beyond the very short term. And in your heart of hearts, you know it too. So please: stop sending the message that everything is fine, and begin to educate the public about what the trade-offs will be when you have fewer resources with which to work.

2. Public sector decision-makers: stop hiding behind the appearance of doing your jobs (e.g., by implementing ineffective policies like proportional sharing), and start making the tough decisions required to deal with current and future conditions. A good place to start, for example, is by setting priorities and allocating resources based on what is needed to achieve the relevant government entity’s “big picture” (e.g., a city’s vision or mission) rather than on what groups have complained the loudest most recently.

Public sector entities are having a tough time right now, and everyone is suffering as a result. Let’s not compound the existing challenges by setting unrealistic expectations about public safety, and then burning out good people trying to achieve them.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

A euphemism is a vague word or phrase that is substituted for an expression that is considered to be harsh, offensive, or blunt. For example, some public sector leaders use the phrase “proportional sharing” as a substitute for describing what they really do when they decide to cut every department or agency’s budget by the same flat percentage. I suppose that “proportional sharing” is meant to evoke an aura of fairness about the decisions that leaders make about allocating scarce resources – perhaps a sense of “we’re all feeling the pain equally.” While such a process may sound fair, in fact it is not. The reality behind “proportional sharing” is that officials are failing to live up to their responsibility for setting priorities and allocating public resources effectively. To learn why this is the case, and what can be done about it, read my article Why “Proportional Sharing” is an Ineffective Resource Allocation Strategy, posted as a guest column on Alan Weiss’ Contrarian Consultant blog. And let me know what you think.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.