Within the CPM course class on Managing Performance and Data Based Decision-Making, we were presented with a case study regarding lead poisoning in New York City near the end of the 60's. The case presented some concepts in effective government management, dealing with complex independent systems with competing interests.
After contemplating the scenario for a little while, I had a couple of extra thoughts that might serve for discussion. Unfortunately my readers without access to the class discussion or the original case study may be left in the dark.
As I write this, I do not have a copy of the Case Study in front of me. So my numbers may not be precise, but I don't think it will significantly affect the content.
Admittedly, the protagonist, Gordon did some great things and a lot of kids did not get lead poisoning because of his efforts. That is a great outcome, but lets think of the larger systems at play.
If we dissected this a little more, are there some larger systems that could be addressed? I don’t recall any of the following being prominently mentioned in the analysis.
1. The target population was 121,000 kids between ages 1 to 6, living in rental assistance housing in New York City. It would seem the underlying problem that no one mentioned was, THERE ARE 125,000 KIDS WHOSE FAMILIES NEED ASSISTANCE WITH SOMETHING AS BASIC AS A PLACE TO LIVE! That may not even include all the families already in “public housing” since moving to public housing was one of the solutions.
2. We have an underlying assumption that the government is responsible for housing all of these people who cannot otherwise afford a place to live. Can there be anything more fundamental to our American way of life than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Public Wellfare?
3. Looking at a system approach for government subsidized rental housing. The government wanted housing provided at minimal costs. The landlord’s customer is then as much the government as the resident, with a focus on providing maximum quantity at minimum cost. The landlord's focus is not on providing a quality product to the resident but rather to the government. So then the residents only action is to put pressure on the government. We have created a broker in the system which gives more power to our bureaucratic government.
4. So what was the government’s response? Essentially creating a Super, Multi-Agency Layer of government. Nothing better to solve a problem than creating another layer of bureaucracy.
5. Realizing that NY City did not have the money to fix the problem, they imposed regulations that required someone else to spend the money to fix the problem (the landlords).
6. To carry out this plan, required recruiting a small army of government inspectors. So now we have a group of people starting out a career in government service, whose vision of changing the world is writing citations.
7. One of the components of the study was implementing a comprehensive medical testing program? In our day of HIPPA and privacy laws, does a program to collect urine samples from as many poor children as we can find seem like it would be controversial?
8. Ultimately, it then took 6 years before the Super, Multi-Agency layer was dis-assembled. And that was presented in the literature with a disappointing tone. If I recall in the first couple of years the problem dropped from 2% to 1% of those tested. The underlying problem may not have been eliminated, but was there a case to be made of diminishing returns to the program? Was there any discussion of weather this multi-agency arrangement was still warranted?
9. I don’t recall any mention of where the Bureau of the Budget found the funds to address the problem? Was there a program that was cancelled for this? Was the money borrowed? Or were Taxes raised?
10. So what made this a problem that urgently needed addressing? Really it was the 4th estate, the media, that was able to raise enough public outrage over the issue to make it a politically expedient priority. And then the story only took off once it was an alarmist story with great visuals. That would tend to be how our media sets our highest priorities. (See Neil Postman’s excellent book How to Watch TV News for a great critique of our news industry.)
11. And most interestingly, what actually was most effective? Moms telling their kids not to eat the paint chips! So individuals, taking personal responsibility for their own children was the most powerful ingredient. (Admittedly government and media propaganda making them aware of the danger along with the stigmatism of having their children fail a public health test played a role. So we should give the score to Moms with an assist to the Government.)
12. Is there any possibility this underlying problem of parents not proactively taking responsibility for their children, could be tied back to the need to have 120,000 in rental assistance in the 60’s, which then played itself out in the slums of New York 10 years later? A quick Bing search of New York Slums in the 70’s paints an epic picture.
After contemplating the scenario for a little while, I had a couple of extra thoughts that might serve for discussion. Unfortunately my readers without access to the class discussion or the original case study may be left in the dark.
As I write this, I do not have a copy of the Case Study in front of me. So my numbers may not be precise, but I don't think it will significantly affect the content.
Admittedly, the protagonist, Gordon did some great things and a lot of kids did not get lead poisoning because of his efforts. That is a great outcome, but lets think of the larger systems at play.
If we dissected this a little more, are there some larger systems that could be addressed? I don’t recall any of the following being prominently mentioned in the analysis.
1. The target population was 121,000 kids between ages 1 to 6, living in rental assistance housing in New York City. It would seem the underlying problem that no one mentioned was, THERE ARE 125,000 KIDS WHOSE FAMILIES NEED ASSISTANCE WITH SOMETHING AS BASIC AS A PLACE TO LIVE! That may not even include all the families already in “public housing” since moving to public housing was one of the solutions.
2. We have an underlying assumption that the government is responsible for housing all of these people who cannot otherwise afford a place to live. Can there be anything more fundamental to our American way of life than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Public Wellfare?
3. Looking at a system approach for government subsidized rental housing. The government wanted housing provided at minimal costs. The landlord’s customer is then as much the government as the resident, with a focus on providing maximum quantity at minimum cost. The landlord's focus is not on providing a quality product to the resident but rather to the government. So then the residents only action is to put pressure on the government. We have created a broker in the system which gives more power to our bureaucratic government.
4. So what was the government’s response? Essentially creating a Super, Multi-Agency Layer of government. Nothing better to solve a problem than creating another layer of bureaucracy.
5. Realizing that NY City did not have the money to fix the problem, they imposed regulations that required someone else to spend the money to fix the problem (the landlords).
6. To carry out this plan, required recruiting a small army of government inspectors. So now we have a group of people starting out a career in government service, whose vision of changing the world is writing citations.
7. One of the components of the study was implementing a comprehensive medical testing program? In our day of HIPPA and privacy laws, does a program to collect urine samples from as many poor children as we can find seem like it would be controversial?
8. Ultimately, it then took 6 years before the Super, Multi-Agency layer was dis-assembled. And that was presented in the literature with a disappointing tone. If I recall in the first couple of years the problem dropped from 2% to 1% of those tested. The underlying problem may not have been eliminated, but was there a case to be made of diminishing returns to the program? Was there any discussion of weather this multi-agency arrangement was still warranted?
9. I don’t recall any mention of where the Bureau of the Budget found the funds to address the problem? Was there a program that was cancelled for this? Was the money borrowed? Or were Taxes raised?
10. So what made this a problem that urgently needed addressing? Really it was the 4th estate, the media, that was able to raise enough public outrage over the issue to make it a politically expedient priority. And then the story only took off once it was an alarmist story with great visuals. That would tend to be how our media sets our highest priorities. (See Neil Postman’s excellent book How to Watch TV News for a great critique of our news industry.)
11. And most interestingly, what actually was most effective? Moms telling their kids not to eat the paint chips! So individuals, taking personal responsibility for their own children was the most powerful ingredient. (Admittedly government and media propaganda making them aware of the danger along with the stigmatism of having their children fail a public health test played a role. So we should give the score to Moms with an assist to the Government.)
12. Is there any possibility this underlying problem of parents not proactively taking responsibility for their children, could be tied back to the need to have 120,000 in rental assistance in the 60’s, which then played itself out in the slums of New York 10 years later? A quick Bing search of New York Slums in the 70’s paints an epic picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment