Southern Consortium of University Public Serviceorganizations

Summary

Spring Directors’ Meeting

Southern Consortium of University Public ServiceOrganizations

Clemson, SC

April 1-2, 2009

Participants:

• Ted Abernathy, Southern Growth Policies Board
• Bob Becker, Strom Thurmond Institute, ClemsonUniversity
• Paul Biderman, Institute of Public Law, University of New Mexico
• Jeanne Bilanin, Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland
• Bernie Dworsky, Institute for Public Administration, Univ. of Delaware
• Kathleen Gallagher, Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland
• Linda Hoke, Southern Growth Policies Board
• Karen Holt, Institute for Public Service, University of Tennessee
• Mary Jinks, Institute for Public Service, University of Tennessee
• Jerome Lewis, Institute for Public Administration, Univ. of Delaware
• Donna London, Strom Thurmond Institute, ClemsonUniversity
• Troy Mix, Institute for Public Administration, Univ. of Delaware
• Bob Oldendick, Institute for Public Service & Policy Research, University of South Carolina
• Carol Pierannunzi, A.L. Burruss Institute, KennesawStateUniversity
• Roby Robertson, Institute of Government, University of Arkansas-Little Rock
• Christy Storey, A.L. Burruss Institute, KennesawStateUniversity
• John Thomas, WeldonCooperCenter, University of Virginia
• Don Terry Veal, Center for Governmental Services, AuburnUniversity
• Marty Wiseman, Stennis Institute of Government, MississippiStateUniversity
• Martin Wollaston, Institute for Public Administration, Univ. of Delaware

Managing in Tough Economic Times (Internal Operations)

We could easily fill the time for this session by sharing horror stories, but that wouldn’t help us move forward, said Bob Oldendick, the discussion leader for the opening session at the meeting. He got the conversation started by talking about four things that he was focusing on in response to severe budget cuts for his institute. These included:

1)What do we cut? Of course, there’s the low hanging fruit, such as hiring and travel freezes, he said, but these cuts are different than in the past; they require an examination of our entire mission. We need to look more closely at the questions “why are we important?” and “how are we making a difference?”

2)Maintaining staff morale. This is probably my biggest challenge, Bob said, noting that his institute was going from 23 to 5 FTEs.

3)Rallying key stakeholders. In tough times, you find out who your friends really are, Bob observed. The double whammy is that your key stakeholders are probably facing the same kind of cuts that you are, and therefore aren’t in the position to provide the kind of support you would like. He noted that his institute has received more support from outside stakeholders rather than stakeholders within the university.

4)Innovation. We need to look at the “value added” at every step of the way, Bob emphasized. As an example, he described how they were looking closely at the ratio of supervisors to surveyors in their survey research operation, questioning how much value would be lost in moving from a 1 to 6 ratio to a 1 to 10 ratio. We’re also much more active in terms of looking for partnerships, Bob said, and are scouring the stimulus package looking for opportunities.

Success with the university administration sometimes has almost nothing to do with the strength of your program, Roby observed, offering consolation to those who felt unsupported within their universities. He noted that he was fortunate in that his current administration was very supportive of public service and insisted that they take no deeper cuts than everyone else. Those connected to land grant institutions may have a better posture because service is a part of the institutional mission, Mary Jinks said. We have been very effective in convincing the administration (seven presidents in the past ten years!) that the Institute for Public Service is the face of the University of Tennessee, she noted. Our message is that if they cut us they’re cutting the economic vitality of Tennessee’s communities. Perhaps because of this, we’ve actually gotten smaller budget cuts than the University’s academic units, she said.

Commenting on staff morale, Roby Robertson noted that when cuts come there is even more pressure on the director; you’re the one the staff looks to to make everything “right,” he said. He noted that the need to constantly communicate everything that is going on “has gone through the roof.” Jerome Lewis also commented on the need for “rumor control” and frequent communication, noting that different people react to threats in different ways. Things move so quickly, Paul Biderman stressed, adding that because decisions relating to funding seem to be made daily it is important to keep on top of things.

This has been an “exhilarating, but scary year,” Bob Becker said. These times provide a chance for innovation. I’m trying to approach these times with a sense of urgency, but not panic, he said. Economic modeling is becoming a powerful tool for us, he commented, noting that there was a good deal of interest in “putting numbers on interventions” (as an example: what would be the dollar value in a marginal increase in graduation rates?) There is also a lot of opportunity because other people are making “rash decisions,” he said. As an example, he noted that the business dean at Clemson had proposed to end the MPA program. The Strom Thurmond Institute asked to take it under their wing and has made it a profitable undertaking.

One of the reasons I think my institute is holding up is because we already had a wide variety of funding sources, Paul Biderman said; but, we are still looking for and finding new opportunities for growth. Norms are often thrown out in a crisis, Ted Abernathy commented, agreeing with the talk about rethinking operations in a broad sense rather than just tinkering at the edges. He noted that we’re now seeing “huge dismembering of businesses” rather than across the board cuts.

State agencies are hurting, said Carol Pierannunzi. One potential new market is to show them how you can help them with their own cutback strategies. One of the things we did when faced with a 50 percent budget cut in the past was to point out to state agencies that private consultants were providing them services at a higher cost than our institute could provide them, Carol explained. On a smaller scale, we do a lot of evaluation work, she said, noting that evaluation is part of most grant projects. This provides us with a steady stream of small bits of income, she noted.

Don-Terry Veal observed that he has seen a definite correlation between a bad economy and his center getting more contracts from local government. We can be the voice in how to help others in this new economic environment, he said. For one, he noted that he has been asked to give paid presentations on how others can get stimulus funding.

Picking up on this comment, Bernie Dworsky asked how others were approaching the stimulus money. There are lots of opportunities if you already have relationships, Mary Jinks emphasized. The Governor of Tennessee is requiring the state’s money to be obligated by July 1, she said. We’ve gone to state agencies we’ve worked with in the past and told them “we can help you figure out how to spend the money.” Most don’t have the staffing to come up with plans that quickly and are grateful for help from a trusted source, she explained. Funds related to criminal justice and energy are on a fast track due to these past relationships, she went on, noting that the vast majority of the funding in these areas would be spent on training. I thought all the money had to be spent to create jobs, Carol Pierannunzi commented. In theory, yes, Mary replied, but there’s no way that states can spend all that money in such a short period of time. Roby Robertson noted that UALR has three target areas for stimulus funds: 1) science and technology policy; 2) nanotechnology; and 3) criminal justice.

Attention then turned to staffing issues. One of my problems is, if I secure new projects through the stimulus funds or other means, I still can’t hire anyone new, said Roby Robertson. The question then becomes, who from my existing staff do I reassign to new tasks? We can hire people for specific projects (on restricted accounts) and for limited duration contracts, Mary Jinks responded. Jerome Lewis noted that they have always used students. We’re looking much more closely now at what value they add and how they can plug into project work. While we’ve typically used master’s students, we are now looking at PhD students who will be there longer and may also offer more expertise. At the other end of the scale, we’re looking at undergraduates who cost less, he added. Carol Pierannunzi talked about her institute’s use of faculty as a way to add to her staff’s expertise without increasing staff size. Bob Becker noted that the Thurmond Institute has been successful in attracting “senior scholars” who come with their own funding and just need an institutional framework in which to work.

To close the session, Roby Robertson posed the following question: In five years, what would you say is going to be fundamentally the same about your operations – and what is going to be fundamentally different?

We’re seen a fundamental shift away from pro bono services, Carol Pierannunzi responded. Karen Holt agreed with Carol, adding that this signified a big cultural shift internally. We’re operating now more as a cost recovery center and have lost the ability to serve many of our traditional clients, echoed Jeanne Bilanin. The risk is that the needy, smaller jurisdictions that probably need our help most are left on their own. I’m trying to get staff to be more responsible for their time and how much it costs, Jerome said.

In a different vein, John Thomas commented on how he thought staff diversity would continue to suffer. Institutionally we no longer have career development paths, he observed. Given the difficulty in hiring staff, we’re turning more and more to outside expertise for short term projects. For us, this often means recently-retired while males, who can essentially hit the ground running because they’ve just come out of government roles. Picking up on these comments, Carol Pierannunzi remarked that, in five years, “I see us as no longer being in the business of developing students and faculty.” The focus is increasingly on short term gains rather than long term development. We’ll have less time to allow people to play with and develop new ideas. I also see academic departments becoming more ad hoc, she said. Roby Robertson said he saw faculty pulling away from public service work, with the view that they “can protect themselves better on the academic side.” Five years out, I think the university’s definition of faculty may even change, he said.

Managing in Tough Economic Times (Helping Constituents)

Carol Pierannunzi, the discussion leader for the session, started out by posing a series of questions to other participants (each of which might be “fundable” questions, she pointed out). These included:

1)How are economic constraints faced by state and local governments impacting citizens? Is there a role for public service institutes/centers in researching these impacts?

2)Is there a role for institutes/centers in examining how the reactions of state and local governments might exacerbate or extend the crisis? Or, how they might alleviate the crisis? What about the long-term impacts?

3)There is a lot of academic literature out there on what happened during the Reagan era, when many government programs were cut. What are the similarities and differences between today’s situation and the 1980s?

Carol noted that she had contacted Georgia’s municipal and county associations four months ago about how her institute might help examine how the state’s local governments were coping with cutbacks. Out of this came two small contracts to conduct baseline assessments of cutback management. Carol noted that, once completed, this information could be used for a variety of purposes, including designing needed training and/or identifying best practices. The municipal association will likely use this information as a lobbying tool as well, she noted – showing the legislature the impact of cutbacks on local communities.

Noting that privatization of services might be one possible response to government cutbacks, Carol shared early results of a study on this topic that her institute just completed with funding from the Reason Foundation. Across city types and types of services, we found that citizens were less satisfied with contacted-out services, Carol reported.

Picking up on Carol’s question about differences between cutbacks in 1980 and today, John Thomas commented that the cutbacks in the Reagan era were entirely from the government side. Today is a different equation; you can’t just look to a different funding source because all sectors are suffering, he said. This is a very different environment, where every funding source has dried up. In the 1980s, government was seen as the problem, not the solution, observed Karen Holt. Now, people are looking to government as the solution, she added.

John Thomas noted that his center had just done a series of regional meetings with local government managers. Governments are facing very different issues, depending on where they are located, he observed.

We’re trying to figure out how we can help our communities take advantage of stimulus funds, Mary Jinks reported. She noted that her institute had created two websites – one for cities, one for counties – to show what funding was available (see We’re also working with state agencies to design the best way to get money to local governments in order to build their capacity for the future, she added.

We don’t do much hand holding in communities, Bob Becker said, but we do a lot with economic trends. John Thomas noted that one of his center’s strengths has been its demographic database – and, in fact, the center had recently received three contracts related to this strength.

School systems have also been tremendously impacted, Carol Pierannunzi pointed out. She asked whether anyone had done work with school systems. Jerome Lewis and Mary Jinks both responded that they did some work related to school finance. Donna London noted that the Thurmond Institute had done some work on what makes for a “right-sized” school district. Don-Terry Veal commented on a survey that his center was conducting that targeted a specific school.

Roby Robertson talked about the difficulty in matching university expertise to community needs. “Do any of you help other parts of the university figure out how they can respond to requests for help in their areas of expertise?” he asked. In the past year, Auburn’s president has made university assistance a part of the institution’s strategic plan, Don-Terry Veal responded. He noted that, in keeping with this direction, his center has been asked to do a survey of state agencies to better determine their needs.

Academic/Public Service Connections

The Institute for Public Administration has a highly integrated public service/academic model, said discussion leader Jerome Lewis in opening the session on academic/public service connections. That said, some of our core values are being challenged – by the economy for one, he added.

Marty Wiseman observed that he has had a lot better luck engaging faculty in the business school as opposed to the political science department. He noted, and Carol Pierannunzi and John Thomas agreed, that if promotion and tenure guidelines don’t consider public service, you’re not going to get faculty interested in public service. Jerome Lewis noted that the University of Delaware does mention public service in promotion and tenure guidelines, yet he still feels like he’s on the defensive.

Roby Robertson saw benefit to establishing a public service “career track” across public service institutions – something he thought could be promoted by developing more linkages between staff at member institutions. This could help show staff that their career is not limited to their particular state, he explained. He also talked about staff moving into the public sector and then coming back to public service institutes.

Remarks from Ted Abernathy

Ted Abernathy, Executive Director of the Southern Growth Policies Board, expressed his support for Southern Growth’s partnership with SCUPSO and said he was looking forward to building on this partnership in his new role at Southern Growth. He went on to share some thoughts about trends impacting the South and nation, including:

• New leadership models that place a greater emphasis on flexible networks that are capable of agile reactions to threats and opportunities;
• The mobility of 21st century infrastructure; and
• Changing economic geography and economic positioning.

New Communication Tools