State and Local Government Groups Push for Federal Education Reform
There has been a call by five municipal groups to reform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESA) to reframe the federal, state, and local education partnership. The groups include the National Governor’s Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, The Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, and the National School Board Association. These groups are seeking to reform the ESA because currently it does not afford states and local governments with enough flexibility to prepare their students and provide them with a world-class public education, which is a service that state and local governments must provide.
The groups outlined their reform suggestions to congress in a letter, which included providing greater flexibility to state and local leaders, increasing flexibility in federal funding, recognizing state and local budget challenges, streamlining federal red tape and compliance requirements, and streamlining the waiver process. They mention that with these reforms state and local governments will increase innovation in the way they educate and therefore prepare students for college and beyond. The federal policies in place now limit innovation at the state level hindering education.
The impact of unprepared students, as they leave high school and enter college, can be enormous. For example recently the State University of New York has stated that they spend 70 million dollars in their budget for remedial work helping unprepared college students. This tax payer money is spent helping students who are not prepared for college get up to speed. This is a problem that needs to be fixed at the source and more collaboration must occur at the elementary and secondary levels of education. Reforming the ESA is one step to solving this problem. However, education reform is a subject that all state and local governments should examine when trying to improve governments services and increase government efficiency.
Government Reform Proposed by GOP, Dems, in Minnesota
Following the infamous government shutdown in Minnesota last summer (which the State is still feeling the effects of), Republican members of both the House and Senate began gathering a variety of proposals for the current legislative session. The list of proposals, commonly called “Reform 2.0” covers a variety of areas, including economic development, education, health care, and government reform.
As State Rep Keith Downey noted, “[o]ne of the biggest challenges we face in state government is we’re about 20 years behind in improving state operations.” To that end, the “Reform 2.0” includes a number of government reform provisions that would: make government pay and benefits competitive with the private sector, reduce the number of departments in the Executive Branch, require local governments to present budget and spending information in an easier to understand format for the general public, work with local governments on mandate relief, require the state budget to include federal insolvency contingency planning, and fix the problems which were encountered during the government shutdown.
Not surprisingly, State Democrats remain skeptical of the Reform 2.0 proposals. House Minority Leader Paul Thissen was reportedly disappointed by the GOP plan, echoing the claim of other Democrats who believe that many of the ideas are recycled from previous, unsuccessful proposals. To counter, Democrats have announced their own reform package which would emphasize reforms in the Legislature. Highlights of the Democratic package include: a plan to prevent future state shutdowns, requiring politicians to disclose any outside income, preventing private meetings whenever the State Capitol is closed, prohibiting public meetings between 12 a.m. and 7 a.m., prohibiting officials of political parties from holding public jobs, and a provision on “unallotment.”
Recent Developments for Social Impact Bonds
Social Impact Bonds, also known as Pay for Success Bonds, are a funding model where private investors fund social programs through an outcome-based contract with the public sector; if the program achieves the desired results the private investors see financial returns, if it fails the investors lose their investment.
We’ve already posted about social impact bonds, and noted how governments at all levels had shown varying amounts of interest in the pilot projects. However new announcements at the federal and state level show a continued interest in the model.
First, the White House recently announced that the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice would each make millions of dollars available in grants for programs which incorporate social impact bonds. The Department of Labor will make up to $20 million available to grant applicants through its Workforce Innovation Fund, which focuses on employment and training outcomes. Likewise, the Department of Justice will give priority consideration to grant applicants for the Second Chance Act, which provides funding to organizations which help reduce recidivism among newly released inmates.
In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick made a recent move towards implementing a social impact bond program, as the state’s Executive Office of Administration recently called for “social entrepreneurs to submit proposals for performance-based programs which would curtail chronic homelessness and to support youth who leave juvenile correction and probation systems in Massachusetts as they get older.”
Abroad, social impact bonds continue to be used. In the UK, the Department of Work and Pensions recently announced the use of the social impact bonds to help fund charities that would work with disadvantaged youth.
State Incentives for Local Government Efficiency
States are currently in the business of promoting local government efficiency as a way to cut local government expenditures. However, funding is a barrier for local governments that are tryting to take steps towards efficiency. State incentive programs offer the funding that is needed for local governments to become more efficient through shared services, consolidation, dissolution, mergers, or cooperative agreements.
The Local Government Efficiency Program in New York is a state incentive program that will provide technical assistance and competitive grants for local governments that seek to save money through consolidation, merger, dissolution, shared services, and cooperative agreements while at the same time still provide core governmental services to the community. The grants are awarded through the LGeGrant Program which requires the municipality to go through an application process to be awarded the funding.
The Local Government Innovation Fund (LGIF) is an Ohio incentive program (click here for program policies) that will provide financial assistance to municipalities that are trying to set in place innovative and more efficient ways to deliver government services to their community. Local governments seeking this award should be expected to describe how the plan will also improve the business environment and attract members to the community. With 45 million dollars available, 9 million for grants and 36 million for loans, the LGIF is a resource that local governments should use to implement innovative ideas.
For more information, and technical assistance, on local government consolidation, dissolution, mergers, and shared services visit the Center for Government Research, as well as, the Technical Assistance Manuel for New York’s Share Municipal Services Incentive Grant Program prepared by the Government Law Center of Albany Law School for the New York Department of State, Division of Local Government Services.
Virginia Continues to Take Big Steps Towards Government Reform
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell set up the Governor’s Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring (commission) with Executive Order No. 2. The commission’s purpose is find a way to make the Virginia State Government more effective, more efficient by streamlining the process, identifying and trimming unneeded agencies. Further, the commission is to make the state government more transparent, accountable, and accessible to the residents of Virginia.
On April 12, 2011, the Governor signed twenty pieces of government reform legislation based on the commission’s findings. These pieces of legislation will eliminate the disability services council; consolidate water quality project reports; establishes a state inspector general; consolidates payroll services; and authorizes the consolidation of executive branch agency reports.
In addition, on November 29, 2011, Governor McDonnell announced that he had submitted his Government Reorganization Plan to the General Assembly. This plan was estimated by the Department of Planning and Budget to save at least $2 million a year by cutting two state agencies and nineteen boards and commissions, merging seven agencies and twenty-three boards and commissions, moving four offices and initiatives, and de-regulating three professions. The Governor’s Plan has passed the House and is currently before the State Senate.
For the current version of Governor McDonnell’s Government Reorganization Plan click here.
For more information about The Government Reform & Restructuring Commission click here.
This blog post was created by Abby Brinkerhoff, Albany Law School Class of 2013.
During the current budget crisis and recession local governments in Minnesota are looking to the state legislature for more flexibility on how they delivery their governmental services. A project to reform local government structure was sparked by municipal groups, including the League of Minnesota Cities, who have realized that in a down economy, and without consistent state aid, municipal officials need more flexibility in how they provide governmental services. Six forums with municipal leaders were held around the state and from the information collected municipal groups compiled a report describing the current problem and providing recommendations for state legislators.
The report, Focus on Outcomes: Redesigning Minnesota’s Local Government Services, first acknowledges that local governments are in an unprecedented situation due to a large ageing population, a changing economy, and as a result an increase in service demands. While the report outlines the need for restructuring it also identifies the barriers of restructuring. The barriers include focusing service delivery on process instead of outcomes, a failing state and local relationship, limiting fiscal and political liability, and the lack of a state-wide plan.
The report, of course, has recommendations for the legislature including redesigning health and human services, children and youth education, transportation, public safety, administration, and government boundaries and structures. Some examples of recommendations include: focusing health services on outcomes, increasing flexible learning options for students, sharing transportation equipment between municipalities, creating public safety districts and consolidation of services, sharing information technology between municipalities, and exploring opportunities to consolidate municipalities and school districts.
The report is available here.
Washington State Democrat Looks at Jobs, Environmental Cleanup, and Education in Government Reform Legislation
Kevin Ranker, a Washington State Senate democrat, has been supporting government reform legislation that hopes to increase jobs and economic development by reforming the current environmental cleanup laws of the state. Further, Ranker is looking at reforming the performance review system for teachers and principals while at the same time making such a system uniform and state-wide.
Senate Bill 6211 introduced by Ranker will reform the State and Local Toxics Account law, making it possible for toxic waste sites to be cleaned up faster. This bill will create jobs as there are 56 sites that need to be cleaned up, creating approximately 620 direct jobs and 517 indirect jobs. Aside from creating jobs, Ranker notes that a more efficient and timely environmental cleanup of toxic sites will create a healthy and thriving community, which is the foundation for improving economic development.
Along these lines Senate Bill 6170 has been introduced to protect the state’s waterfront landscape. This bill would reform the waterfront development permitting process creating a single permit scheme. This would replace the current regime that requires a developer to get several permits from both the state and local governments. This expedited process would be available to projects that create a substantial number of jobs, maintains those jobs, and has environmental benefits. Such legislation would increase economic development by getting rid of the complex state and local permitting process, which often times precludes most developers from successfully developing in the waterfront areas.
Education Reform
Senate Bill 6177 looks to increase the performance of Washington State public schools by restructuring the performance evaluation of teachers and principals. Simply using “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” is not enough information to truly get a proper performance evaluation. Accordingly, this legislation would create a rating system for teachers and principles that would increase performance and growth of Washington’s public schools. Taking it one step further, this legislation seeks to implement a state-wide performance evaluation system.
With these new items on the legislative agenda Washington is looking to take steps towards government reform.
More and more municipalities are filing for bankruptcy because they are unable to provide core governmental services to their community due to a financial crisis and corruption. Most recently, Jefferson County Mississippi filed for the largest municipal bankruptcy proving that the current financial crisis is hurting local governments. To stop these municipal failures states are intervening in the financial affairs of their local governments. This is not a new concept, but one that may save many localities.
New York has used financial control boards, which allow the state to take control of a municipality’s finances to ensure it does not go bankrupt. This notion started in 1975 when the New York State legislature passed the Financial Emergency Act of 1975 to help New York City avoid bankruptcy. This bill created the Financial Control Board of New York City and gave it the power to control the City’s finances and made it a priority to pay the City’s debt. Other municipalities in New York are controlled by state control boards including the Nassau County Interim Finance Authority, the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority, and the Erie County Fiscal Stability Authority.
The Indiana Senate is now attempting to push legislation that will help municipalities facing bankruptcy. Senate bill 0355 would allow political subdivisions (including school districts) to seek the help of the Distressed Unit Appeal Board when they cannot meet their financial obligations. The board would appoint an emergency manager to work with the municipality. The manager would have broad powers to rehabilitate the municipality’s finances. Some of the manger’s powers would include the ability to renegotiate labor contracts and control salaries.
The Indiana bill has been amended to take out a provision that precluded a municipality from seeking help without first filing for bankruptcy. States are trying to help their local governments before the problem is so severe that municipal bankruptcy is the only answer. Currently local governments are feeling the fiscal stress and are looking for avenues that will help them keep their heads above water. State intervention is a route that could provide the assistance local governments need.
More Government Reform from Virginia
In 2010 Executive Order 2 was signed by Virginia’s Governor creating the Governor’s Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring. Gov. McDonnell has billed the Commission with identifying opportunities for creating a more efficient government, exploring news ways to deliver state services and perform core government functions, and to examine ways that the state government can be more transparent and user-friendly.
In their Report to the Governor in November of 2011, the Commission describes numerous suggestions for reforming Virginia’s government by reforming health and human resources, administration, commerce and trade, natural resources, finance, and other miscellaneous recommendations including consolidating juvenile corrections departments and addressing federal mandates. Under each topic for reform the Commission describes several recommendations and discusses their proposed effect.
The full report is available here.
