That lack of tracking started in the late eighties. 'tracking outcomes' was considered a tried and true way of measuring whether a policy was deemed to be a success, or not. It's what was employed during WW2, and it was part of the scientific research methodogies developed since the enlightenment era.
The problem was that the Thatcherites came up with the three E's: Efficiency, Economy and Effectiveness, as the 'new' way to run government departments and state-owned enterprises.
None of these values can be properly 'measured', just saying. I can explain, but there are academics talking about this fallacious managerial directive in the nineties and noughties. It started a whole industry of 'outsourcing' ('cos private companies are better than government agencies - and more expenisve, so it backfired) and also more-and-more complex sofware, to try and 'measure' these things. There are journal articles and conferences where the authors try, to no avail, and make a set of metrics in software to measure these 'values'.
Now, in the last year or so, I notice local governments have switched the mantra to three C's. Competency, Compliance and Consistency. The first is pretty easy to track via academic and training records, the second may present a few more grey areas because of intrinsic discretion, interpretation, and variation between councils, and the last is just plain stupid, IMO, but one could possibly trace it, via tracking Continuous Improvement initiatives and Quality management - i.e. writing policy and making the employees follow it. Problem is, everyone has forgotten how to write policy. They think that it must be infused with ideology, or they can't help themselves because they lost the ability to think.
So I guess they are improving the mantras slightly,but not fast enough .
Liberal governments don't want to effectively track their programs because their programs were never meant to be effective at solving problems in the first place.
But they are very effective at graft and corruption.
Yes I was going to go there but didn't before, as the subject is huge:
The measures for Effective often arise in statements of implementation, as if outcomes are that: the policy has been implemented, rather than looking at the effects on the population - out there. Essentially, without inputs FROM the population, the measure for effectiveness becomes inward-looking, as in transforming/change-management within the organization -essentially ticking the box for something that came from upstairs. The questoin that should be asked, obviously, is Did it work?, NOT Did we implement it?
In a way it is the result of corporatizing public service. Service to the Public is more than just making money, which is what the function of corporations is. And even the service industry realizes there is more to it than just taking the money. Problem is: that service is something to do with helping people, not just seeing them as a source for more taxes.
One of the biggest issues is that governments can pass more taxes without the need to prove prior effectiveness or even a genuine need for these new taxes.
As you mention, private industry cannot operate that way, they cannot simply charge more for a given service and expect the public to go along with it.
When there are little to no consequences for how tax money is spent, there is little to no incentive to spend that money wisely and not enrich you and your fellow grifters.
24 Billion can get all homeless people in America off welfare and in proper housing! Now if you tolerating crackheads and meth heads, a trillion dollars won't help that problem!
When you feed pigeons, you’re gonna get more pigeons.
They weren't feeding pigeons, they were embezzling and more people became 'pigeons' under their economy and policies.
That lack of tracking started in the late eighties. 'tracking outcomes' was considered a tried and true way of measuring whether a policy was deemed to be a success, or not. It's what was employed during WW2, and it was part of the scientific research methodogies developed since the enlightenment era.
The problem was that the Thatcherites came up with the three E's: Efficiency, Economy and Effectiveness, as the 'new' way to run government departments and state-owned enterprises.
None of these values can be properly 'measured', just saying. I can explain, but there are academics talking about this fallacious managerial directive in the nineties and noughties. It started a whole industry of 'outsourcing' ('cos private companies are better than government agencies - and more expenisve, so it backfired) and also more-and-more complex sofware, to try and 'measure' these things. There are journal articles and conferences where the authors try, to no avail, and make a set of metrics in software to measure these 'values'.
Now, in the last year or so, I notice local governments have switched the mantra to three C's. Competency, Compliance and Consistency. The first is pretty easy to track via academic and training records, the second may present a few more grey areas because of intrinsic discretion, interpretation, and variation between councils, and the last is just plain stupid, IMO, but one could possibly trace it, via tracking Continuous Improvement initiatives and Quality management - i.e. writing policy and making the employees follow it. Problem is, everyone has forgotten how to write policy. They think that it must be infused with ideology, or they can't help themselves because they lost the ability to think.
So I guess they are improving the mantras slightly,but not fast enough .
Your assessment is spot on.
Liberal governments don't want to effectively track their programs because their programs were never meant to be effective at solving problems in the first place.
But they are very effective at graft and corruption.
Yes I was going to go there but didn't before, as the subject is huge:
The measures for Effective often arise in statements of implementation, as if outcomes are that: the policy has been implemented, rather than looking at the effects on the population - out there. Essentially, without inputs FROM the population, the measure for effectiveness becomes inward-looking, as in transforming/change-management within the organization -essentially ticking the box for something that came from upstairs. The questoin that should be asked, obviously, is Did it work?, NOT Did we implement it?
In a way it is the result of corporatizing public service. Service to the Public is more than just making money, which is what the function of corporations is. And even the service industry realizes there is more to it than just taking the money. Problem is: that service is something to do with helping people, not just seeing them as a source for more taxes.
One of the biggest issues is that governments can pass more taxes without the need to prove prior effectiveness or even a genuine need for these new taxes.
As you mention, private industry cannot operate that way, they cannot simply charge more for a given service and expect the public to go along with it.
When there are little to no consequences for how tax money is spent, there is little to no incentive to spend that money wisely and not enrich you and your fellow grifters.
well said.
California spent 24 Billion "laundering the money back to themselves and their cronies" I mean on fighting homelessness!
FIXED IT FOR YA!
Any person with more than 2 brain cells rubbing together knows this is just a giant graft operation.
Thanks for the compliment! (I think) Keke
Well, you can plainly see the graft and corruption so you obvious have some grey matter doing its job. :)
Dirty money. Follow the trail.
24 Billion can get all homeless people in America off welfare and in proper housing! Now if you tolerating crackheads and meth heads, a trillion dollars won't help that problem!
Just another money laundering scheme with money going into the pockets of those in a certain political circle.
One hundred percent, this.