For about 14 years, ending in 2010, we helped create and devoted ourselves to something called the Government Performance Project, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and published by Governing. The goal was to evaluate the management capacity of states and the largest local governments. One of the topics we covered regularly was human resources. We asked all sorts of questions about the quality of training, hiring practices, recruitment and so on. In most cases in which we were going to have to give a state a lower-than-desirable evaluation, our sources were not surprised that their states, cities or counties were going to be given a low grade in that category (which didn’t necessarily mean that they were thrilled to hear that these grades would be made public).
In fact, in many conversations, they acknowledged that they needed more training for employees, just as they knew they needed more up-to-date recruitment practices and more flexibility. So, why weren’t they forging ahead full-tilt on what they thought they should be doing? The exceedingly commonplace answer was that they simply didn’t have the resources.
They complained then — and have continued telling us in the years that followed — that the legislative branch didn’t understand the value of investing in HR. And that word, “investing,” is critical here, as differentiated from a cost, in that there’s reason to believe there will be a tangible return to taxpayers in years to come when their government has the best personnel possible.
We’re aware of a similar issue when it comes to performance management. Many states and cities have embarked on laudable performance management systems. And a fair number have used performance measures to improve the management of individual agencies.
But does that mean that the people who oversee performance management have the resources they need? You already knew the answer. They’re frequently small offices and the men and women who run them are hungry for more staff. And just as in HR, many believe that running a more performance-oriented organization will lead to more efficient use of tax dollars down the road.
Consider Houston, Texas, which did a citywide efficiency study in 2024-2025, reviewing performance organization, financial spending and forensic accounting. As a result, the city discovered that its procurement functions were ready for an overhaul. Eliminating duplicative contracts and inconsistent vendor practices, it found, could turn into significant savings over time.
But while Houston and other places have put money into this kind of invisible work, it’s likely that the underfunding of management functions by legislatures is just going to get worse in the next several years. Across the country, a growing number of cities, as well as states and counties, have begun reporting budget shortfalls. Some are instituting hiring freezes to help keep the books in balance, while others are reducing non-essential programs like community maintenance and still more are scaling back on capital projects.
Maybe not immediately, but going forward taxpayers will see the effect. When potholes are blossoming like daffodils in the spring, they’re generally going to be unaware that behind-the-scenes work that keeps government running smoothly is being reduced.
All of this is highly frustrating to the motivated people who believe that their functions are genuinely important. We won’t quote anyone here, but it’s startling to us how many of the executive branch managers with whom we speak use outright epithets when they’re talking about the legislative branch.
Our sympathies lie on both sides of the fence. We regret the underestimation of the value of managerial functions. But we also know that, especially in tough economic times, many legislators are forced to make next-to-impossible decisions.
By the same token, we’d be disingenuous were we not to acknowledge a tendency among some who sit in state legislatures to aim their votes squarely at the ballot box. They may well know that reductions in training budgets are a short-term solution that will cost productivity in the future. But they also know that nobody tends to win an election based on the “Make Training Great Again” platform.
This commentary originally appeared on the authors’ website. Read the original here.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
