How Stat Got Stuck -- in the Place That Made It Famous
http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-baltimore-citistat-statestat-maryland.html
(via Instapaper)

In his seven years as mayor of Baltimore and eight years as governor of 
Maryland, Martin O’Malley’s proudest achievement was developing a new way to 
manage state and local bureaucracy. Borrowing from CompStat, a system used by 
the New York Police Department, O’Malley created for both his city and state an 
office of analysts that collected reams of performance data from departments 
and applied pressure for improvement through regular meetings and public 
progress reports. It was CitiStat in Baltimore, and StateStat when he took it 
to Annapolis in 2007.

There were reports of dramatic results, from impressive reductions in chronic 
absenteeism among public workers to quicker turnarounds on filling pothole 
requests. The Stat programs played a role in driving down Baltimore’s murder 
rate, improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and clearing a backlog of 
unchecked state DNA samples collected from convicted criminals. The good news 
spread quickly. More than 20 large cities and a handful of counties now have 
Stat programs, as do several federal agencies. “This data-driven approach to 
governing, at least among effective leaders, is becoming more the norm than the 
exception,” O’Malley says.

But for all the accomplishments of O’Malley’s Stat initiatives, the model is in 
trouble. His successor in Annapolis, Gov. Larry Hogan, has discontinued the 
program. Baltimore’s CitiStat hasn’t fared much better, languishing from 
inactivity for months, if not years, at a time. The celebrated innovation that 
inspired a movement of Stat-like programs from Jackson, Miss., to Washington 
state is struggling to stay alive on its home turf.

In 2015, Hogan issued an executive order replacing StateStat with the 
Governor’s Office of Performance Improvement, or GOPI. On paper, the new office 
sounded a lot like the old one. It would “provide accurate and timely data 
about the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of government services.” The order 
called for the tracking of agencies’ progress against established strategic 
goals, along with regular meetings between the governor’s office and agency 
heads. But in practice, it looked more like a gut job than a rebranding effort. 
Hogan cut the office’s budget in half, reduced the staff from nine positions to 
four, and moved the headquarters from Annapolis to a small town 20 minutes 
outside the state capital.

The GOPI website says it “publishes information on the progress that state 
agencies make in meeting their goals.” But under the “Track Our Progress” tab, 
visitors can’t track anything. The page provides a link to the state’s open 
data portal -- which still gets updates -- but without performance benchmarks, 
it’s nearly impossible to draw conclusions about agencies’ progress by the 
numbers alone. If GOPI staff meet regularly with agency heads, there’s no trace 
of it on the website. The office does not produce public agendas beforehand or 
written summaries afterward. (Gov. Hogan’s office did not respond to questions 
for this story.) “It’s heartbreaking from a data perspective,” says Beth 
Blauer, a former director of StateStat who now leads the Center for Government 
Excellence at Johns Hopkins University. “We built performance measures into 
basically everything we did and we talked about them very publicly because we 
wanted the public to hold us accountable. And it just disappeared.”

The hollowing out of StateStat isn’t a total surprise given that Hogan, a 
Republican, is a longtime critic of O’Malley, a Democrat. It can be explained 
at least in part as routine fallout in the transition of power between parties 
and political adversaries. But the Stat initiative has suffered setbacks in 
Baltimore as well. A few months before Hogan replaced StateStat, The Baltimore 
Sun reported that in 2014 the CitiStat office hadn’t published a single 
department report and had canceled a third of its meetings. The account echoed 
the paper’s coverage from 2012, when it found that CitiStat didn’t publish any 
reports in the first two years of Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s 
administration. (Rawlings-Blake did not respond to interview requests.)

When local media scrutinized the program two years ago, other problems came to 
light: As eventually happened with StateStat, CitiStat’s staff of nine analysts 
had been reduced to four. Its director was splitting his time between his 
full-time city government job and a part-time position with a private law firm. 
When reporters inquired about how many CitiStat meetings the mayor or her chief 
of staff had attended, her spokesman couldn’t say. “My great fear in all of 
this is that we are losing the accountability that our constituents and we 
depend on,” Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke said at an oversight hearing on 
CitiStat in 2015.

As the Stat model has struggled in its home state, it continues to spread 
elsewhere. The Johns Hopkins Center for Government Excellence is now involved 
in What Works Cities, a national consortium of municipalities that draws 
lessons from CitiStat and incorporates them into a broader strategy around 
transparency, data management and evidence-based decision-making. Performance 
measurement of one variety or another is an increasingly common way to run 
government agencies, which is why what happened in Baltimore and Annapolis may 
provide useful lessons for jurisdictions elsewhere. Many of the Stat programs 
are still being run by the elected officials who established them. They have 
yet to undergo the test of a political transition.

In Baltimore, for all its problems, CitiStat still exists. Catherine Pugh, who 
won last November’s mayoral election, is the third person to inherit the 
program since O’Malley left office. As a candidate, Pugh pledged to keep 
CitiStat “as a tool of measurement and accountability,” but also as part of a 
broader strategy for analyzing and responding to crime trends. Whether CitiStat 
undergoes a revival, or drifts further into irrelevance, will speak volumes 
about the model’s long-term viability as a good-government tool from one 
administration to the next.

It’s something that O’Malley himself thinks about. He recalls discussing the 
sustainability of Stat programs with Bill Bratton, the former New York City 
police commissioner who helped institute CompStat. “Bratton said to me, ‘You 
know, Martin, the hardest things to institutionalize are new systems that 
require constant work.’ And that’s true on policing. That’s true on the 
environment. That’s true across any government -- city, state or federal,” 
O’Malley says. “Just as easily, that rock will roll back down the hill if 
someone’s not pushing it up.”



During her mayoral campaign, Pugh pledged to keep CitiStat running in 
Baltimore. (AP)

In Baltimore, the man tasked with breathing life back into CitiStat is Sameer 
Sidh. His most recent post was with the city’s department of transportation, 
but he was a director of StateStat in the O’Malley administration. Since 
assuming his post in late 2015, Sidh has created a Twitter account and new 
website for CitiStat. He’s conducting regular meetings and publishing progress 
reports online. “I wanted to make sure it was clear that it was an active 
program,” he says. “It was a mix of getting us back to our fundamentals, 
holding agencies accountable and making sure we were following up on 
discussions that we had in meetings.”

Perhaps Sidh’s most difficult assignment has been to cleanse CitiStat of the 
authoritarian and sometimes corrosive top-down management structure that 
rankled program managers and agency heads. “The word that we’re pushing is 
‘collaboration,’” Sidh says. “I’ve tried to relax the atmosphere a little bit 
more. We want folks to be honest. Ultimately as city hall, we want to 
understand what’s going on from the agency level. You can extract more 
information if folks are actually comfortable talking.”

Several of the CitiStat directors under Rawlings-Blake had made similar pledges 
to depart from the confrontational nature of the program in the O’Malley years. 
Viewers of the HBO television series “The Wire” are familiar with the 
dramatized version of Baltimore police meetings in which senior officials would 
flash numbers on a screen and publicly grill subordinates about their failure 
to meet benchmarks. One previous director likened CitiStat in its early days to 
“a Spanish inquisition.” Today, the new CitiStat, Sidh says, “is not an 
opportunity to browbeat middle managers, but an opportunity to get better as a 
city government.”

One former director, Matt Gallagher, says the old critique of CitiStat as 
hostile and demoralizing stems from rare incidents, usually after months of 
missed targets and poor performance, that led to confrontation. “The stuff 
about an adversarial relationship was overblown,” he says. “You have to 
remember that we were holding five Citistat meetings a week, sometimes six. 
That’s 250-plus Stat meetings over the course of a year. If you’re going to 
convene that often, if you’re going to have robust conversations about 
performance, good and bad, there’s going to be disagreements.”

Bob Behn, a Harvard professor who visited dozens of CitiStat meetings in 
researching his book, The PerformanceStat Potential, says the Stat meetings he 
witnessed could make subordinates uncomfortable, but they were always civil. 
“Nobody swore at anybody. Nobody personally belittled people,” Behn says. “What 
you did was ask them questions that they couldn’t answer. And if you ask them 
questions that they can’t answer, that’s embarrassing. You don’t have to swear 
at people or raise your tone. Everybody gets it.”

Regardless of how accurate the portrayal of CitiStat as a brutal inquisition 
might be, it reflects a common perception of how the program operated. And it 
sheds some light on why a successor would want to change it.

In Baltimore, Sidh and Pugh plan to shift CitiStat from its focus on the 
performance of individual agencies to an emphasis on cross-cutting policy 
issues, such as homelessness or blight. In Stat meetings about the city’s 
homeless population, for instance, staff from the police, fire and 
transportation departments would attend, even though ending homelessness is not 
currently part of the core mission for any of them. Baltimore has tested this 
approach in the past with issue-specific Stat groups that focused on 
cleanliness, child well-being, illegal gun trafficking and domestic violence. 
But those were the exceptions. Now they will be the main program.

Gallagher thinks that’s what needs to happen. “You think about complex outcomes 
like the health of the Chesapeake Bay or producing a safe, happy, healthy 
child,” he says, “and it’s hard to hold one agency accountable for that outcome 
because so many different agencies contribute to it.”

Spreading the responsibility around seems to be in line with the way the 
overall field of government performance measurement is evolving. Programs 
inspired by the O’Malley Stat programs have since developed their own twist on 
the original concept. One of those programs is in Cincinnati, where City 
Manager Harry Black launched CincyStat based on his three years as chief 
financial officer in Baltimore. Black decided to place his Stat program in a 
larger Office of Performance and Data Analytics. Once his staff identifies a 
troubling trend in a Stat session, they refer the issue to another part of the 
office called the Innovation Lab, which uses business and process improvement 
techniques to address the problem. “Stat by itself is not enough,” Black says. 
“What are you going to do with what you discover?”

Other jurisdictions are experimenting in similar ways. In Washington state, for 
example, Gov. Jay Inslee sits in on monthly Stat-like “Results Review” meetings 
where his analysts discuss strategy and performance data with senior agency 
officials. But his Results Washington program also includes “Lean” process 
improvement training to equip state employees with the skills necessary to 
address problems that arise in review sessions.

In Baltimore, meetings under the last administration had slipped to six-week 
intervals, raising concerns from the city council that the program couldn’t be 
as responsive to emerging trends. Yet some Stat supporters say the programs 
shouldn’t be judged on the frequency of meetings. That, too, evolves over time. 
David Gottesman, manager of a Stat program in Montgomery County, Md., says the 
regularity of meetings should correspond with the general performance of an 
agency and the urgency of resolving a particular issue. When his predecessor 
created Montgomery CountyStat about 10 years ago, the office held weekly or 
biweekly meetings with department heads and program managers. “When CountyStat 
was in its infancy, it was appropriate,” Gottesman says. The meetings could 
last three hours and required the attendance of senior officials within a 
department, an expensive investment of labor and resources. “Over the years, 
the value in those meetings naturally diminishes because you attack the 
low-hanging fruit and you get things in a good state.”

The exception is when a crisis hits that requires immediate attention. When the 
Montgomery County Department of Liquor Control received negative press in 2015 
for poor customer service, CountyStat initiated routine meetings and weekly 
progress reports around a few key outcomes. As the department has improved in 
the past year, the Stat sessions have become less frequent.

One of the potential lessons from CitiStat and StateStat is that these programs 
inevitably run the risk of being sidelined during a political transition. On 
one hand, they usually require the ongoing engagement of the executive. Both in 
Baltimore and in Annapolis, O’Malley not only gave the programs his blessing, 
but attended the sessions and sometimes ran them. His personal involvement made 
people identify Stat as an O’Malley project. That association has posed 
problems. “Nobody succeeds somebody else and wants to prove that her or his 
predecessor was brilliant,” says Behn, the Harvard professor. “Most people 
don’t come in and want to continue their predecessor’s initiatives. The most 
you can hope for is that they’ll keep the substance and change the name.”

Some of the Stat programs outside Maryland have tried to account for the risks 
of political transition. In Louisville, Ky., LouieStat has developed two 
layers. Agency heads hold regular sessions with their own internal analysts. 
Then the mayor’s office convenes more traditional Stat meetings that focus on 
cross-agency issues, such as pedestrian safety and citywide customer service. 
The goal is to transfer partial ownership of LouieStat to department heads, so 
that it isn’t exclusively the mayor’s program.

The way elected officials talk about Stat programs may also affect their 
longevity. In her role at What Works Cities, Blauer advises municipal officials 
that the public relations strategy around a Stat program should focus on 
improved outcomes that affect citizens’ lives, not the underlying machinery 
that made them happen. For example, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu used the 
Stat model to corral his administration’s efforts around reducing blight and 
violent crime in the city. What the public associates with Landrieu isn’t his 
performance management approach, but the results derived from it. “It hasn’t 
been ‘Mayor Landrieu, NolaStat Mayor,’” she says. “It’s been ‘Mayor Landrieu, 
the mayor that’s getting hard work done in the city of New Orleans, and these 
are just the tools that he’s relying on.’”

If successors see Stat as a standard tool to achieve their policy objectives, 
they may be more likely to keep it. That is what Sidh hopes will happen in 
Baltimore. “This has to be broadly respected as a good-government practice and 
not just the creation of one specific political figure,” he says. “Regionally 
and nationally, I think you’re starting to see that tide turn and people 
understand that the value of the program goes beyond the one person who gave 
the program its name.”


J.B. Wogan | Staff Writer [email protected] | @jbwogan


Sent from my iPhone

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to