Sci Fi Accountability

I was talking with an educator a few weeks ago. The topic was standardized testing and “accountability” and she said, “Let's face it. We don't do this for the kids. It's all for the adults-so we can tell ourselves we're doing the right things.”

Blow me away. In twenty years in public policy, I don't think I've ever heard such a spring rain statement. I hoped her admission might clear the air for some effective work, but unfortunately, she was resigned to the situation. Her logic went something like this. It doesn't help the kids. It's probably not right. There's nothing I can do about it. So be it.

Accountability is the big buzzword in government and among television commentators. President Obama must be held accountable. Toyota must be accountable and Tiger Woods must be accountable. But how does accountability work when no one is in control of the outcomes?

Few people I've met, including the leaders of reputable nonprofits and government agencies actually think they can change “the system.” They expect the governor or the legislature to do it for them. I once asked a large group of nonprofit leaders what their plan was for getting their agenda accomplished. They said, “The election of a new governor.” I replied, “I hope you have Plan B.”

What does accountability mean in a world where the problems are BIG but no one thinks the underlying system can be changed? What if the system is the problem? Was the CIA held accountable for 9/11? Was the SEC accountable for failing to investigate Bernie Madoff despite ongoing tips about his wrongdoing? We've become creatures of a new world order ruled by “systems.” Our systems have become the man-made artificial intelligence machines of science fiction that take over the world and cannot be defeated. We created them, but cannot change them. Health care reform be damned. (Even if it passes, everyone knows it's not real reform; the system lives!)

Our current version of accountability is part of the problem, not the solution. Yes, government should show positive outcomes with all of the taxpayers' money. The premise of the way we practice accountability, however, is incorrect. You cannot hold a system accountable because it's not a living thing-it has no capacity to act on its own, to make decisions. I'd like to hold the chair accountable when I ran into and bruised my shin, but really, the chair doesn't care. Neither does the system, which may be one reason people feel so powerless.

Face-to-face with the goliath system, we have cowered and substituted real accountability with three things: blame, paperwork and measurement. When something goes wrong, we look for someone to blame. Anderson Cooper is fond of asking, “And why has no one been fired over this?” Would firing someone have prevented 9/11? I doubt it. Being accountable should mean fixing the problem. But in systems where rules, procedures, and organizational and professional cultures suck you in like quicksand- there's no escaping- firing someone is a veneer of accountability that distracts attention from the real issue.

We have also equated paperwork with being accountable. Government agencies are fond of posting large incomprehensible spreadsheets on their websites, and then proclaiming, “It's all there!” Chances are, not even they can tell you what was accomplished from spending the funds just so. They may not even be able to explain the spreadsheet. When I was the director of public works for Saint Paul, I was appointed just in time to find out that the sewer fund had blown through $16 million of cash in a few years and the department was faced with borrowing to meet its cash reserve covenants. When I asked the accounting staff how this happened, they replied, “It's too complicated to explain.”

I had lunch once with a journalist. He quit his job as a county social worker because it was just paper-pushing. As he described it, he reviewed 18 page applications (reduced from 36!) that went like this:

Page one: are you poor?
Page two: are you sure you’re poor?
Page three: are you really sure you’re poor?
Page four: are you sure you’re really poor?
Page five: are you really sure you’re really poor?
And so on….

In the meantime, research has shown that it is very common for recipients in this system to be worse off the more they work. The paperwork may be in order, but as they start working, their loss in benefits exceeds their wages, so they actually have less money to take care of their family. What does it mean to be accountable in such a system? And accountable to whom? Is it not odd (and totally unacceptable) that being accountable to my family and being accountable to taxpayers work at cross-purposes?

And finally, measurement. It’s all the rage! Cities have become fond of indicator projects, which report key statistics to mark progress. Somehow, key has come to mean about 150 indicators (which suggests we don’t really have any priorities) and note, that nothing happens if progress is good, nonexistent, backwards, sideways, mirror image, whatever.

Of course you should fire bad employees (I did at Public Works), take measurements (I do this for clients) and keep your paperwork (I do my taxes religiously and honestly). But who am I keeping accountable? In every instance, myself. It is my job to do these things.

So if we want real accountability, we have to recognize two things. First and foremost, people are accountable to themselves. People will take care of themselves and their family first, because that is what we are indoctrinated (and required) to do under capitalism. Second, the only person I can really control is myself.

Can you build public policy under such a notion of accountability? Absolutely. Have we done it? A teenie weenie bit. The boogie man (aka the system) lurks.