January 28, 2004

MANAGEMENT VERSUS PROBLEM RESOLUTION

By James Eugene*

It is always interesting to watch the dance between advocates and government officials when it comes to City policies. Viewed from their own little prisms, neither group is ever wrong and sometimes both sides can be right. The only difference is what pair of glasses each side is wearing.

Let us take the homeless family crisis (a crisis that has been in existence since at least the early 1980's, which leads to a question of when is a crisis not a crisis). The City has problems finding sufficient shelter for homeless families, shelter that it is required to provide pursuant to Court order. Advocates pushed for this Court order and the Koch Administration, either in a moment of utter insanity or high compassion, agreed to the Court order in the early 1980's.

Now what are the City's concerns with respect to the homeless family shelter system? Mostly, the City wants to know that it has enough beds. This is not so easy. The City contracts with for- and not-for-profit operators to run homeless family shelters. It only has contracts with so many providers and so many of its own beds. Therefore, it wants to know that the number of families asking for shelter on any given night will be the same or less than the amount of beds available. And of course, all of this must be done within budget.

On the other hand, advocates want to know that every family that wants shelter can get it. Thus, even if the system is filled to the brim, the City should be able to accommodate a family that asks for shelter.

Now to what does this lead? Let's say ten families show up seeking shelter. The City will interview all ten. It will ask where the family stayed last night, whether the family can go back there, what are the obstacles to going back there and what assistance can the City give to get the family back there. If there are five families out of the ten families seeking shelter that find a place out of the shelter system, then success is attained if five units of shelter are available for the remaining five families. But what of the five families that leave? Have their issues been addressed? Is this just an act of homelessness delayed? And what is done to ensure that they do not come back? The immediate management issue is addressed (enough beds are available), but is the issue resolved? Probably not.

All too often the focus of a problem is on the immediate. Even the advocates focus on the immediate. But focusing on the immediate does not focus on the issue at large. A homeless person with issues (mental illness, drug abuse, domestic violence) who finds housing is still a person with issues. Granted it is easier to address those issues from a housed situation, but do the issues get addressed? Has the crisis been managed at the expense of the issues, only to lead to other issues later in time?

Now this may sound like I am chastising management for failing to address core issues. But advocates can take some blame too. By setting an agenda where the City must manage for core items that the advocates deem important and focusing media attention on them (the right to shelter and how that shelter is to be provided), advocates take away resources that could address issues surrounding the emergency and ultimately could be used to resolve the emergency. A lot of money is spent on the homeless in New York City. Is it spent resolving the crisis or managing the issue? Is the City homeless crisis stuck in a paradigm that will only spiral further out of control? If the system had to be rethought from the ground up, is this the system that we would have? Does anyone ask these questions? Or is everyone stuck in the management/advocacy dance?

If you think that this matter is limited to homelessness, try looking at the criminal justice system and issues regarding parole, prisons and staffing. Or think of how the arts in our City are funded. And so on. Just about every area of City government has some element that gets touched by this. I will give Mayor Prosecutor credit. In some areas, he rethought government, and in others, the advocates prevented change. Sometimes you wonder who was being protected, other times the intentions were obviously pure. But either way, in areas where there are problems, the crisis really needs to get out of control before the paradigm changes. And that is not good government.

AND NOW AN EXAMPLE WHEN THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Maybe because it was not a high profile area, but the one area where the paradigm was malleable in this City was early 1990's telecommunication policy. Mayor Dinkins hired William Squadron to be the City's first commissioner of telecommunications. While Commissioner, Squadron forged agreements for emergency situations with landline and wireless providers, agreements that were hailed in the industry, but originally prior to the 1990's, difficult to achieve. For years, those agreements proved limited in their effect. However, in two situations over the past few years, we should be thankful those agreements were in place. Those situations: 9-11 and the Blackout. Kudos to Squadron and by extension Dinkins for getting that job done. The situation could have remained every company for itself, but instead, the emergency system worked and we did not need a failure during a major crisis for a solution to be forged.

And that may be the only time I ever give praise to David Dinkins.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.