Reason Foundation - Authors > William D. Eggers

Driving More Money into the Classroom

Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:00:00 EDT

Executive Summary

Education spending constitutes up to half of many state budgets in the United States. In recent years, tighter state budgets, surging school enrollment in many districts (and falling in others), executive mandates, and court rulings have put increasing pressure on states and school districts to reduce education costs, especially for non-instructional services.

In most states at least 40 percent of every dollar spent on education never makes it into the classroom. Instead it is expended on business operations: transportation, human resources, food services, information technology, building maintenance, administration and other largely support functions. The often high costs of providing these services, and the inefficient way in which they are often provided, has caused more and more state political leaders to call for school district consolidation. The goal—to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce these costs—makes a lot of sense. Consolidation, though, can also have some serious downsides: it is politically unpopular, reduces local control, can negatively impact educational outcomes, and eventually can lead to even higher costs due to the dead-weight of bureaucracy. In short, consolidation may not be the most effective strategy to help districts direct more money into the classroom.

With large districts often generating high overhead and instructional spending, does this mean that small districts and small schools are the answer? From an education quality perspective, a strong case certainly can be made for smaller schools, which have been associated with higher SAT, ACT and National Assessment of Educational Progress scores. There is a major problem, however, with small school districts. According to a substantial body of research, they tend to have comparatively high non-instructional costs. The ten smallest school districts in California, for example, had average spending on “other services” 578 percent higher than the state average for all districts.

Fortunately, there’s another option, one that makes it possible to educate students like a small district and still have the economies of scale and buying power of a large district. How? By implementing shared services. Small districts can band together to share everything from transportation services to building gymnasiums, creating the purchasing power and economies of scale of medium-sized districts. Large districts can organize their individual schools into smaller clusters and still benefit by sharing services internally. Charter schools can purchase administrative services from school districts or other charter schools. Districts of all sizes can participate in agreements that improve the quality of their staff and internal capacities.

Sharing services is a technique that both the private and public sectors have employed for decades and has been growing rapidly in popularity in recent years due to its proven ability to reduce costs. Since the late 90’s, companies such as Ford, General Electric, Hewlett Packard, Pfizer and British Petroleum have all realized significant cost savings from shared services.

Shared services have also become commonplace in government. The U.S. Postal Service saves $25 million a year by using shared services for accounting. Work that had been performed by 1100 employees at 85 unique district offices has been consolidated and standardized, and is now being performed by only 350 employees at three Accounting Service Centers (ASCs). In New Jersey and Michigan, many municipal governments have engaged in shared services agreements for everything from purchasing to benefits administration.

School districts have also made use of productive shared service arrangements. For example, two school boards in Ontario, Canada joined together to share bus transportation services and audio-visual resources. By creating a single bus system, the two boards will save $8 million in administrative, capital, and fuel costs over three years. The boards’ shared AV library serves classrooms in both districts, saving $300,000 annually. Similarly, in the greater Lawrence area of Massachusetts, 10 school districts banded together to provide special education services. This sharing will save them approximately $13 million over the next two decades.

Yet across the country, school districts have barely scratched the surface in terms of tapping into the cost savings potential and other benefits from shared service arrangements. Shifting just a quarter of tax dollars spent by school districts throughout America on non-instructional operations to shared services, for example, could potentially yield savings in the range of $9 billion. To put this number in perspective, it is equivalent to 900 new schools or more than 150,000 additional school teachers.

States that desire to promote the greater use of shared services in local school districts have several levers they can pull, including budget pressure, financial incentives and technical assistance. The states of New York and New Jersey, for example, both provide financial incentives for school districts to engage in shared services. One New Jersey incentive program, the Regional Efficiency Aid Program, provides tax credits directly to homeowners as a way to publicly reward school districts and municipalities for sharing services. Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has taken a different tack, issuing an executive order mandating that school districts limit non-classroom spending to 35 percent of their total budgets. The order is expected to create strong momentum for more service sharing by Texas school districts.

Sharing services creates the economies of scale and consistency of process and results that come with more centralized models. It also allows districts to maintain the benefits of decentralized control, allowing individual administrators to retain oversight of curriculum, education, and other aspects of non-shared processes. By sharing processes that aren’t mission-critical while still retaining local control of the most important aspects of education, shared services can bring the best of big and small.

Competitive Neutrality

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Sun, 01 Mar 1998 00:00:00 EST

Executive Summary

Increasingly when governments decide to test the market for providing services, in-house units are also given the opportunity to bid for providing the service. This model of public-private competition is often referred to as “managed competition.”

While managed competition has brought competition to many jurisdictions where public services had long been the exclusive domain of public monopolies, increasingly private providers are crying foul, arguing that the playing field is usually tilted against them in public-private competitions. Their complaints run the gamut: the public units fail to include all their costs in their bids; a performance guarantee is required from the private bidders, but not from the public providers; risk assumed by the private sector is not valued and; the private bidders must pay taxes and comply with regulations for which the public sector is exempt.

A competitively neutral competition policy requires that in-house units of government should not enjoy a net competitive advantage over their private-sector counterparts simply by virtue of public-sector ownership. At the same time, to the extent possible, institutional constraints that hamper the public-sector unit’s ability to increase productivity, and therefore effectively compete with the private sector, should be eliminated.

Currently, there are no real guidelines that lay out how governments should conduct fair public-private competitions. This study is an attempt to set out a series of policies to guide governments in setting up competitively neutral programs of managed competition.

Performance Based Contracting

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Thu, 01 May 1997 00:00:00 EDT

Executive Summary

Across the globe, governments are opening up traditional public services to the competitive marketplace. The government of the future will be more a focuser of resources than an owner, and more a purchaser and manager of services than a supervisor of personnel and direct service provider.

This dramatic change in the nature of government requires fundamental organizational changes. For governments to avoid failures and mishaps, they must concentrate on becoming smarter shoppers.

This means creating contracting systems that are outcome based; writing contracts that contain clear performance standards; incorporating financial incentives and penalties into the contract; and developing advanced measurement techniques. Such state-of-the-art contracting is often referred to as “performance-based-contracting.” When properly structured, performance-based contracting holds great promise to reduce contracting costs while increasing service quality.

Performance-based contracting systems have several key components:

1. Outcome Based Contracts

Performance contracts clearly spell out the desired end result expected of the contractor, but the manner in which the work is to be performed is left to the contractor's discretion. Contractors are given as much freedom as possible in figuring out how to best meet government's performance objective.

Example: The Air Force saved 50 percent by modifying its statement of work for a janitorial contract. Previously, the agency required the contractor to strip and rewax floors weekly. Now it requires the floors to be clean, free of scuff marks and dirt and have a glossy finish.

2. Performance Standards

The process of drawing up the Request for Proposal is a great way to focus a manager's mind on exactly what it is the agency wants accomplished from the delivery of a service, operation of an enterprise, or running of a program. A Example:: A Navy contract for aircraft maintenance doesn't specify how many mechanics or parachute riggers must be on a crew,, butt it does hold the contractor accountable for achieving precise and measurable performance standards, such as a ground abort rate of less than 5 percent and meeting 100 percent of flight schedules.

3. Financial Incentives and Penalties

Privatization gives public officials the freedom to creatively design contractor payments to correspond with certain performance pegs. Incentives to increase productivity,, cut costs and raise service quality can be built into the contract. Incentive-based contracts shift much of the risk onto the contractor, who is rewarded for productivity improvement and penalized for poor performance or rising costs. Example: After the California earthquake, Caltrans, the state transportation agency offered the contractor substantial performance incentives and penalties for rebuilding a highway overpass: a $200,000 per day bonus for completing the project ahead of schedule and a $200,000 a day penalty for each day the project was behind schedule.

4. Advanced Monitoring and Measurement Techniques

As more governments rely on private companies to deliverer public services, monitoring and assessing these outside partnerships becomes vitally to achieving an administration's goals.

The monitoring plan defines precisely what a government must do to guarantee that the contractor's performance is in accordance with contract performance standards.

Different services require different types and levels of monitoring. For highly visible services that directly affect citizens such as snow removal and garbage pickup, poor service will be exposed through citizen complaints. For complex or technical services, it may make sense to hire a third party to monitor the contractor.

The contractor should be considered a strategic partner and given incentives to innovate, improve, and deliver better customer service.

Summary

Implementing state-of-the-art performance-based contracting requires new evaluation techniques, new management approaches, improved top-level know-how on designing and managing contract relationships, better logistics systems, and a whole new set of skills for public officials. Perhaps most important of all, what is needed is a changed mindset where public managers are rewarded for effectively managing projects and networks of contractors rather than for the number of public employees under their command.

Delivering Services for the Mentally Ill and Developmentally Disabled

info@reason.org (Richard H. Dougherty) info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 EDT

Executive Summary

With the shift to community programs and the integration of many disabled citizens into the community, vast changes have occurred in the way non-disabled citizens view the disabled and in the way in which services are provided and managed. Increasingly, services for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled are being provided with a focus on self-sufficiency, empowerment and readiness skills. Consumer choice and active participation in service planning are seen as important elements of quality and effectiveness.

Vouchers and other forms of consumer directed purchasing provide a mechanism for states and local governments to provide services in a manner that enhances consumer choice and improves the purchasing relationship between government, providers and consumers. Consumer directed purchasing has advantages over traditional state contracts with providers by focusing more on the needs of the consumer, improving monitoring by families, and enhancing competition among providers.

There are four different models of consumer directed purchasing currently in use, including: vouchers, individualized contracts or funding, direct cash disbursement programs and reimbursement programs. Each has different implications for choice and control over spending for the government agency to consider. These models were reviewed in nine states and one province in departments serving individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities. In general, the programs reviewed were limited in scope and yet virtually all of the state and local administrators sought to expand and improve upon their systems.

In considering whether to implement a system of consumer directed purchasing, governments must consider a number of critical issues. These include: consumer and provider eligibility criteria, eligibility and service authorization procedures, reimbursement and financing systems, voucher or fund distribution systems, transition planning, consumer education, monitoring and management information systems. Central to the success of any initiative will be the ability of the state or government agency to fairly direct services and funding to those that are most in need and develop procedures for authorization and funding that are equitable to consumers and providers alike.

In this era of government reform, consumer directed purchasing of services holds forth the promise of empowering consumers, improving service quality, and streamlining government.

Health and Social Services in the Post-Welfare State

info@reason.org (John Hall) info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Tue, 01 Aug 1995 00:00:00 EDT

Executive Summary

With the debate about the future of the welfare state in full swing, proposals to replace various government human-service programs with vouchers have suddenly taken center stage in the policy arena.

The White House has proposed converting most of the money spent on federal-housing and job-training programs into vouchers. Conservatives—longtime champions of vouchers for education and low-income housing—have recently proposed vouchers for Medicaid, Medicare and veterans' health care.

While interest in vouchers is growing, little work has been done to systematically study the potential benefits and pitfalls of this approach. A close examination of three relatively long-running human-service voucher programs—food stamps and housing vouchers in the United States and nursing home vouchers in the United Kingdom—helps to shed light on the possible effects of replacing social service programs with vouchers.

The experience with these programs demonstrates that vouchers have numerous advantages over either direct government service delivery or contract delivery. Vouchers can:

reduce unit costs of services;
simplify monitoring;
increase choice;
lower administrative costs;
break the dependency of both government and the recipient on monopoly provision; and
allow for a better match between the preferences of the recipients and the services they obtain.

On the other hand, like all government social programs, vouchers also have unintended effects. Vouchers can increase efficiency, but only within expenditure levels set by politicians and bureaucrats.

* Part 1 in a 2 part series examining human-service vouchers.

In fact, experience demonstrates that the very advantages of vouchers—increased choice, better match of recipients needs to providers' services, etc.—could unleash forces that make costs difficult to control.

By giving people the ability to choose their own service provider, vouchers make the public service more desirable and may thereby draw some people on the margins into the program who previously met their needs outside government. In this way, vouchers could have the effect of not only increasing program costs but moving some people from independence to government dependency—especially for services where an almost unlimited demand for the service exists, such as housing, job training and day care. To the voucher recipient such programs essentially offer "free" consumption of a good. The predictable result is unlimited demand.

For programs that are already essentially entitlements, such as Medicare or veterans' health care, vouchers pose few major risks. In fact, in both programs, vouchers would likely reduce costs and increase quality.

But for other social programs, the only way to eliminate the potential for such effects is by getting government out of the financing and delivery altogether. This would mean moving towards a system in which mediating institutions—families, churches, neighborhoods and community groups—not government, would play the primary role in meeting social needs.

For many human-service programs, such an approach is probably not feasible in the short term. If governments choose to transition to vouchers, the problem of unlimited demand must be addressed. To do so, governments should set a limit on the total amount of support any individual may receive. This can take the form of either a maximum dollar expenditure, a time limit, or a loan instead of a grant. Limits should also be set on overall program expenditures.

Revitalizing Our Cities

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Wed, 01 Mar 1995 00:00:00 EST

Introduction

The winds of change are blowing strongly through city halls across America. A new breed of mayor, inspired by the successful streamlining of American business, have signaled the death of business as usual in urban governance. These mayors are at the forefront in effecting the most fundamental transformation of city hall since the Progressive Era ushered out Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall.

The outline of a new urban agenda is beginning to emerge: strengthen neighborhoods, make streets safer, shrink bureaucracy, privatize services, lower crushing tax burdens, cut business regulations, and inject competition into the public education monopoly. The goal is twofold: to provide opportunities for the urban underclass to become self sufficient and to stem the continuing exodus of business and taxpayers to the suburbs.

The Reason Foundation has worked closely with these new breed mayors to enact needed reforms. In 1994, the Reason Foundation convened a national conference in Chicago which brought together a number of the country's most reform-minded, big-city mayors, and their staffs to share insights and lessons into revolutionizing urban governance.

We are pleased to present the mayors' landmark speeches.
--WDE

Competitive Government for a Competitive Los Angeles

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Tue, 01 Nov 1994 00:00:00 EST

...

Rightsizing Government

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Sat, 01 Jan 1994 00:00:00 EST

Executive Summary

State and local governments now face a series of unprecedented challenges: budget deficits, bloated workforces, decaying infrastructure, shrinking tax bases, citizen opposition to new taxes, and taxpayer-imposed tax and spending limitations.

A new breed of public-sector managers, inspired by the successful streamlining of American business are trying to meet these challenges—not by increasing taxes or government spending—but by fundamentally transforming government through a process called rightsizing.

Rightsizing means establishing clear priorities and asking questions that successful companies regularly ask, such as: If we were not doing this already, would we start? Is this activity central to our mission? If we were to design this organization from scratch, given what we now know about modern technology, what would it look like?

A roadmap to rightsizing government would include these six key strategies:

Competition. “Opening up city hall to the competitive process must be the fundamental aspect of change,” says Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith. Since taking office in January 1992, Goldsmith has shifted over 50 government services into the marketplace by making city departments compete with private firms to deliver public services. Savings: $28 million annually.

Activity-Based-Costing (ABC). Few governments know how much it costs to deliver most public services. Without such data, it is impossible to know if city costs are competitive with those in the marketplace or how scarce tax dollars could be best allocated to serve citizens.

By attaching explicit costs to individual activities, and measuring the costs versus the efficiency and effectiveness of service outputs, ABC systems can provide an important tool for controlling costs and increasing productivity in the public sector. ABC brings to light costs which previously were hidden allowing managers to determine where they need to get costs down. ABC systems also lead to more accurate cost comparisons between in-house and contracted services when governments bid out services.

Entrepreneurial, Performance-Based Budgeting. Government typically rewards managers for poor performance: if crime goes up, police departments receive more money; if student test scores go down, the schools are given more cash. Poor outcomes lead to more inputs, rather than an improved process.

A number of political leaders are changing these perverse incentives by overhauling the annual budget process. Milwaukee's new budget is “performance-based”: success is measured according to outcomes, not inputs. Managers submit five strategic objectives and are held accountable for achieving these outcomes. Rather than measuring the number of road crew workers, for example, the Road Maintenance Department is judged according to the smoothness of the streets.

For performance budgeting to work, mayors and governors must hold the line on spending by freezing or capping budget allocations to each department. Capping spending growth helps create a culture where managers see their purpose as maximizing their accomplishments with available resources rather than trying to grow their budgets.

Focusing on Core Businesses. Across the country, governments operate all kinds of enterprises and programs far removed from the central missions of government. Does the city of Dallas really need its own classical radio station? Should New York City be operating off-track betting parlors? In order to provide high quality basic public services, governments should concentrate on doing fewer things better.

Some noncore services—such as zoos, museums, fairs, remote parks, and some recreational programs—can be turned over to nonprofit organizations. Other city assets—such as airports, water systems, utilities and parking garages—can be sold to the highest bidder. All over the world, such enterprises are being privatized, allowing governments to turn physical capital into financial capital.

Reengineering. In the private sector, companies are saving millions of dollars and increasing productivity by radically rethinking and redesigning work processes. This practice, called reengineering, helped Union Carbide cut $400 million out of its fixed costs in just three years.

If pursued aggressively, reengineering could lead to dramatic productivity gains in the public sector. For example, installing document-imaging technology—whether in the courthouse, police station or welfare office—can eliminate the need to store millions of paper files. Dallas expects to realize significant space savings and handle court document requests with 10 fewer employees a year through document imaging. Yearly savings: $250,000.

Reorganizing Work Structures. Government's organizational structures, management systems, and job classifications also need to be reinvented. Rightsizing governments are tearing down rigid hierarchies and replacing them with flatter, leaner, and more flexible structures. They are organizing employees into self-managing work teams focused on their customers rather, and empowering them to make many decisions independently of department directors.

These rightsizing strategies and others are being employed by America's leading public-sector innovators to fundamentally transform government. They represent the cutting edge of government innovation, and hopefully, the future of state and local government.

Privatization and Public Employees

info@reason.org (John O'Leary) info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Wed, 01 Sep 1993 00:00:00 EDT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introducing competition into the delivery of public services, as through competitive contracting, can help stretch scarce tax dollars, often saving 20-50 percent. Politically, however, privatization can be extremely difficult, since public employees often view privatization as a threat to their livelihood.

The cooperation of public workers is essential to a successful privatization program, and public officials should communicate a commitment to fair treatment for current employees. Fortunately, privatization need not be a hardship for public workers. There are a number of techniques available to officials to insulate workers almost entirely from the potential of job loss, including:working within the rate of attrition; having contractors hire displaced workers; and offering early retirement incentives.

Other strategies exist to ease the transition to a competitive environment. For example, public departments should not only be encouraged to compete against private contractors but should also be offered guidance to help make them competitive.

Gaining the cooperation of public-sector managers is also important, since they frequently fear a loss of control and diminished authority. It is possible to restructure managerial incentives to promote good decision making. If some of the benefits of productivity gains accrue to their departments, public managers are more likely to take advantage of cost-effective approaches to service provision such as competitive contracting.

Structuring privatizations so that employees are treated fairly can make possible changes that ultimately benefit citizens and taxpayers. Though often difficult to introduce, the ultimate goal of privatization�quality services at lower costs—is popular with voters.

Privatization Opportunities for States

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Mon, 01 Feb 1993 00:00:00 EST

Executive Summary

The state fiscal crisis combined with the growing revolt against new taxes is forcing policymakers to search for ways to substantially cut the costs of delivering state services. Governors and state legislatures are seeking innovative approaches to fundamentally restructure, downsize, and "rightsize" state government in order to avoid continuing budget problems.

Privatization allows policymakers to avoid tax increases without eliminating essential services. Privatization is an increasingly important component of programs to restructure state government, as it serves policymakers’ short-term goals of cutting state deficits, while also furthering the long-term goals of rightsizing government and incorporating competitive incentives into state services.

Privatization is already a common practice in state governments. For instance, a 1992 Apogee Research survey found that of state agencies, 90 percent indicated they utilize privatization.’ Nevertheless, most privatization to date in state government has been sporadic, thus limiting the potential gains from privatization.

However, this is changing. To realize the full potential of privatization, states are beginning to explore the possibilities of applying various privatization techniques across the full range of state services, assets, infrastructure, and real estate. Over 20 percent of the states responding to the 1992 Apogee survey reported that they were preparing statewide or agency-wide privatization strategies, compared to none in 1989.

Privatization opportunities range from services such as road maintenance and childsupport enforcement, to sales or leases of state assets such as turnpikes and parks. Privatization can also be used to assist states in rebuilding infrastructure such as bridges, roads, and tunnels. Another privatization option is providing vouchers to poor and handicapped people to purchase social services on the open market, rather than relying exclusively on government agencies.

Applying privatization techniques to state services, assets, facilities, and other functions will yield privatization opportunities in every state. Privatization offers state policymakers a powerful kit of tools to begin getting their fiscal house in order.

Designing a Comprehensive State Level Privatization Program

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Fri, 01 Jan 1993 00:00:00 EST

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Many states now face serious fiscal problems. The cumulative deficit of the states in 1991 was $31 billion. According to one estimate, over half the states are afflicted with �structural� budget deficits that will persevere long after the economy improves.

The fiscal crisis is prompting state policymakers to examine ways to fundamentally reshape and �rightsize� state government. Privatization, by injecting competition into service delivery and turning physical assets into financial assets, has emerged as a key component in such programs to rightsize state governments.

To obtain the full value from privatization, states should design comprehensive, forward-looking privatization programs rather than adopting piecemeal approaches. A comprehensive program achieves greater benefits in terms of cost savings, efficiency gains, and reining in the growth of government. It also puts the full weight of the governor and/or legislature behind privatization.

State policymakers should follow nine basic steps when designing a systematic, comprehensive privatization program.

The steps are:

Develop the institutional structure for privatization
Set up a program of adjustments and incentives for public employees
Identify privatization techniques
Identify state services and assets that offer opportunities for privatization
Determine the legislative and executive barriers to privatization and revise or rescind these
Consider introducing mandatory competitive incentives into the delivery of certain state and local services
Evaluate the feasibility of privatizing identified privatization opportunities
Determine the potential cost savings from privatizing services and assets selected for privatization
Prepare a plan for implementing privatization.

Comprehensive privatization programs incorporate a variety of privatization techniques and identify numerous privatization opportunities in all aspects of state government. Such programs can save taxpayer dollars and permanently establish competitive incentives to keep the costs of government down in the long term.

*"Financial Squeeze May Pressue States Into Sweeping Budget Overhauls,"Los Angeles Times, July 26, 1992, A5. Reason Foundation "State Privatization Programs".

Part two of a two part series on State Government Privatization. See also Reason Foundation Policy Study #154, "Privatization Opportunities for States."

Rightsizing Government

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Fri, 01 Jan 1993 00:00:00 EST

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A new breed of public-sector managers, inspired by the successful streamlining of American business are trying to meet these challenges — not by increasing taxes or government spending — but by fundamentally transforming government through a process called rightsizing.

A roadmap to rightsizing government would include these six key strategies:

Competition. "Opening up city hall to the competitive process must be the fundamental aspect of change," says Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith. Since taking office in January 1992, Goldsmith has shifted over 50 government services into the marketplace by making city departments compete with private firms to deliver public services. Savings: $28 million annually.

Activity-Based-Costing (ABC). Few governments know how much it costs to deliver most public services. Without such data, it is impossible to know if city costs are competitive with those in the marketplace or how scarce tax dollars could be best allocated to serve citizens.

Entrepreneurial, Performance-Based Budgeting. Government typically rewards managers for poor performance: if crime goes up, police departments receive more money; if student test scores go down, the schools are given more cash. Poor outcomes lead to more inputs, rather than an improved process.

number of political leaders are changing these perverse incentives by overhauling the annual budget process. Milwaukee's new budget is "performance-based": success is measured according to outcomes, not inputs. Managers submit five strategic objectives and are held accountable for achieving these outcomes. Rather than measuring the number of road crew workers, for example, the Road Maintenance Department is judged according to the smoothness of the streets.

Focusing on Core Businesses. Across the country, governments operate all kinds of enterprises and programs far removed from the central missions of government. Does the city of Dallas really need its own classical radio station? Should New York City be operating off-track betting parlors? In order to provide high quality basic public services, governments should concentrate on doing fewer things better.

Reengineering. In the private sector, companies are saving millions of dollars and increasing productivity by radically rethinking and redesigning work processes. This practice, called reengineering, helped Union Carbide cut $400 million out of its fixed costs in just three years.

Reorganizing Work Structures. Government's organizational structures, management systems, and job classifications also need to be reinvented. Rightsizing governments are tearing down rigid hierarchies and replacing them with flatter, leaner, and more flexible structures. They are organizing employees into self-managing work teams focused on their customers rather, and empowering them to make many decisions independently of department directors.

Land Use Reform Through Performance Zoning

info@reason.org (William D. Eggers) — Tue, 01 May 1990 00:00:00 EDT

...