Source: Labor Notes, November 2019
From the introduction:
A good strike is an exercise of power, not just a rowdier form of protest. There is something you want, and a decision-maker who could give it to you but doesn’t want to. The point of the strike is to make it harder for this decision-maker to keep saying no—and easier for the decision-maker to stop the pain by saying yes.
For a private-sector employer, the primary way a strike exerts power is by hurting profits.
For a public-sector employer, it is by interfering with the normal functions of public service and creating a political crisis that elites must respond to.
It’s essential to carefully appraise all the forms of power, or leverage, the union can muster. Don’t hit the bricks without assessing what it will take to win.
Once your leverage is identified, you’ll have to do the organizing legwork to make it real. Leverage is only potential until you bring it to life. The union will rely on its own internal solidarity to remain united in the face of intimidation and to generate widespread solidarity from others. The advice in the rest of this manual is designed to build that internal and external solidarity.
But the best organizing in the world may fail to move your employer if you don’t start with a solid plan to win. That’s an analysis of how the actions by workers and supporters will add up to enough pressure to make the decision-maker back down.
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale, Jeff Strohl, Artem Gulish, Martin Van Der Werf, Kathryn Peltier Campbell, Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2019
From the summary:
Inequities in access to good jobs by race and ethnicity have grown in past decades. The Unequal Race for Good Jobs: How Whites Made Outsized Gains in Education and Good Jobs Compared to Blacks and Latinos explores how White workers have relied on their educational and economic privileges to build disproportionate advantages in the educational pipeline and the workforce. Black and Latino workers, on the other hand, have strived to overcome discrimination, racism, and other injustices that continue to perpetuate earnings inequality. Policy changes can help narrow these equity gaps; otherwise, they will continue for generations to come.
Source: Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness (CREC), August 27, 2019
From the abstract:
This report describes veterans’ attainment of certifications and licenses, with an emphasis on post-9/11 veterans. Utilizing a new data set derived from the 2016-2018 Current Population Survey (CPS), the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness (CREC) examined veterans’ attainment of certifications and licenses and associated earnings.
Source: Michael Mitchell, Michael Leachman, Matt Saenz, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 24, 2019
From the introduction:
Deep state cuts in funding for higher education over the last decade have contributed to rapid, significant tuition increases and pushed more of the costs of college to students, making it harder for them to enroll and graduate. These cuts also have worsened racial and class inequality, since rising tuition can deter low-income students and students of color from college.
Overall state funding for public two- and four-year colleges in the school year ending in 2018 was more than $6.6 billion below what it was in 2008 just before the Great Recession fully took hold, after adjusting for inflation. In the most difficult years after the recession, colleges responded to significant funding cuts by increasing tuition, reducing faculty, limiting course offerings, and in some cases closing campuses. Funding has rebounded somewhat, but costs remain high and services in some places have not returned.
The potential benefits of a college degree are significant, with greater lifetime earnings for those who obtain a bachelor’s degree relative to those who only receive a high school diploma. But cuts to higher education, rising tuition, and stagnant household earnings make it difficult for today’s students — a cohort more racially and economically diverse than any before it — to secure those benefits….
Source: National Resource Consortium on Full Student Voter Participation, 2019
The National Resource Consortium on Full Student Voter Participation seeks to develop and advance evidence-based promising practices that bring institutions and partners closer to a shared goal of full high-quality student participation in the democratic process, particularly in elections. The core team and co-designers seek to achieve this goal by leveraging the Harvard IOP’s network of National Campaign for Political and Civic Engagement annual conference (NAC) and NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education and Campus Vote Project’s Voter Friendly Campus (VFC) network to develop strategies that engage opportunities in the field around promising practices for voter registration during orientation and new student programs and services or during other endeavors that reach a majority of students at an institution.
This process began in January prior to the February 2019 National Campaign for Political and Civic Engagement annual conference at Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics (IOP). During this in-person convening the National Resource Consortium on Full Student Voter Participation was outlined with the help of national partners Fair Election Center’s Campus Vote Project, NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education and the NASPA LEAD Initiative, the Foundation for Civic Leadership and Mile 22 Associates . The outcome of the convening was a collaboration with NAC and VFC campuses and the aforementioned partners to explore full student voter participation opportunities at higher education institutions.
The National Resource Consortium on Full Student Voter Participation was conceived in January 2019 to explore such opportunities connected to first-year and transfer student orientation programs and other new student services. This insight brief outlines the steps taken by a select group of national partners (noted as the core team) and campuses (noted as co-designers) between January and June 2019; as well as future explorations for this work.
Source: Austin M Aldag, Mildred E Warner, Germà Bel, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Advance Access, September 30, 2019
From the abstract:
Intermunicipal cooperation is the most prevalent alternative service delivery method for US local governments. While aspirations for budgetary savings are one motivating factor, increased service quality and regional coordination are also important goals. We use an original 2013 survey of local governments in New York State to assess the level of service sharing and outcomes. We match our survey with 20 years (1996–2016) of service-level costs data to explore the relationships between sharing and costs across 12 common local government services. We contribute to the literature by providing the first multivariate assessment of the effect of cooperation on costs in the United States, and we contribute theoretical insights on the objectives and type of cooperation to explain differences in the effects of cooperation on costs across a variety of services. Our multivariate time series regressions find that service sharing leads to cost reductions in solid waste management, roads and highways, police, library, and sewer services; no difference in costs for economic development, ambulance/EMS, fire, water, and youth recreation; and higher costs in elder services, and planning and zoning. These differences are explained by whether services have characteristics such as asset specificity and the ability to achieve economies of scale on the one hand, or if sharing leads to greater administrative intensity or promotes other objectives such as quality and regional coordination outcomes on the other hand. We also analyze the effect of sharing on service costs over time, and find solid waste, roads and highways, police, and library are the only services where costs show a continued downward trend. These results show the limited role for economies of scale, even in asset specific services. Because cost savings are elusive, public sector reformers should be careful not to assume cost savings from sharing. The theoretical foundations for service sharing extend beyond economies of scale and transaction costs. Scholars should give more attention to organizational form and the broader goals of sharing.
Source: Jessi Streib, Jane Rochmes, Felicia Arriaga, Carlos Tavares, Emi Weed, Social Problems, Advance Access, October 9, 2019
From the abstract:
Hiring managers and segments of the American public believe that white, black, and Hispanic job-seekers present distinct soft skills to employers. Sociologists have not tested this belief and provide competing theories about whether it is likely to be true. Structural theories maintain that different resources and networks inhibit racial groups from displaying similar non-technical skills and experiences, while cultural approaches posit that all groups can access and display a variety of soft skills. Based on a content analysis of 1,124 applications that white, black, and Hispanic job-seekers used to apply for the same job, we find little evidence supporting the belief in racial distinctions in soft skills. Instead, white, black, and Hispanic applicants in our sample presented the same top reasons for applying, the same top personal characteristics, the same top college activities, and were equally likely to follow professional norms. We discuss the generalizability of our findings and their implications for theories of access to these skills.
Source: Mette Kjærgaard Thomsen, Ulrich Thy Jensen, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Advance Access, Published: October 15, 2019
From the abstract:
Involving volunteers in the production and delivery of public services is a core policy objective of governments around the world. While existing research on volunteer involvement in service production, for example, has focused on advantages and disadvantages of such involvement and different dimensions of volunteer involvement, little is known about service professionals’ response to volunteer involvement in public service production. Integrating perspectives from multiple theories, we build a theoretical framework for understanding how and when service professionals come to see volunteers as a threat to the quality of service, the profession’s privileged position and monopoly, and professionals’ own work tasks and job security. Based on a central distinction between production of core and complementary tasks, we propose that volunteers come to be seen as a threat in the eyes of service professionals when volunteers solve core rather than complementary tasks. Using a survey experiment among health assistants at nursing homes, we find partial support for our argument. Health assistants are more likely to perceive volunteers as a threat to the quality of care when volunteers solve core rather than complementary tasks. The study guides research toward a more nuanced understanding of volunteer involvement in service production in public organizations.
Source: Jeffrey W Snyder, Andrew Saultz, Rebecca Jacobsen, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Volume 29, Issue 4, October 2019
From the abstract:
Performance management reforms are a popular way to try to create responsive and improving government. These types of reforms have become commonplace in education policy and the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART) has been one of the leading venues for research on these topics. However, under-analyzed are the ways in which performance management policies represent antipolitical bent to education reform. We outline an argument that avoiding political decisionmaking in favor of reforms that create authoritative or purportedly neutral data risks undertaking policy change are not as meaningful as hoped. We select eight articles that represent research on performance management broadly and are thought provoking for a broader consideration of performance management in education policy.
Source: Francesca Gino, Harvard Business Review, November–December 2019
Ask any leader whether his or her organization values collaboration, and you’ll get a resounding yes. Ask whether the firm’s strategies to increase collaboration have been successful, and you’ll probably receive a different answer. ….
One problem is that leaders think about collaboration too narrowly: as a value to cultivate but not a skill to teach. Businesses have tried increasing it through various methods, from open offices to naming it an official corporate goal. While many of these approaches yield progress—mainly by creating opportunities for collaboration or demonstrating institutional support for it—they all try to influence employees through superficial or heavy-handed means, and research has shown that none of them reliably delivers truly robust collaboration.