Good intent. However, I’m not sure the mechanism is going to have a positive effect. To tease out a policy’s impact requires data and statistical analysis. Qualitative inquiry should be a part of that effort, but alone is insufficient and may point us to the wrong outcome. I’d be especially concerned about that given all the other examples we have of these types of public input mechanisms being captured by small and unrepresentative groups. Like you, love the stated goal and desire to experiment. California could improve this pilot by incorporating an econometric evaluation of any policy put through the process, maybe partnering up with the UC Berkeley public policy school or economics program to do the study.
Came to make a similar point. While the goal of assessment is a good one, a public process of hearings for assessment is a terrible idea. Create a report and get reaction to it. But don't try to assess anything through public hearings.
I really appreciate the resemblance to the production engineering practice of the "blameless post mortem", wherein a significant incident triggers a review focused on identifying the underlying causes, remedying them, and producing any changes to process needed to avoid repeating the mistake. Pointing fingers only leads to future risk avoidance, and failure to address the deeper issues.
I'd love to see this process evolve into one where a bill's expected outcomes are built into it, triggering automatic ORs to adjust, repeal, or celebrate their success.
OMG, this is exciting! I am a product leadership coach in Australia coaching the NSW government in the product operating model. This is a great case study to share with people here. How do I keep track of this Jennifer? Is there a way to stay connected on this particular case study?
This is certainly a step in the right direction, although not as meaningful as Texas’ sunset commission.
Although this wasn’t specifically mentioned, one additional positive outcome would be the ability to evaluate the track records of groups lobbying for and against legislation. As you know, during hearings, proponents and opponents frequently launch into hyperbole. One side will claim that a new law is going to be the greatest thing to happen to mankind while the other will claim the law will result in utter devastation—both cannot be true! But then the law passes and then nothing more is said about it.
I, for one, would appreciate knowing that the results claimed by interest groups did or did not happen…allowing me to trust them if what they warned about came true, or to take their statements with a grain of salt if they are almost always wrong.
(It would be a good thing if propositions faced similar scrutiny! As a life-long Californian, I can’t count how many times we’ve been told that our education system would be better if only voters would just approve more funding…and yet, after the funding passes, they come back with the same demand every few years!)
The press release (thanks for including the link in post) suggests that "Outcomes Reviews" may end up as just a rebranding of the routine legislative review process in CA:
"1. Announce laws to evaluate and review as part of an Outcomes Review, in coordination with policy committees, and identify partners for collaboration at the start of the legislative session
2. Work with policy staff and stakeholders to host Outcomes Review-related committee hearings and community meetings starting in the spring, empowering Californians directly impacted by enacted laws to have a strong voice in this public process
3. At the end of the legislative year, highlight Outcomes Review findings, actions and solutions that will improve implementation of laws"
I hope "Outcome Reviews" do lead to something more than rebranding legislative hearings. Perhaps the "tool" mentioned in the press release will be something substantially different than the approaches taken in the past.
This is exciting! I’m cautiously optimistic — though with the huge caveat you mentioned at the end re: whether this will be like other risk-aversion-inducing oversight mechanisms or if it will prompt real reflection on improving legislation. We’ll see!
Good intent. However, I’m not sure the mechanism is going to have a positive effect. To tease out a policy’s impact requires data and statistical analysis. Qualitative inquiry should be a part of that effort, but alone is insufficient and may point us to the wrong outcome. I’d be especially concerned about that given all the other examples we have of these types of public input mechanisms being captured by small and unrepresentative groups. Like you, love the stated goal and desire to experiment. California could improve this pilot by incorporating an econometric evaluation of any policy put through the process, maybe partnering up with the UC Berkeley public policy school or economics program to do the study.
Came to make a similar point. While the goal of assessment is a good one, a public process of hearings for assessment is a terrible idea. Create a report and get reaction to it. But don't try to assess anything through public hearings.
I really appreciate the resemblance to the production engineering practice of the "blameless post mortem", wherein a significant incident triggers a review focused on identifying the underlying causes, remedying them, and producing any changes to process needed to avoid repeating the mistake. Pointing fingers only leads to future risk avoidance, and failure to address the deeper issues.
I'd love to see this process evolve into one where a bill's expected outcomes are built into it, triggering automatic ORs to adjust, repeal, or celebrate their success.
OMG, this is exciting! I am a product leadership coach in Australia coaching the NSW government in the product operating model. This is a great case study to share with people here. How do I keep track of this Jennifer? Is there a way to stay connected on this particular case study?
This is certainly a step in the right direction, although not as meaningful as Texas’ sunset commission.
Although this wasn’t specifically mentioned, one additional positive outcome would be the ability to evaluate the track records of groups lobbying for and against legislation. As you know, during hearings, proponents and opponents frequently launch into hyperbole. One side will claim that a new law is going to be the greatest thing to happen to mankind while the other will claim the law will result in utter devastation—both cannot be true! But then the law passes and then nothing more is said about it.
I, for one, would appreciate knowing that the results claimed by interest groups did or did not happen…allowing me to trust them if what they warned about came true, or to take their statements with a grain of salt if they are almost always wrong.
(It would be a good thing if propositions faced similar scrutiny! As a life-long Californian, I can’t count how many times we’ve been told that our education system would be better if only voters would just approve more funding…and yet, after the funding passes, they come back with the same demand every few years!)
The press release (thanks for including the link in post) suggests that "Outcomes Reviews" may end up as just a rebranding of the routine legislative review process in CA:
"1. Announce laws to evaluate and review as part of an Outcomes Review, in coordination with policy committees, and identify partners for collaboration at the start of the legislative session
2. Work with policy staff and stakeholders to host Outcomes Review-related committee hearings and community meetings starting in the spring, empowering Californians directly impacted by enacted laws to have a strong voice in this public process
3. At the end of the legislative year, highlight Outcomes Review findings, actions and solutions that will improve implementation of laws"
I hope "Outcome Reviews" do lead to something more than rebranding legislative hearings. Perhaps the "tool" mentioned in the press release will be something substantially different than the approaches taken in the past.
This is exciting! I’m cautiously optimistic — though with the huge caveat you mentioned at the end re: whether this will be like other risk-aversion-inducing oversight mechanisms or if it will prompt real reflection on improving legislation. We’ll see!