PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 17

Lessons Learned

Under constraints and the influence of the evaluation team, the original vision for an impact evaluation had devolved into a lower level of investigation, program monitoring. Furthermore, much longer time frame would be required than was available even at the start of the project to show the type of program results that matter most. Nevertheless, the kind of practical, performance-oriented data that program monitoring offered The Center became the focus of evaluation efforts. That is what is called “a good start.” Simply being able to measure performance based on client perceptions is a huge leap toward more rational forms of accountability. Plus the habit of data collection is a good one to have. It not only sets a higher professional standard, it sends the message that programs that engage in it are to be taken seriously. Later on, that sets the stage for more elaborate forms of analysis, the logical conclusion of which could become a goal-oriented outcomes evaluation or even an impact evaluation if other agencies adopt the same progressive orientation.

On the whole, the experience of initiating and following through with the evaluation process has been a positive one, making my destination all the more enjoyable, confirming that the journey does matter. It has been difficult for me to single out the lessons that matter to me most. Certainly, some do stand out more than others.

1. Expect the Unexpected: Orchestrating a team can be rewarding and highly productive. However, the flip side is that it is frequently frustrating and involves many unattractive trade-offs, especially in terms of processing time. Teams offer many advantages including breadth of knowledge, wisdom and due caution. However, they can also squelch creativity and impede progress. In this case, the team experience was a mixture of positives and negatives. Overall, the team came through in the end and help set my project agenda for the semester just in time. What I did not anticipate were the turf issues associated with interagency comparisons. That, perhaps, was the most frustrating aspect of the experience.
2. Be Proactive: When it comes to project management, I have a tendency (like many of my generation) to procrastinate. In my own defense, however, it might be partly explained as a kind of self-defense mechanism I have developed given the crushing weight of my responsibilities. Arguably, I always get the job done in my own particular idiom. Nevertheless, I would never advise that anyone do things the way I do. I will say that when faced with such trade-offs, technology can be a real lifesaver. My use of the Basecamp to keep myself and the project on track is a good example of that. Even lo-tech solutions, however, can make a big difference, such as making to-do lists and keeping in touch.
3. Set the Bar Higher: When I started this evaluation, I purposely set the bar as high as it would go. I knew that compromises were inevitable and that disappointment was the rule and not the exception, especially where ambition exceeds resources. Regardless, I would not change a thing. As naïve as it might seem to some, having a vision gives one a reason to go on when things go wrong. Without the moment of force that accompanies hopeless idealism, one might just peter out before reaching up just high enough to achieve that personal best.
4. Become an Advocate for Your Mission: Having a just cause is everything. It sets the tenor for everything. If the cause is just, resources will not matter. As long as someone is a true advocate, it stands to reason he or she will encounter like-minded individuals. Resources will follow. In this case, anyone could see the needs were real and that the stakes were high. Though I may not be there to witness my success, I know it will come as long as I can get someone else to care as much as I do. After all, so much more depends upon this evaluation’s fruition than better performance data.

Ultimately, I keep in my mind the most important stakeholders of all: child victims. They are the reason why we do what we do. They are the legacy and mine is but one small part in righting one of the worst kind of wrongs. That bears repeating. Whatever challenge I may have to face, I will never have to bear the kinds of wounds that they always will. However difficult my role becomes, I have no better motivator than knowing that my hard work and that of the team will eventually help alleviate suffering and to take a stand for those who cannot stand for themselves. To me, that is an encouraging thought.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 16

Protocols for Toddlers, DC and Hearing/Speech Impaired Children

The staff at CC brought up an important point that needs some clarification. Occasionally, the surveyor will be faced with a child victim who is too young to respond accurately or, for other reasons, unable to respond. Examples of inability to respond could include developmentally challenged children or children with hearing and/or speech impairments. Potentially, this could be an issue since they would affect the accuracy of the sample by being excluded. Therefore, I should add several protocols about this problem:

1. Toddlers: Children whose answers are suspect should be excluded from the sample. Obviously, children develop at different rates. Some 2 and 3 year olds are more responsive and aware than others. This will be a judgment call on the part of the surveyor in consultation with the staff that is most familiar with the child. If the child seems reasonably responsive and focused in his or her answers, include that child.
2. Developmentally-Challenged Children: The same may be said for these children. In these cases, the surveyor should always confer with the service delivery staff to determine whether the child CAN respond appropriately and accurately. If yes, survey the child and then decide whether his or her answers can be trusted. Otherwise, exclude the child from the survey. The surveyor’s judgment is also key here.
3. Hearing/Speech Impaired Children: Obviously, every effort should be made to include these children in the survey. In these cases, the usual protocol of interviewing the child alone will have to be foregone unless the surveyor can sign or communicate with the child in some manner. Allowing literate older children (7 y.o. and up) with such disabilities to fill in the survey is permissible. Otherwise, a translating adult will need to be present. Allow this.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 15

Survey Training and Protocols

I met with Kevin and April today. I gave them a student copy of SPSS 14 and helped them to load it onto Kevin’s desktop computer. Then I sat down and trained them about how best to enter data into their new datasets. They both seemed very engaged and asked lots of good questions. I did not get to know April at all until recently. She has a keen eye and an outstanding memory for details. She will make an outstanding project manager.

I offered my suggestions to help make data entry a little easier. I opted to not build a separate Access database. That would lead to a lot of duplicated effort when it came to data entry and more opportunities for entry errors. It just did not seem worth the extra ease of data entry that it would create. Ultimately, an electronic form would be the easiest means of data entry and probably more accurate, too. That would not work with the student version of SPSS. I think only the full version would work with the SPSS form generator. It is out there, though.

I made a number of recommendations and went over the data collection protocols with them, as I had discussed them with Aly and Allison. In order to ensure that I have covered this thoroughly and we are all on the same page, I am supplying some explicit protocols to guide the survey:

1. Only ONE surveyor should talk with each subject.
2. This surveyor should ideally have NO core service delivery contact with the subject.
3. NO identifying numbers or names should be put onto the forms.
4. NO parent, guardian or family member should be in the room during the child’s survey. They can be filling out their survey at the same time.
5. For the child survey, the surveyor fills out the form based on the child’s responses.
6. For the family and team surveys, each subject fills out his or her form and hands it back to the surveyor when complete. The surveyor ensures all question are answered.
7. The surveyor should fill out a cover sheet with accurate information taken from the case file. Then, the surveyor should attach one copy of the filled out cover sheet to both client surveys. Then the surveys are inserted into the box.
8. After that, NO one except the person assigned to data entry should handle or look at the surveys until time for entry. To do so could harm objectivity and cast doubt on the results.
9. At data entry time, each case gets assigned a unique id number starting with 1 in the dataset. Each combination of child and parent/caretaker or other family member constitutes a case. Write the case number at the top of the form.
10. After data entry the forms should be kept together in numerical order for data checking later.
11. The forms should be sealed into manila envelopes and dated at the end of each week. The envelopes should be kept together in a safe, locked place.
12. Later on, a separate person from the data enterer will check the data entry during the data “cleaning” process. This will probably be an MPA student or other volunteer.
13. The forms are to be shredded after data cleaning.
14. There will be no attempt at connection between the results of the first two client surveys and the three month client survey. Anonymity must be maintained.
15. Any deviations from these instructions should be addressed with me or another MPA student ahead of time.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 14

Meeting with Center Staff 11/20

I met with Aly, Allison and April this afternoon. Kevin was unable to make it. We discussed progress toward completing the pilot and beginning to collect the first data of the evaluation. I presented to them copies of the newly revised MSW survey templates and the new SPSS databases. In particular, I stressed the importance of the new survey cover sheet. We went over this in detail to modify the questions according to the Center's needs.

April will be handling data entry of the completed surveys. This is ideal since she will not be involved in primary service delivery. She will however need to be adequately trained in using SPSS for data entry. I will probably need to sit down to give her a tutorial and enter the first data at the same time. I will have to schedule that with her. Today, April offered several outstanding suggestions and a few good catches of errors. She obviously has a keen eye which will make her an outstanding resource person when it comes to data entry and cleaning. Thanks to everyone's comments, several of the questions had to be altered. I will handle that tomorrow and upload everything to the Basecamp.

I briefly discussed plans for the future. In particular, I shared with them my intention to recruit another MPA Capstone student to complete the analysis next Spring. I will continue to volunteer for the Center in that effort as I am needed.

Once the data files are finished and uploaded, that just leaves five parts to complete my portion of this project that remain to be scheduled for next week:

1. Installation of SPSS v.14.0 on Kevin's and April's computers.
2. Training Kevin and April in its use (and anyone else who needs it.)
3. A set of written survey protocols based on our group discussions.
4. A written evaluation of my efforts by Kevin.
5. Final reevaluation of the pilot and presentation of my findings.

My final Capstone presentation of my findings will occur on Thursday, December 7 at 5 PM in Room 110 of Leutze Hall, UNCW. All project team members are welcome to attend. Thanks one and all for you help!

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 13

SWOT's the Problem?

Altogether, the UNCW Department of Political Science MPA Program has been an amazing experience for me. As much as it has been intellectually stimulating, mind-exapanding and intensive, it has also been difficult, stressful and, at times, bewildering. Thus, when I state that it has been amazing, I mean it in a somewhat ambivalent way, depending on how I look at it.

As an aspiring administrator, it has been a powerful introduction to a discipline about which, frankly, I knew precious little. As a mid-career professional, this program has given me a great deal to reflect upon as I compared the nexus of theory and application, demonstrating to me that there is no good substitute for experience. As a part-time, non-traditional student, I have found myself and my family tested and, occasionally, pushed to the limit of endurance. When I started the program in 2002, I had no children and was living in an apartment. Now we have a home and two young children. Thus, much of this stress has been simply the confluence of the MPA program and changing life circumstances. However, that is not to imply that the program is not sufficiently challenging. When all is said and done, it is, as with all forms of education, what one makes of it.

The question is: what could be done to make it a better experience? As a long-time consumer of the program, I am in a unique position to provide feedback about the evolution of the program, along with my personal reflections. I will start with the positives and discuss what I feel are the program's strengths. True to form, I'll turn to weaknesses. Finally, I'll combine opportunities and threats into set of specific recommendations on how to improve the program.


Program Strengths

When I started the MPA Program in 2002, one semester after its launch, my choices were fairly simple: Coastal Management (CM) or Nonprofit Management (NM). Given my creative background, nonprofit management was a no-brainer. My reasoning for entering the program in the first place: I wanted to be of some use to my society other than an aesthetic one. I was unhappy in my position as an art director and wanted more. I was already volunteering and serving my community in various supplemental capacities. I wanted to make an even bigger splash and rise above the limits I had set upon myself. Being a big believer in education, an advanced degree seemed the best alternative. That brings me to the first great strength of the program: Expanding Choice.

I chose the UNCW MPA Program because, of all of my educational choices, it offered the broadest form of preparation. Furthermore, much like an MBA in the business world, the MPA presented a more direct path to the upper echelons. I didn't know exactly what it was that I wanted to do there, but I figured it probably would not hurt to have three little letters after my name. The concentration options also offered some amount of specialization. Later on, the program evolved to include the Environmental Policy and Management (EPM) and the Policy Analysis (PA) Concentration. These new options now allow for a more in-depth study of policy specialties, emphasizing just the sort of practical applications that I feel will benefit us more technically-minded students most in such a broad course of study.

Being academically adventurous, I began to explore whether I might be able to secure a dual concentration in both NM and PA. There was enough crossover in the requirements that if I took the just the right combination of electives, I could meet the requirements of both. That remains to be seen. At any rate, the program will naturally become more attractive to prospective MPA students by increasing available choices that emphasize depth of study in conjunction with the breadth supplied by the core requirements. More programs will lead to more students, which will ultimately contribute to even more offerings. In the long run, that kind of expansion might lead to an amalgamation of multiple programs under a new school of public policy for the university.

Hopefully, such an expansion will not become unaffordable to average income residents of SE NC. The extremely affordable tuition in relation to program's offerings leads me to the next great strength: Educational Value.

Compared to most other graduate universities around NC, UNCW's graduate tuition is amazingly low. The cost is, of course, not strictly in keeping with the NC Constitution's admonishment to the legislature to “provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.” However, the operational word there is "practicable." At $1,851 per semester for full time graduate tuition, practically anyone can afford to attend. One wonders why more do not, since a master's degree can be a real career booster.

Of course, the value of the tuition has to be weighed against the product to be meaningful. I think that the full-time faculty members are what make the program ultimately well worth its salt. That leads me to the last program strength: Quality of Learning.

The MPA Program's accreditation by NASPAA this year was no small feat, but really not unexpected given the credentials and dedication of the faculty. In the classroom, this translates into worthwhile learning outcomes. I feel the theories and concepts I have been exposed to have broadened my world view and, even, taught me a little humility. The truly educated person needs not know it all--just know enough to become effective. Much more than that would be superfluous. Given the gargantuan breadth of topics that we must cover, eventually one must say enough is enough. Depth is a more a matter of individual study. This brings me to the touchy part. Inevitably, program design and reality part ways lots of little ways. I will only touch on what I perceive as ones that represent opportunities for positive change.


Program Weaknesses

Of course, depth of study is a function less programmatic and more academic. In other words, depth happens in the classroom and has more to do with the syllabus than the curriculum. Besides, an MPA is a generalist degree: it is not intended to create experts as much as administrators (though it can do both). Nevertheless, it might be possible to build in more depth into the curriculum by adding a few advanced courses as electives. In fact, it would be quite nice to have a few more electives from which to choose at enrollment.

The timing of certain classes also seems to be an issue for some. I have had problems scheduling a 5:00 pm class when I work full-time and do not have a sympathetic boss. Obviously this affects primarily part-timers like me, but we do make up a third of the students.

Another serious weakness/strength in the program has been the use of adjuncts. Obviously, it must be difficult to find and retain good instructors. The good ones seem to be drawn away by other more lucrative offers. To make matters worse, the bad ones seem to stick around. Even so, I have had the opportunity to learn from some outstanding "pracademics." That is why this qualifies as both strength and a weakness. I guess it might be nice if we witnessed some more accountability based on our Spots, but then we as students would never know it if there were. Thus, the subject does not deserve more elaboration.

In the classroom, it would benefit students like me to see a little more diversity: both economic and ethnic. I realize that much of this is way beyond even your control, but I was thinking that some of that responsibility must lie within the program. I think it is fair to say that some more efforts ought to be made to increase minority enrollment without breaking either the bank or the law.

Beyond this, I have heard a great deal of criticism of the types of things we learn in some of our classes. Most of it centers around two things:

1. Theory vs. application
2. Over reliance on peer evaluation

We, as working practitioners, would benefit more from learning that has practical applications, versus just theory. Do not get me wrong: theory is the basis for applications. It would be nice if more balance between them is preferred. Perhaps a needs assessment of graduates might help.
Many students have commented to me how they feel that peer reviews cause them stress and that the tendency is to not say anything bad to avoid some kind of knee-jerk reprisal by the instructor. Thus, social factors may cast some doubt on their validity as an evaluation tool. Furthermore, they are not standardized across the program like the Spots are. At least we might be able to be more comfortable with a generic form that we know and love, like the Spot form.


Recommendations

It would not be fair to cite the above criticisms without mentioning some solutions as well. They represent opportunities for positive change--we are talking about evolution, not revolution. Of course, it is difficult to make recommendations untainted by subjectivity. Perhaps they should be thought of more as jumping off points. Anyway, here it goes in no particular order.

1. Evaluate and hold adjuncts accountable. Reward the good ones and coach the poor performers more closely. If that fails, cut poor performers loose. The program will be stronger for it, rather than having a portion languishing because of sheer inertia. I do see some positive signs of this happening now.
2. Standardize peer review so that the instrument is more valid. Instead of the hodgepodge of forms that exist now, scores from multiple projects and classes can be coalesced into an overall score for each student. Also, prohibit their use for class-wide service projects. Maintain their use only for teams.
3. Offer a Saturday class every semester. It would seem a student needs assessment could easily gauge interest in the current student body.
4. Since our department is supposed to be on the administrative cutting edge, make it a model of IT efficiency. I recommend that the department look into Blackboard or some other IP-based form of classroom collaboration that would have ties to the department's master database. If the Program were producing nothing but technofiles (which it is definitely not) it could make a name for itself even though the interuniversity competition for academic outcomes is fierce. I'm thinking that a series of elective application courses would help out here: Working with Data, Statistical Applications, Internet Applications and so on.
5. Offer direct assistance to prepare papers for publishing and presentation at conferences. It would be difficult indeed for us to arrive at the conclusion that, yes, this paper is a good enough candidate. Many of us are so busy that it would take some extra incentive as a teacher's encouragement and advice. Otherwise, we all just assume our work is passable and nothing more.
6. Seek to encourage students to integrate skills learned in multiple courses in projects other than the Capstone. Of course, this could be difficult if students are at widely different points in the program. The use of teams for projects can encourage this kind of cross-pollination. In particular, I think there needs to be more emphasis on integrating basic scientific research skills.
7. Okay. Many students are cash poor nowadays, but some are worse off than others. I'm not convinced that it is a rule and not an exception. Thus, offer tools to help lower income and minority students apply to and succeed in the program. More financial incentives, such as departmental scholarships and outreach efforts to traditionally minority colleges and universities might help here.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 12

IRB Review Discussion

Hi Heather,
I went online last night after meeting with Kevin and found what you were referring to. (See the meeting notes from 10/8.) First, I want you to know that I appreciated your bringing this matter to my attention again. It actually helped solidify my understanding of IRB review. Second, I went through most everything and then wrote my summary of the issue with my preliminary findings, which you should have already gotten on the basecamp and by e-mail. Like you, I was led to believe by the information provided that IRB submission was almost a given.

However, my faculty supervisor, Dr. Imperial, reassures me that based on his long experience with IRBs and the regulations about review, there will be no compelling reason to submit the design for approval to the UNCW IRB. Since I trust his word, I believe that we can safely forego submission. The primary reason for this decision is that the data collected will belong to the Center, an independent third party who is the sponsor of the investigation. The data will be used for third party research. Third party collected data is simply exempt from the IRB oversight. Only if federal money were involved, which it is not, would the Center be required by federal law to submit a protocol for NIH-approved review. Hope that clears things up for you.

Were I to submit the evaluation to the UNCW IRB, Imperial informs me they would more than likely assert their authority over us needlessly, but ONLY because I submitted it. That would complicate matters immensely as you know. Unless another faculty member recommends otherwise, I believe we should avoid such a needless delay. I will wait on your response. Thanks again for the attention to detail.


Heather Sandala replied…

Chris,
Whether you choose to submit is your decision. But, as you pointed out in the original email that you sent last night, “All research projects involving human subjects must be approved by the IRB” and “Researchers may NOT make their own determination as to the appropriate type of review. Only the IRB Chair or designate, can determine which type of review is applicable.”

The material provided by the University concerning IRB review is quite ambigious and leaves much to interpertation. Much of my confusion in this matter stems from a lack of understanding of your research purpose and design. I am not an expert on IRB policy and procedure. Having gone through the process of submission and clearence I felt compleled to voice my concerns.

Good luck in moving forward in the project.

Heather Sandala

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 11

I met with Kevin today to discuss the delays. It turns out that the Center’s UNCW intern Heather Sandala has suggested that we submit our evaluation surveys to the UNCW IRB for review. I had planned on just such a submission early in the semester and even put it onto the original timeline. Basically, for any type of investigation involving human subjects, a protocol of the investigation may well need to be submitted for IRB approval. Specifically, any “systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge,” that meets certain qualifications must be submitted to an NIH-approved IRB, according to federal law. This is especially true where faculty, grad students and external research are involved, as in this case.

A Human subject is defined as a living individual, about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains:

1. Data through intervention or interaction with the individual
2. Identifiable private information.

“Systematic investigation” is defined as “a cohesive approach involving data collection (quantitative or qualitative from one or more individuals and analysis to address a question or test a hypothesis.” Certainly, identifiable information will be disclosed in the case of our surveys—at least to the interviewer, if no one else. Thus, at face value, it appears we will have to submit for review no matter what. However, according the Dr. Barth, we may be able to get thing expedited. We will have to jump through some hoops to to that in time, however.

In addition, any person(s) involved in the conduct of such research must complete an online human subject protections training program offered by the National Institutes of health. I, myself, have already taken this training. Since, however, I could not find a record of that fact, I am taking it again. As for the personnel at Carousel Center, I’m not sure that applies to them, but I am looking into that. The link to register for this training module is: http://cme.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/learning/humanparticipant-protections.asp.

Unfortunately, the next review submission deadline is November 22, 2006, and the next meeting that our surveys could be considered is December 6. Projects that qualify for exempt review are projects having such a low level of risk to subjects that further IRB oversight is not required with the exception of protocol amendment forms. Amendment forms are required on exempt studies since a change to the study may alter its exempt status. Projects qualifying for expedited review are also minimal risk to subjects, but may involve other aspects that require continuing IRB oversight and annual renewal of protocol approval. A project may require full review for a number of reasons such as the subjects belonging to a potentially vulnerable population or a higher degree of risk to subjects. Researchers may NOT make their own determination as to the appropriate type of review. Only the IRB Chair or designate, can determine which type of review is applicable.

I will get back to Kevin later this week about the final call on this, but I think it is a given that some kind of submission is necessary. This is a tad unexpected since I thought that our little study, being anonymous and strictly non-experimental, would fall outside the requirements. That is why I took it out of the original timeline. I look at as just one more hurdle to get over. We shall see what the call will be. Meantime, I also shared with Kevin the SPSS database design and went over the demographics I recommend be collected. There may be some minor adjustments to those. More on that later.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 10

The first-versions of the SPSS databases for the surveys have been completed. I purchased a student copy of SPSS which limits me to 50 variables and 1,500 cases. I figure those limits will not put too much of a strain on efforts to keep the evaluation short and inexpensive. The largest of the 4 survey databases is 36 variables. Furthermore, the Center can look into purchasing a full copy later on. Meantime, they will use my student copy of SPSS as a demo. I intend on sending these databases to Dr. Jones to put a more critical eye on the database structures. I am also continuing to look into MS Infopath as a possible data entry solution.

I have always been operating under the assumption that I will have some data to work with. However, it now the end of October and no data is forthcoming yet. That does not bode well for any kind of analysis, but I think we passed that thresholdd even before two months ago when I gave Kevin the original surveys. We estimated from the beginning that a monthly sample size of 15-20 would be the most we could expect to get, assuming 100% participation. Getting a large enough value of n that might result in enough statistical power to draw any kind of conclusions would no doubt take several more months than we had even at the beginning of the semester. The point of the pilot test has always been to get the surveys into their hands and figure out what the problems are implementing them. Then, once the surveys are finished, data collection could begin in earnest.

I contacted Aly and Kevin several times lately to discuss pilot progress on their end. Other hold ups have cropped up. I blame myself for not engaging the problems sooner. I have been trying to set up meeting next week with Kevin and his crew to discuss ironing out the problems. Whatever it is that needs to be done, I am sure I can accommodate their needs. I do not intend to abandon this group after this semester. I will continue to volunteer for the Center until they feel more confident about monitoring their own program themselves. They will certainly need assistance with the actual statistical analyses when it comes to that, probably next year. I will look for another Capstone student to take the reins, as well, one who can help bring this whole process to a proper conclusion. This is a worthwhile cause that needs my help. I will not let them down.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 9

What does it take to be an effective public servant? What are the practical limits of ethicality in service to the public interest? Can these two dimensions coexist peacefully or are collisions between them an inevitable hazard? Can administrative competence ever truly be politically neutral? We live in a society based on contradiction. Indeed, the whole Western Tradition is rife with contradictions. We accept religious principles as providing the foundation of governance, but reject dogma in the exercise of the law. We believe in the sanctity of individual freedoms within a framework of strong majority rule. We acknowledge the many failures of market-based economics, but extol market efficiencies. At all levels of the American system of governance, ambitions are counterbalanced by competing ambitions. For the public servant caught between contradictions, there is little hope held out for a respite between the various poles of administrative and political ambitions.

While it is doubtful that in such political soup one can swim without an occasional scalding, neutrality is still the ideal. By raising oneself above the level of common partisanship, by becoming almost "hyper-rational," the educated person is in a position to develop an almost intuitive sense of propriety. Since it has long been commonly accepted that politics comprises the administrative ether, education is still the best hope for neutral competency. In Peter Salovey's words that "An educated person has the ability to appreciate, learn from, and embrace contradiction, even when we might prefer closure." Service to the public interest is thus not for the fainthearted, but it especially not for the ignorant.

Kenneth Ashworth's collection of missives cum essays, Caught Between the Dog and the Fireplug, make this point abundantly clear. Ashworth extols the virtues of life-long education in both the formal and informal sense. If serving the public interest is comprised mainly of being conscious of of the policymaking process and sensitive to its effects, then reason and analysis are de rigeur to solving societal problems effectively. What develops these kinds of skills better than education? While the inevitable answer is "not much," Ashworth's whole trope of inveterate advice to the ingenue makes it clear that experience counts as well. After all, a student driver does not learn how to drive merely by studying the operation of a motor vehicle and the rules of the road. Those are essential but would be incomplete without actual time behind the wheel. Ashworth's literary form speaks volumes: experience is essential to competency, especially where the public interest is at stake.

Though much of his recollections he retells with tongue firmly implanted in cheek (making his argument all the more persuasive, I might add), there is an iron core of logic in every anecdote and proverb. Of course, were one to take him at his word, few but the deranged would be compelled to enter the Thunderdome of public service (let alone his beloved niece, Kim). To do so, pretty much requires one to suffer:

1. Derision and contempt
2. Unpleasant and difficult people
3. Corruption and temptation
4. Indifference and inequity
5. Favoritism and bias

Looking at that list it is hard to imagine that anyone rational would seriously consider going into public service. However, Ashworth makes a good case that ONLY the most rational should consider it. For instance, when faced with the derision and contempt of opponents, Ashworth points out:
"Your public life will be spent between the extremes on almost every important public policy decision you make....As a thinking person you will choose to favor in your mind and perhaps in your actions some groups over others. Such choices will put you at risk. But it will be your preferences about whom you seek to assist that will distinguish you from the chaff and flotsam that make up far too much of every bureaucracy in this country, public and private." (p. 36-37)

Thus, integrity and character will be determined as much by those whom you choose to oppose as by those whom you choose to support. Only the most rational decision-makers ought to put themselves into a position where not only their competence but their whole system of values is constantly under assault. Furthermore, the opposition's lack of competence and rationality offers hope.

The same may be said of the daily grind of having to deal constantly with unpleasant people. While this might tend to wear the hardiest administrator down, the rational one can find a sound defense in the weaknesses of such people. Essentially, they lack confidence in their abilities, use people as means to ends and exercise power clumsily. Leadership to them is about control and one-upsmanship--about keeping themselves "above" subordinates and colleagues alike. However, the experienced administrator has a secret weapon:
"Most of the time what they underestimate is your courage and your tenacity and your willingness to go to battle. As a result, if you are modest and quiet, your opponents will do a lot of bluffing." (p. 55)

Being above the fray much of the time means that enemies will tend underestimate the rational administrator. Then, when he or she has marshaled the substantive and instrumental sources of power, a sense of reason and proportion is never lost. As Lyndon Johnson points out, "The task of leadership...Is to avoid irreconcilable positions." In other words, it pays to study all positions and be prepared to defend on on hand and compromise on the other.

When it comes to compromise, however, professional ethics should never be on the table. The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) Code of Ethics makes it quite clear that officials should always demonstrate personal integrity by avoiding conflicts of interest or the taint of partisanship. The experienced administrator keeps his or her personal needs out of the policy arena. To do that, you must be aware of your own weaknesses:
"Whatever your greatest personal need and desire is, there will lie your greatest need and temptation. Acknowlege what it is you want and desire most and take warning from that knowledge....keep yourself and your personal wants out of the picture and be governed by your social values and by actions that uphold the principles of our democratic society." (p. 87).

Otherwise, administrators risk losing self-respect and becoming their own worst enemies. In fact, responsible administrators have an even more acute obligation than the average decision-maker to do the right thing. They cannot sit back and let nature take its course. Such indifference cedes that the so-called "hidden hand" of reality shape events:
"In the modern world, no government can sit on the sidelines and permit some mindless social mechanism to define how we all relate to each other. Government must be the major organized intelligence in a society for pursuing the interests and progress of all the people. No other institution can do that. No hidden hand will do it equitably." (p. 163-164).

Thus, responsible administrators are obliged to use the power of policy making to make things better. His complete citation of Carl Schurz's aphorism is perhaps the most touching part of the book: "My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be set right," Policy making is, therefore, a primary means of setting things right. Ashworth claims that their is an intrinsic moral sense beyond all traditional sources of wisdom that requires such behavior. However, a truly humane response can only come from an informed moral center, one which takes into account the long-view as well as a more intuitive one.

When administrators act, however, they must be fully cognizant of the effect of their decisions. The complete implications of policy making may sometimes only be known in the fullness of time. Through concern for effects, administrators can minimize the human tendency toward bias and favoritism. Though the actions of boards are beyond the control of administrators, they are not beyond their influence. Ashworth describes his style of agenda-setting and problem solving as "tough." The E.D.'s job is to, in effect, make board members' lives more difficult. After all, no promises were made that everything would be peaches and cream. That means that to act democratically, leadership entails increasing openess in the decision making process as much as is practicable. Furthermore, it means reducing inequities and responding to the rights of the minority. This is especially true when faced with true evil:
"I refuse to be discouraged because I refuse to stand disarmed. We can never permit ourselves to be half-hearted for what is good as we oppose those who are wholehearted for what is evil." (p. 161).

Administrators can arm themselves by expanding their knowledgebase and rising above their specialty. Ashworth uses the metaphor of the iceberg in which one's specialty is just what is visible above the water line. I see an advanced degree and the education it represents as being affecting professional growth both above and below the water line. The MPA program in particular provides lots of opportunities to develop depth of specialty knowledge, including the use of particular tools and techniques to apply to problem analysis. Leadership, however, requires a broader sense of the mission of the organization and its place in the social spectrum. I think I have benefited most from that kind of broadening through studying theory and then applying it in case analyses. This kind of learning forces students like me to ask harder questions and think through the implications of their recommendations. That set the stage for real learning when I have been frequently confronted by the limitations of my own thinking.

Of course, the contradictions I have faced in the classroom are nothing compared to those I will face in the real world. That brings me back to my original questions. There are no easy answers to these. Indeed Ashworth spends 184 pages without clear answers, which is, perhaps, more a reflection of the complexities of public leadership than his ability to impart them. What I appreciated most about this book was the sense that reality is more complicated not just than we do imagine, but than we can imagine. Administrators must stand in awe even of just what exists above that waterline. However, Ashworth has pointed the way toward understanding: there is no substitute for experience.