first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 1

University of Washington Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance

Managing Organizational Performance

PUBPOL 512A, Winter 2017 Thursdays, 1:30-4:20pm Parrington 108

Section A meets Tuesdays 1:30-2:20pm (first session is Jan 10) Section B meets Fridays 10:30am-11:20pm (first session is Jan 6)

Professor Scott Fritzen Teaching Assistant: 322 Parrington @uw.edu (206) 348-3356 (cell) Office hours: sfritzen@uw.edu Office hours: Wednesdays 2-4pm* * Please use google doc signup sheet Welcome to Managing Organizational Performance, the second course in the core management sequence. The first course, Managing Politics and the Policy Process (PUBPOL 511), positioned you as a leader looking primarily outward to the authorizing environment and a variety of stakeholders. This course puts you in the position of a manager looking inward, to improving organizational operations and capacity, while recognizing the external pressures and financial considerations that affect them. We address leadership and strategy, and focus directly on operational processes and effectiveness. While the course centers on management strategies and techniques, the assigned readings and cases also address public values, ethics, and diversity. In keeping with the approach in Managing Politics and the Policy Process, we will make extensive use of teaching cases or similations, supplemented by readings, to improve your knowledge and application of relevant analytic frameworks. A key feature of the course is the use of cases drawn from governmental as well as non-profit contexts across several levels of a governance system (international to local). READINGS There are three required texts for the class (available for purchase in the U-store or online:

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service: Serving, not steering. ME Sharpe. Fourth edition.

Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing bureaucracy: The five strategies for reinventing government. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA.

Newell, T., Reeher, G., & Ronayne, P. (Eds.). (2012). The trusted leader: Building the relationships that make government work. CQ Press.

There is also a required coursepack with the cases we will be covering, which you purchase directly from: (will share link later).

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 2

Other readings will be made available through canvas. Also, please note there is a required $5 class exercise fee for one of the simulations. ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADES Assessed material in the class is meant to promote your learning, self-reflection and ability to apply concepts to complicated situations. There are three basic categories of work for the class: Two Individual Memos (35% total): These memos are due in week 6 and 8 on the day before class, at 12 noon. Late memos will not be accepted. Memos should be no longer than 2 pages single-spaced, and should follow the sensible advice laid out in the Electronic Hallway piece entitled “Writing Effective Memos” by John Boehrer. (Further guidelines will be offered in section and on a special page in Canvas.) Study team outputs (35% total): You will be assigned to study teams of 4-5 students each to complete a series of tasks over the quarter. Brief written outputs of your discussion will be required of the groups in most weeks, generally due to be uploaded onto Canvas at 12 noon on the Wednesday before class. The study team outputs will be assessed as a portfolio at the end of the quarter, and you will receive feedback on your team’s cumulative progress to date in week 6. Class participation (30%): Active participation in class is a significant contributor to your learning, and has implications for the learning of everyone else in the class too. While at a minimum I expect everyone to come to class prepared to share their perspectives on the course materials, I recognize that different students will have different ways of sharing their insights and engaging with the course material, and thus participation will here be assessed in several ways:

Assessment of your participation by the teaching assistant and professor in the classroom.

Your brief written responses on 3x5 index cards to a question I pose at the end of some classes (which will require a reflective response rather than testing specific factual knowledge). These will be collected but not graded separately, in a formal way; rather, they will form part of your class participation record for assessment at the end of the quarter.

Questionnaires distributed at the end of the quarter allowing you to identify fellow students who particularly contributed to your own learning, separately for your study teams and for the class as a whole.

Our interaction during office hour consultations (two 5-10 minute consultations with the instructor are suggested, though not mandatory; note there are specific focus questions set aside for each of these. See google doc sign-up sheet for office hours).

Class attendance, which is mandatory in both class and section discussions, unless by previous arrangement.

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 3

GRADING CRITERIA This statement, taken from the student handbook, describes the guidelines for numerical grades for courses taken in the Evans School.

4.0

Excellent and exceptional work for a graduate student. Work at this level is unusually thorough, methodologically sophisticated, and well‐written. Work is of good professional quality, shows an incisive understanding of the major policy and management issues, and demonstrates a clear recognition and mastery of the appropriate analytical approaches to address the problems and questions.

3.7

Strong work for a graduate student. Work at this level shows signs of creativity and is thorough and well reasoned. It indicates a strong understanding of appropriate methodological or analytical approaches, and demonstrates a clear recognition and good understanding of the salient policy and management issues and problems.

3.4

Competent and sound graduate student work. Work is well reasoned and thorough and methodologically and analytically sound, but is not especially creative or insightful, nor technologically or analytically sophisticated. It shows adequate understanding of the policy and management issues and problems, although that understanding may be somewhat incomplete. This grade indicates neither unusual strengths nor exceptional weaknesses.

3.2

Adequate graduate student work. Basically competent performance, although the work shows some weaknesses. Work is moderately thorough and well reasoned, but there is some indication that the understanding of important policy or management issues is less than complete. It may also be inadequate in other ways, such as quality of reasoning, writing, or incomplete analysis. Methodological or analytical approaches are generally adequate but have one or more weaknesses or limitations.

3.0

Borderline graduate student work. This work barely meets the minimal expectations for a graduate student in the course. The understanding of basic policy or management issues is incomplete and the methodological or analytical work performed is minimally adequate. The writing and reasoning barely qualify for professional quality work. Overall performance, if consistent in graduate courses, would barely suffice to sustain graduate status in good standing and does not reflect long‐term professional quality work.

2.6

Deficient graduate work. This work does not meet the minimal expectations for a graduate student in the course. Work is inadequately developed and flawed by numerous errors and misunderstandings of important issues. Methodological work or analysis is weak and fails to demonstrate knowledge or basic skills competence expected of graduate student work. May also reflect unprofessional level of writing, organization, or reasoning skills. This grade means the course will not count towards graduation.

Evans School grade guidelines as applied to grading policy memos (see also detailed guidelines posted under “policy memo advice” page on Canvas): > Grading memos: Substance

Stronger memos (3.6-4.0) contain:

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 4

• Arguments systematically derived from frameworks • Justifications for recommendations • Frameworks applied in clear, coherent, and logical way

Weaker memos (3.2 or below) contain: • Unjustified recommendations (e.g., “do this, do that”) • Arguments that float free of the frameworks • Excessive space devoted to rehashing the case or explaining frameworks for the audience • Incoherent, inconsistent, or illogical use of frameworks

> Grading memos: Style Stronger memos (3.6-4.0) contain:

• Text written with audience in mind • Subheadings, bullet points, and/or other formatting devices to help readers follow the argument and see key points • Simple, clear, straightforward, well-written sentences • Logical structure (with important points front-loaded)

Weaker memos (3.2 or below) contain • Typos (e.g., misspellings, inconsistent punctuation, etc.) • Passive phrasing (i.e., dodging who should do what to whom) • Undefined academic jargon • Bureaucratic jargon (“bureaucratese”)

Evans School grade guidelines as applied to study team outputs: Stronger teams (3.6 and above) produce high-quality work that is well communicated on paper and/or in brief oral presentations. The insights documented should reflect a collaborative, synergistic effort – incorporating the best analysis from all team members. The work shold be professional, concise, self-explanatory and meet all deadlines. Weaker teams (3.2 or below) fail to meet deadlines, lack organization, produce work that is relatively superficial and/or incomprehensible to those not party to the discussion, and fail to communicate a coherent message about the team’s learning when asked to do so. CLASS POLICIES Academic integrity: As a student in this course, you acknowledge that you are a

member of a learning community in the Evans School of Public Affairs that is committed to the highest academic standards. As a member of this community, you agree to uphold the fundamental standards of honesty, respect and integrity. If you are uncertain about whether a particular action constitutes academic misconduct, please ask me or the teaching assistant for guidance. Group projects must also be original work done by the group.

Disabilities: The university will provide reasonable accommodation of academically qualified students with disabilities so those students can participate fully in the university’s educational programs and activities. Any student requesting academic accommodation based on a disability is required to register with Disability Resources for Students (DRS). You can apply at this website: depts.washington.edu/uwdrs/

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 5

Please inform me of your accommodation so that I can prepare adequate resources for you.

No electronics in class: During all plenary class discussions, we will commit to not using computers or phones except when specifically called for; this is for the simple reason that research shows such use to be highly distracting to others and detrimental to the quality of discussion. You are encouraged to bring hard copies of the readings and your assignments for easy reference, if needed.

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 6

Summary of Session Flow, Cases and Assignments for Managing Organizational Performance Topic Cases Assignments

1 – Jan 5

Strategic management in the public sector: an overview

Case: Ek Sonn Chan and the transformation of the Pnom Penh Water Supply Authority

Part 1: Managing People

2 – Jan 12

Confronting self and other: Managing in the presence of diversity

Class-wide simulation (TBA)

Study team: identify a current example of a race, social equity and/or diversity challenge facing public administrators

3 – Jan 19

The functions and dysfunctions of teams Columbia’s Final Mission

Study teams: Debrief on lessons from previous week’s simulation

4 – Jan 26

Negotiation and conflict mangement: A critical competency

Elmwood Hospital Dispute simulation Study teams: Identify and analyze a current example of a high or low-performing team

Part 2: Managing Process and Performance

5 – Feb 2

Creating clarity of organizational purpose Brazil’s Ministry of Education

Study team: Interplay of SWOT analysis as applied to Brazil case; analysis of lessons from last week’s simulation

6 – Feb 9

Measuring and creating consequences for performance

Michele Rhee and the Washington, D.C. public schools

Individual memo #1 Study teams: Produce a logic model for the set of changes Rhee introduced to the Washington D.C. public schools.

7 – Feb 16

Managing public sector innovation Aadhaar: India’s Unique Identification System

Study teams: Produce action plan for Aadhaar case

Part 3: Balancing Performance and Accountability

8 – Feb 23

Putting the strategies in motion Mercy Corps: Positioning the organization to reach new heights

Individual memo #2 Study teams: Create plan for improving donor accountability to local communities

9 – March 2

Public management in a divided society (1) Class-wide simulation (TBA)

Section: Showing of “PBS Frontline: Policing the Police” documentary in section [and begin preparation for next week’s assignment]

10 - March 9

Public management in a divided society (2): Summary and the road ahead

A Rising Storm: Eric Garner and the Explosive Controversy over Race and Policing

Study teams: Cross-cutting lessons from course arising from Eric Garner case

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 7

Week 1 (Jan 5): Strategic management in the public sector: An overview Overview of course – broad conceptual frameworks that map the terrain ahead

Case: “Ek Sonn Chan and the Transformation of the Pnom Penh Water Supply Authority” – Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Institute of Water Policy, National University of Singapore, 2011

Preparation for everyone: Read the case and be prepared to share your view on the following quesitons: Do you think Ek Sonn Chan is an effective public manager? Why or why not? What information would you like or need to know – but which may be missing – in order to answer that question more confidently?

Required readings (you’re encouraged to do these over winter break to get a headstart on the course):

“Ek Sonn Chan and the Transformation of the Pnom Penh Water Supply Authority” – Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Institute of Water Policy, National University of Singapore, 2011

Banishing Bureaucracy: Chapters 1 and 2 The New Public Service: Chapters 1, 3 and 4 The Trusted Leader: Chapter 1

Week 2 (Jan 12): Confronting self and other: Managing in the presence of diversity Race, social equity and diversity as a challenge to public administrators

Case: Class-wide simulation (to be introduced in class) Study team task: Each study team is asked to identify a current example of a race, social equity and/or diversity challenge facing public administrators. You’re encouraged to choose an example from anywhere in the world, not just the U.S. Which of Gooden’s “principles for conquering nervousness in government” and/or Rice & Matthews “new kind of public service professional” may be applicable to the case (i.e. to reach a better outcome)? Upload brief answers on these questions, and the article source that describes your case, to Canvas by 12 noon on January 11. Required readings:

Gooden, S. T. (2014). Race and social equity: A nervous area of government. ME Sharpe:

o Chapter 1: Nervouseness, social equity and public administration (pages xx-xx)

o Chapter 11: Principles for conquering nervousness in government Rice, M. and A. Matthews (2012) “A new kind of public service professional:

possessing cultural competency awareness, knowledge and skills” in Norman-Major, K. and S. Gooden, Cultural competency for public administrators, Routledge: New York

The Trusted Leader: Chapters 2, 7

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 8

Further resources:

William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2014, ch. 1. Please explore the interactive map here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/diversity-explosion and note the book is available in full text through the UW digital library.

Robert D. Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture,” Scandinavian Political Studies 30:2 (2007): 137–174 (focus on pages xx-xx)

Week 3 (Jan 19): The functions and dysfunctions of teams How we work within teams; organizational culture; risk management

Case: “Columbia’s Final Mission”, multimedia case in coursepack (note: you will be assigned roles in section; these roles come with passwords that unlock different parts of the case software)

Preparation for your assigned role: Please prepare to participate in a simulation of the key Mission Management Team meeting that took place on Flight Day 8 of this mission. To help you prepare, put yourself in the shoes of the manager or engineer whose actions you are assigned to follow in the multi-media case, and consider the following questions:

o What prior assumptions and beliefs shaped the way that you thought and behaved during the Columbia mission?

o What pressures affected your behavior? Where did these pressures originate? o In what ways did the culture impact your actions? o If you were in that person’s shoes during the Columbia mission, would you have

behaved differently? Why or why not? General preparation questions for everyone:

o How would you characterize the culture of NASA? What are its strengths and weaknesses?

o How has NASA treated foam strikes historically? Why has NASA treated foam strikes in this manner?

o How did the history of the Space Shuttle Program shape people’s behavior during the first 8 days of the mission?

o How would you characterize NASA’s response to the foam strike, in comparison with its response to the Apollo 13 incident? How does the Columbia mission compare to the Challenger accident in 1986?

Study team task: debrief of last week’s simulation (in-class exercise) Readings:

Rainey, Hall (2014) “Teamwork: Understanding communication and conflict in groups”, in Understanding and managing public organizations, 5th edition

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 9

Letts, Christine, et al. (2006) “Human resources: Developing employees to advance organizational goals”, pp. 107-128 in High performance nonprofit organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

The Trusted Leader: chapters 3, 5

Week 4 (Jan 26): Negotiation and conflict management: A critical competency in public management

Multiparty negotiation; conflict management and resolution Case: “Elmwood Hospital Dispute” multiparty negotiation (read general information posted on Canvas; roles will be assigned during class) Study team task: Like in week 2, find an article that reflects an interesting example of a high or low-performing team. How would you compare and contrast the dynamics at work with those in the Columbia case? What concepts in any of the readings from last week are appropriately illustrated by it? Summarize your analysis in a brief write-up to be uploaded onto canvas together with the source article by January 25, 12 noon. Readings:

O'Leary, R., & Bingham, L. B. (2007). A manager's guide to resolving conflicts in collaborative networks. Center for the Business of Government.

Ury, W., Brett, J., and Goldberg, S. (2007) “Three approaches to resolving disputes: interests, rights and power”, in Lewicki et al. (eds.) Negotiation: Readings, exercises and cases, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., and Barry, B. (2006) “Finding and using negotiation power”, in Lewicki et al. Negotiation, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Week 5 (February 2): Creating clarity of organizational purpose Mission and purpose in public life; overview of New Public Management; logic models

Case: “Tackling poor performance, extreme inequality, public complaisance: Brazil’s education minister forges a new role for the ministry” Study team task:

Task 1: What does your team feel were the key learning points from last week’s simulation? List both major points and relevance you see to any contemporary public management challenge.

Task 2: Using a format from Allison and Kaye (to be provided), conduct an ‘Interplay of SWOT’ grid analysis for Brazil’s Ministry of Education, intended for use at the beginning of the strategy retreat that is about to be convened as the case closes.

Readings:

Banishing Bureaucracy: ch. 4

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 10

The New Public Service: ch. 8 Kellogg Foundation (1998) “Logic model development guide” (focus on pages 1-25,

skim the rest), available at http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide

Allison, M., & Kaye, J. (2015). Strategic planning for nonprofit organizations: A practical guide for dynamic times. John Wiley & Sons. (selections)

The Trusted Leader: chapter 6

Week 6 (February 9): Measuring and creating consequences for organizational performance

The art of performance measurement; memo writing; applying Switch model to thinking about organizational change

Case: “Michele Rhee and the Washington, D.C. public schools” Memo assignment: You are a school system analyst newly hired by Michele Rhee as she assumes her position, and prior to her decision to close 15% of the DC school buildings. Rhee has communicated to you her strong belief in introducing greater clarity of purpose and consequences for performance into the school system in order to “get kids the education they deserve”, and you are aware that she perceives the situation to be an “emergency” in terms of current underperformance of the system. Write a memo that lays out a strong approach to reforming the DC schools that will be effective in improving educational outcomes and that stands a strong chance of being operationally and politically sustainable. In proposing your approach, you may draw on any and all insights gained from the historical case, without of course referencing specific events that take place after Rhee assumes her position. General discussion questions for the case (not for written preparation):

“I don’t believe in the warm and fuzzy stuff. I don’t believe in collaboration, because it hasn’t worked. I don’t care about hurting the adjults’ feelings. I care about getting kids the education they deserve. This is an emergency. It is not a time to be polite.” – Michelle Rhee. Do you agree or disagree with the thoughts Rhee expresses here? Why?

Rhee’s first major action as superintendent was to close 15% of DC school buildings. Do you agree with her decision to choose this as her first major step? Why or why not? If you disagree, what would you have done instead as the first major action?

Are there steps Rhee could/should realistically have taken to reduce opposition to her ideas among teachers and/or parents? Would these likely have advanced her organizational change agenda or not?’

How do the Switch models of the ‘elephant’ and the ‘rider’ help you understand the challenge Rhee faces in this case?

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 11

Study team task: Produce a logic model for the set of changes Rhee introduced to the Washington D.C. public schools. What links in the logic model do you think to be strong, and what links potentially problematic? Readings:

Banishing Bureaucracy: chapters 5, 6 Reinventor’s fieldbook: chapter 7 The New Public Service: chapter 5

Further resources:

The Trusted Leader: chapter 8

Week 7 (February 16): Managing innovation in public management Strategic use of information; innovation and organizaitonal change

Case: “Aadhaar: India’s ‘Unique Identification System’” (in coursepack; also peruse http://uidai.gov.in/ for latest developments and statistics)

General preparation questions: a) In what area will Aadhaar/Unique ID have the biggest beneficial effect? b) Where will opposition, explicit or inadvertent, or other obstacles, come from in the

next one to two years in the Aadhaar/Unique ID effort? c) What could Nandan Nilekani’s team have done differently in the past? What should

they be thinking about (differently) for the near future (one to two years)? Study team task: Based on any of the readings or relevant frameworks this quarter, present your team’s answers to questions b and c above. Signpost the readings or frameworks from the course that guide your answer. Readings:

Torfing, Collaborative innovation in the public sector, ch. 1 The New Public Service, chapter 6 Beth Simone Noveck, Smart citizens, smarter government: The technologies of

expertise and the future of governing, Harvard University Press, 2015: ch. 1 The Trusted Leader: chapter 11

Further resources:

Leading public sector innovation, ch. 5 and 7 Beth Simone Noveck, Smart citizens, smarter government: The technologies of

expertise and the future of governing, Harvard University Press, 2015: ch. 1 View Beth Simone Noveck’s TedTalk at:

https://www.ted.com/talks/beth_noveck_demand_a_more_open_source_government

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 12

“Question Time with Nandan Nilekani” (4 min) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uPKBywB3NI&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Nandan Nilekani (2010) “The power of identity”, Inclusion: Mainstreaming the marginalised, http://inclusion.skoch.in/story/455/the-power-of-identity-755.html

Nandan Nilekani (2016) “Keynote address at Fintech for Next 400M” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1dAZvsjfq0

Week 8 (February 23): Putting the strategies in motion Aligning organizational structure, mission and culture; community engagement

Case: “Mercy Corps: Positioning the organization to reach new heights”

Memo assignment: You’re an advisor to Steve Zimmerman. Steve is committed to success, but wants to leave the job in 2 years. Lay out your suggestions for achieving organizational growth with quality, including measures he can focus on over the next 6 months to 1 year (relatively short term) and measures that may take up to the full two years (if you find it useful to distinguish between these two time periods).

General preparation questions (not part of the memo assignment but which may help you prepare for the case analysis): a) Do you agree with the definitions of high-performance and entrepreneurship on

page six of the case? How might you change them? What are the strengths and concerns of a highly entrepreneurial organization?

b) How much of a challenge is it for Mercy Corps to achieve consistent quality across all of its sites? What are they doing well in this pursuit and what concerns you?

c) How does Mercy Corps’ headquarters provide the needed support for each of its operating units? What are the variables they need to consider in designing and implementing this support?

d) How should Mercy Corps decide which functions should be performed at the operating unit and which functions should be the responsibility of headquarters?

e) How important is the RPD for success? If you were a CD, what is the one thing you would want from your RPD?

Study team task: “Local ownership” of aid programs and projects has been a major theme in development assistance. In what ways could Zimmerman draw on some of the customer and community empowerment ideas covered in Banishing bureaucracy (ch. 6 and 7) to promote accountability to communities? (Note: This is not a key theme of the formal case study itself, so you do not have to incorporate it into the individual memo assignment.) Readings:

Banishing bureaucracy: chapters 7, 9 The New Public Service: chapters 10, 11 The Trusted Leader: conclusion chapter (Fenn)

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 13

Weeks 9 (March 2) and 10 (March 9): Public management in a divided society Summary, and the road ahead

Case for Week 9: Class-wide simulation (to be announced in class) Case for Week 10: “A rising storm: Eric Garner and the explosive controversy over race & policing” Study team task: During the next two weeks, teams will work on the NYPD case - together with the range of reading and multimedia resources intended to help you contextualize the broader, nation-wide context in which it is set. The broad theme is the complex nexus of police performance, accountability and race relations in the U.S. Your task is to use insights gained in the course to develop a grounded problem assessment and to formulate one or more carefully justified and contextualized recommendations for “managing organizational performance” of the NYPD in the aftermath of the events detailed in the case study, under its new police chief. Study teams will be assigned to a week in the course, from weeks 2-8, to focus and frame their effort. Teams will produce and present a poster presentation with the following basic structure:

a) Problem assessment: What is the specific problem to be addressed? Be careful and specific in your

framing, and provide evidence from the case and related materials. How do course materials help you understand the nature of the problem – its

context, causes, drivers etc. – as a public management problem? b) Solution assessment:

Present 1-2 short-term (6-12 months) and 1-2 medium term (up to 3 years) recommendations for consideration by the police chief for improving NYPD performance.

How do course materials motivate your recommendation and help you assess its likely effectiveness and sustainability? Identify any tradeoffs that need to be addressed.

c) A discussion prompt – a non-obvious question arising from your analysis for potential consideration by the class.

Posters will be xx-xx in size, and can be printed at xxx. Further guidelines will be given in class. Resources for team assignment for next two weeks: Multimedia:

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 14

View PBS Frontline documentary “Policing the Police” at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/investigation/policing-the-police/ (54 min). You may wish to take note of specific minute marks where interesting material for you to use in the study task is found.

Vedantam, Shankar (2016) “How a theory of crime and policing was born, and went terribly wrong”, Hidden Brain podcast, http://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500104506/broken-windows-policing-and-the-origins-of-stop-and-frisk-and-how-it-went-wrong

Glass, I. (2010). Right to Remain Silent. This American Life. 414. Length: 41 minutes. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent

Glass, I. (2016) “The problem we all live with” (on school desegregation – interesting parallels with and linkages to Ferguson report): https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with

Department of Justice reports:

U.S. Department of Justice (2015) “Report on the Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department” https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice (2016) “Findings Report: Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department”, (read executive summary and explore the rest of the report as time allows) https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/883366/download

U.S. Department of Justice. 2011. "Investigation of Seattle Police Department." http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf (Links to an external site.)

Seattle Police Department website, including 2012 settlement agreement with U.S. Department of Justice http://www.seattle.gov/police/compliance/default.htm (Links to an external site.)

Performance management theory (addenda to week 7):

Behn, Robert D. 2014. (read pages 43-58) "Chapter 4: Distinguishing CompStat's Impact," in The PerformanceStat Potential: A Leadership Strategy for Producing Results

Chris Hood, “Public management by numbers as a performance-enhancing drug”, Public Administration Review 72(s1): 85-92.

Robert Behn, “Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures” Public Administration Review, 65: pp. 586-606

Broken windows debate:

Kelling, George L. 2008. "Broken Windows Works" http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/16/crime-disorder-punishment-opinions-contributors-george-kelling.html (Links to an external site.)

Bratton, William and George L. Kelling. 2015. "Why We Need Broken Windows

first draft – December 7, 2016 – subject to change 15

Policing: It has saved countless New York lives—most of them minority—cut the jail population, and reknit the social fabric. http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_broken-windows-policing.html (Links to an external site.)

Malcolm Gladwell (The Tipping Point) responds to Steven Levitt's (Freakononomics) critique of broken windows policing

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2006/03/thoughts_on_fre.html (Links to an external site.)

Patricia J. Williams, “It’s Time to End Broken Windows Policing.” The Nation, January 2014. http://www.thenation.com/article/177842/its-time-end-broken-windows-policing (Links to an external site.)

Zeeshan Aleem, “Behind the Policy that Put Eric Garner in a Fatal Chokehold for Selling Cigarettes.” Mic, December 2014. http://mic.com/articles/106460/behind-the-racist-police-theory-that-led-to-the-death-of-eric-garner (Links to an external site.)

Bouie, Jamelle. 2014. "Broken Windows Policing Kills People: Senseless Deaths are a Predictable Result of Cracking Down on Minor Offenses."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/08/broken_windows_policing_deaths_racism_in_chokeholds_arrests_and_convictions.html (Links to an external site.)

On race relations:

Mills, Charles (2007) “White ignorance,” in Race and epitstemologies of ignorance, edited by Shannon Sullivan and Nancy Tuana, New York: State University of New York Press.

Ta-Nehesi Coates, “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic, June 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ (Links to an external site.)

Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.http://newjimcrow.com/about (Links to an external site.)

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America.

Powell, J. A. (2012). “Chapter 1: Post-racialism or targeted universalism?”, Racing to justice: Transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an inclusive society. Indiana University Press