Budget Cuts: Why Fire Departments and Police Departments Need to Change the Question

Note: This post originally appeared on my Optimize Business Results blog on May 29, 2011.

As city, county, and state budgets are being discussed and finalized around the country, one thing is clear: those who allocate resources are asking the wrong questions. As a result, recipients of government services are being short-changed because resources are being misallocated.

During city/county/state budget negotiations, the primary questions generally are:

1. How much must we cut so that our city/county/state has a balanced budget?
2. How much must each agency cut so we can achieve this outcome?

The problem is that these are the wrong questions. Instead of focusing on money, politicians and administrators need to begin with the end in mind – i.e., the services to be provided. Here are the questions they should be asking instead:

1. Is this service something that (city/county/state) government should provide?
(If it is not, stop it!)
2. If it is, what level of service do we (decision-makers) choose to provide?
3. What is the best way to provide this service?
4. How much are people willing to pay for it?

Using public safety (i.e., fire departments and police departments) as an example, here are the questions decision-makers should be asking:

1. Should the government provide public safety services?
2. What level of public safety do decision-makers choose to provide?
3. What is the best way to provide this service?
4. How much are people willing to pay for it?

When the conversation is all about cutting the budget, then guess what becomes the #1 priority? (You are correct if you said “cutting the budget.”) Focusing on cutting the budget can lead to dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., proportional sharing) and outcomes (e.g., ineffective resource allocation). (Elsewhere I explained why the tactic of proportional sharing as a budget cutting tactic is an ineffective way to allocate resources.) As a result, the public loses. In terms of public safety, for example, there may be fewer fire fighters, emergency medical personnel, and police officers available to respond to calls. Fewer civilian staff as well as outdated equipment and infrastructure also are consequences of cuts to public safety budgets. Together these results mean longer response times in situations in which seconds or minutes matter. Are longer response times okay with the public? If so, then there’s no need to change the question. But if public safety has taken a hit because of misdirected questions and stakeholders are not okay with longer response times, then it’s time to insist that decision-makers stop asking and answering the wrong questions.

The bottom line: if you want different answers, you have to change the questions you ask. If the public is at greater risk due to budget cuts and the heads of fire departments and police departments are not okay with that, it’s time for them to re-direct the conversation by changing the questions. While re-focusing the discussion won’t change the reality of scarce resources, it can ensure a much more effective resource allocation process.

What are you waiting for?

© 2012 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.