What a great read. I move to Chicago in August to start my MPP at the University of Chicago. The last ward has become my go to for getting up to speed on Chicago politics and policy. Looking forward to reading more and seeing more of the Chicago Policy Center
Pull-based funding sounds great in theory, but the challenge in cities like Chicago isn’t just execution,it’s political courage. Most of these systems are set up to reward process, not outcomes, because process is easier to defend. That’s why we get $800K-per-unit housing and billion-dollar-per-mile transit lines. The incentive is to not build fast or cheap, because that threatens the layers of bureaucracy, consultants, and unions feeding off the system.
So yes, abundance is the right lens. But applying it here means being willing to piss people off,aldermen who want veto power, nonprofits who want upfront checks, transit planners who get away with zero accountability. The bigger question is: who in local government is actually willing to confront that trade-off?
"Chicago is highly dependent on state action." Probably the shortest and most realistic reason Chicago hasn't move forward in decades - in addition to continually add on to its debt. Johnson is short on state friendships - but this goes back to multiple mayors of the past. The ideas listed are good ideas, not easy, but could form a good foundation to make change
Given the public's lack of trust in institutional organizations and all levels of government, it makes total sense to focus on outcomes rather than outputs.
For instance, in 2009, the HEARTH Act required all communities to implement a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) that would provide the capacity to collect unduplicated counts of individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness. From there, we could trace which combination of services produced the best outcomes in terms of getting people housed within a specified period. This would enable us to reward programs that produce excellent outcomes with additional funding and identify social services that deliver poor outcomes, thereby requiring the use of best practices to improve their results. The problem was that there was no requirement to analyze the data. In essence, we're collecting data and not using it to help us improve outcomes.
What a great read. I move to Chicago in August to start my MPP at the University of Chicago. The last ward has become my go to for getting up to speed on Chicago politics and policy. Looking forward to reading more and seeing more of the Chicago Policy Center
Are there any abundance chapters we can open up in Chicago? I tried to find one but I was unable to see anything,.
Pull-based funding sounds great in theory, but the challenge in cities like Chicago isn’t just execution,it’s political courage. Most of these systems are set up to reward process, not outcomes, because process is easier to defend. That’s why we get $800K-per-unit housing and billion-dollar-per-mile transit lines. The incentive is to not build fast or cheap, because that threatens the layers of bureaucracy, consultants, and unions feeding off the system.
So yes, abundance is the right lens. But applying it here means being willing to piss people off,aldermen who want veto power, nonprofits who want upfront checks, transit planners who get away with zero accountability. The bigger question is: who in local government is actually willing to confront that trade-off?
Great write up. That quote from Johnson about funding vs grading is exactly why he is a failure as a mayor.
"Chicago is highly dependent on state action." Probably the shortest and most realistic reason Chicago hasn't move forward in decades - in addition to continually add on to its debt. Johnson is short on state friendships - but this goes back to multiple mayors of the past. The ideas listed are good ideas, not easy, but could form a good foundation to make change
Given the public's lack of trust in institutional organizations and all levels of government, it makes total sense to focus on outcomes rather than outputs.
For instance, in 2009, the HEARTH Act required all communities to implement a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) that would provide the capacity to collect unduplicated counts of individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness. From there, we could trace which combination of services produced the best outcomes in terms of getting people housed within a specified period. This would enable us to reward programs that produce excellent outcomes with additional funding and identify social services that deliver poor outcomes, thereby requiring the use of best practices to improve their results. The problem was that there was no requirement to analyze the data. In essence, we're collecting data and not using it to help us improve outcomes.