Non-Partisan
Analysis in a
Partisan World
By Elizabeth G. Hill, Legislative Analyst
Published in Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Spring 2003
I got hooked on policy analysis in 1972 when, instead of working my regular
summer job at a tomato-processing plant, I interned at the State of
California's Department of Transportation. My mentors were dedicated public
servants who wanted to deliver high-quality services and were willing to come
up with creative solutions to problems. Thirty years later I find myself having
spent more than a quarter of a century working for the California legislature
as a non-partisan fiscal and policy advisor—convinced more than ever that
policy analysis matters and that there are many ways to make a positive
difference in the public sector.
It became apparent during my internship days that to do the job I really wanted
to do in the field of policy analysis, I needed to develop my analytical and
communication skills. Policy schools were springing up across the country and I
enrolled in the University of California at Berkeley's Graduate School of
Public Policy (GSPP—now the Goldman School). By 1975, when I graduated, most
public sector employers were unfamiliar with the Master of Public Policy (MPP)
degree, most faculty's public sector experience was at the federal level, and
computers were not an integral part of our academic experience.
California's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) was established in 1941 as the
first non-partisan legislative fiscal office in the country. (The Congressional
Budget Office was established more than three decades later in the 1970s.) The
LAO is charged with analyzing the State of California's budget and making
recommendations to the legislature on ways state government can run more
efficiently and economically As an advice giver, the office is charged "to call
it as we see it" or as my mentor Aaron Wildavsky, dean of GSPP, might have put
it, the office has a mandate to "speak truth to power."
The LAO was willing to take a chance on me and my MPP training. When I joined
the office, California had a population of nearly 22 million and a general
fund budget of $10.5 billion. Now, in 2002, the state has a population of
35 million and a general fund budget of $76.7 billion. Likewise, the
range and complexity of the issues we must address have increased as a result
of factors such as greater population density and diversity, environmental
concerns, and new societal issues such as AIDS.
Not only have our size and the nature of our problems changed, the world of
policy analysis itself has changed, too. Granted, the original underlying
principles of our work—ensuring that public programs are effective and cost
efficient in achieving their objectives—remain our primary focus. However,
techniques in vogue then—cost-benefit analysis, systems analysis,
planning-programming-budgeting-systems (PPBS), and zero-based budgeting
(ZBB)—have either been supplemented by or have given way to such tools as
micro-simulation models and multi-equation regression techniques. From limited
use of mainframe computers and a reliance on desktop calculators, we have gone
to powerful personal computers on each desk. This has given our analytical team
the ability to gather, keep, and manipulate much more data than we could
before. The MPP degree is now one of the degrees of choice for our office's
hiring—with a premium on experienced analysts who can bring their judgment and
real-world knowledge to the table.
As I direct our office in its 61st year, it is useful to reflect on changes over
the last quarter century and how they have affected the policy world in which
we operate.
Ballot Box Budgeting
California's fiscal relationships with local government changed dramatically
in1978 with the passage of Proposition 13, which reduced local property
taxes by more than 50 percent and capped their growth in the future.
Legislative actions taken to assist local governments in coping with the
dramatic loss of revenue also made local governments more dependent on the
state budget process. In the area of education, for example, the proposition
effectively shifted program and funding responsibility from the local level to
the state. School boards lost their authority to raise revenue to meet such
spending commitments as salary increases for teachers. Proposition 13 was
followed in subsequent years by numerous other measures affecting the state
budget, including: indexing the personal income tax; eliminating the
inheritance tax; establishing a constitutional funding guarantee for schools
from kindergarten through the community colleges; establishing state and local
government appropriations limits; and earmarking tobacco tax revenues for
particular programs. These measures, while protecting various interests, have
had the unintended effect of complicating the budget process and making it less
understandable to the public. It has become increasingly difficult for citizens
to know which entity of government is responsible for a governmental program
and its funding.
New Client Orientation
Our client, the California legislature, has also been dramatically affected by a
1990 ballot measure imposing term limits. California's limits are lifetime bans
after serving a maximum of 6 years in the State Assembly and 8 years in the
State Senate. While term-limited members are dedicated public servants, we have
found that they need more basic information about state programs and finances
than did their predecessors—and they need it sooner. In addition, when a policy
or budget problem is identified, current legislators need more assistance in
identifying the actions that can be taken to address it. As a result, my
office's knowledge of state programs and the details and intricacies of the
state budget are more in demand.
At the same time, because of other factors, the political environment in which
we operate has become more partisan. This has had the effect of making it more
difficult to find consensus when addressing state budget problems. It has also
made it more difficult to have policy discussions because both sides tend to be
fixed on their own worldview.
A more partisan environment, however, can increase the importance of our
office's role as a neutral third party able to provide decisionmakers with
reliable information and advice. This has required establishing a trust
relationship as quickly as possible with our clients, knowing that, on average,
33 percent of the legislative members will turn over after
each 2-year election cycle.
As legislators grapple with issues involving federal, state, and local
governments, we have found it increasingly important to offer program
solutions. A solution-orientation requires extensive program knowledge,
political sophistication, and communication skills. It also involves taking
more risks. This is because more than one solution may follow from the
analysis, and certain solutions may be more acceptable to different
constituencies. After offering solution options in a range of policy areas,
ranging from welfare reform to health care to transportation funding, we have
found that the risks are worth taking and that our analysis has provided an
effective starting point for legislative deliberations.
Crowded Advice World
The increasing complexity of government and partisanship of the legislature have
resulted in a crowded advice world. Legislators now have personal aides, policy
committee consultants, fiscal committee consultants, party caucus staff, and
research staff. In addition, many non-legislative policy advice institutions
exist with a strong presence in Sacramento: business-supported entities (e.g.,
California Chamber of Commerce), tax policy groups (e.g., California Tax Reform
Association), and education groups (e.g., California Teachers' Association).
Given the plethora of sources of advice, not to mention the policy analysis
available from academia and national institutions, it is critical for us to be
familiar with a broad spectrum of perspectives in the advice world.
Think About The M Word
Given the crowded advice world, we have found that we have had to give
increasing attention to the M word—marketing. Not only have we tried to improve
the appearance of our products to make them more accessible to the reader—using
graphics, color, and professional design—but we have spent more time on
improving the coverage and attention our published products receive. As
analysts, we tend to react negatively to the notion of marketing, what with its
connotations of manipulation and advocacy. We have, however, learned to accept
the notion that the world is not going to beat a path to our analytical door.
As a result, we make it a priority to market our products through our Web site
and contacts with the capitol press corps.
Conclusion
Reflecting back over 25 years of public service, I believe passionately in the
power of policy analysis to make things better. Facts, analysis, and advice are
powerful forces in public decisionmaking. That said, it is important to
recognize the limitations of policy analysis. No basis exists for me, for
example, to advise the legislature on the "appropriate" level of
progressiveness in the state's income tax or to draw conclusions about
comparable redistribution issues. As a nonpartisan advisor, I cannot take a
position substituting my philosophical preferences for those of decisionmakers.
Despite the limitations, however, I see a bright future for policy analysts who
want to make a positive difference in the public sector.
This article represents the view of the author and does not reflect
the view of the Legislative Analyst’s Office.