Guest Comment: Using a better measuring stick for public policy

We live in a marvelous time filled with all sorts of super sophisticated high-technology methods for measuring and analyzing every kind of matter imaginable. A University of Arizona developed Mars Rover, now in flight, that is designed to measure soil chemistry on the red planet and provide its data to scientists around the globe.

However, when it comes to measuring public matters here on Earth — problems that engender so much divisiveness - we lack sophisticated tools to guide us in evaluating good or bad public policy. It takes discipline to agree on objective criteria for measuring success or failure before we spend public resources. A key issue is deciding upon criteria or “yardsticks” to measure a policy or program’s effectiveness.

On Aug. 30, a Government Accounting Office evaluation of the 18 benchmarks for success in Iraq stated that only three had been achieved to date.

The Bush administration immediately began challenging these benchmarks as setting too high a standard. Measuring sticks are democratic tools for settling disputes like “Are we winning in Iraq?” or “What are positives or negatives should be measured in constructing a permanent I-19 checkpoint just south of Green Valley?”

Putting it bluntly, the world’s most sophisticated nation — a technology and economic giant often ignores the need to adopt accountability criteria, without which there cannot be public agreement on how to measure and evaluate our government policies, programs and expenditures.

We are bombarded daily with opinions, arguments and a proliferation of passionate positions on complex subjects.

What’s missing is a debate on establishing more objective, measurable criteria: “Are we better off with Americans in or out of Iraq? And, what determines “winning in Iraq?” or making the best decision on a permanent I-19 checkpoint?

We need agreed upon criteria to guide rational decisions on these and other serious matters.

As taxpaying citizens, we should be entitled to specific, calculable objectives requiring our input and approval. Not too many years ago “think tanks” were revered as impartial sources of such policy analysis. They developed measuring sticks we could all understand. Unfortunately, now there are think tanks doing the bidding for every interest group imaginable.

Citizens now depend largely upon battling interest groups or news media to sort through and filter out (“spin”) to evaluation public issues. How can we function as an informed public when issues are framed by those in power, vested interests or pure self-interest?

To decide on measurable criteria for evaluating public policies and programs, citizens of all political persuasions could be involved if we had an Arizona Policy Research Council. Such an institution - possibly affiliated with a public university - could utilize the best and brightest graduate students along with appointed “fellows” of retired professors to form a considerable “brain trust.”

Other potential “fellows” are former elected officials who know both the practical and political issues which guide policymakers.

This body would be responsible for public dissemination and discussions of measuring criteria and its use to evaluate public policies affecting our state as well as major issues in local areas. To elevate the quality of public decision-making here in our state a catalyst is needed to re-engage a cynical and apathetic citizenry.

Minimally, a citizens’ policy research council could be a source to assist news media and engage the general public in evaluations of policy effectiveness, success or failure. This type of institution can help sponsor and drive policy debates to higher ground. It is possible to have public policy assessments held to a higher standard? I am encouraged by a study reported in Atlantic magazine this past February. It reports that in the past 20 years, Arizona has had the highest increase (16 percent) of independent voters among all states allowing such registration.

Arizona independents have mushroomed from 11 percent to 27 percent of registered voters in the last two decades.

As the number of independent voting citizens becomes a larger portion of the electorate, there is hope for more rational policy evaluation and participation in public problem solving.

By adhering to evaluation criteria, there will be more emphasis on crafting cost-effective public policies and less partisan-driven rankling and stalemate.

The result could be a breath of fresh air to a turned-off electorate; an antidote to public disillusionment with government policymaking; and support for new measures of public accountability.

Ronald Brill of Green Valley formerly directed public policy research and analysis in California. He directed citizen task forces for the non-profit, business sponsored San Francisco Bay Area Council He has served as an officer and board member of a regional taxpayers’ association and taught university graduate courses for government managers. He may be contacted at (520) 398-5081 or by e-mail, rbrill3@cox.net. The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily this newspaper’s.