State foresight is a key tool in planning for upcoming challenges

Ask high-level public officials how
much time they are able to spend
thinking about long-term issues, and the
answers often range from “none” to “a few
moments in the shower this morning.”

“The sense of the future is
behind all good politics.
Unless we have it, we give
nothing either wise
or decent to the world.”
— C.P. Snow

BY SUELLEN KEINER, DAVID REJESKI
AND CARLY WOBIG The Council of State Governments.org

The
future is simply too distant to command
much attention given the day-to-day
imperatives of government. As most people
in government and business know too
well, operational issues continually preempt
strategic thinking.

There are two fundamental problems
with avoiding long-term thinking and planning.
First, strategic thinking and action
takes time. History shows that many of our
significant public achievements in the past
did not fit neatly into one-year budget
cycles or the two- to- four-year political
cycles that normally shape government
actions. Building the interstate highways,
expanding the right to vote and securing
safe food and water have required decades
of work and cooperation by multiple parties,
plus effective intergovernmental planning
(a list of the 50 Greatest
Accomplishments of Government can be
found at: http://www.brookings.org/-
comm/reformwatch/rw02.htm).

By limiting
our planning and budgeting cycles to
short increments, we effectively make
some long-range goals both unachievable
and unthinkable. Rather than working on
“desirable” long-term goals, we focus constantly
on “doable” short-term actions.
Second, the world is simply moving too
fast and has become too interconnected to
tolerate myopic government.

If no public
institution is explicitly tasked to think longterm,
or if public agencies do not conduct
regular foresight exercises, the future can
surprise us in painful ways, and it will.
Without foresight, government is constantly
playing catch-up and is forced to adapt –
often poorly – to changes in technologies,
demographics or economic conditions,
rather than proactively shaping programs
that will produce better social, environmental
and economic outcomes.

These challenges are especially acute
for state and local agencies. On one hand,
they are expected to deliver great achievements;
on the other, they often lack the
resources needed to develop long-term
strategies. Our federalist system increasingly
requires better intergovernmental
foresight, not just transferring money from
federal agencies to state and local levels.
Beginning in 2001, the Foresight and
Governance Project at the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars
worked with the National Academy of
Public Administration and The Council
of State Governments to design and convene
a workshop to explore state and
regional foresight capacity.

The
workshop brought together over a dozen
practitioners who shared their
experiences in dealing with long-term
issues and grappled with the following
questions:

• What tools and analytical techniques
can we use to better understand
the future?

• How can we encourage policy-makers
to pay greater attention to long-term
issues?

• How can we better communicate with
the public and other constituencies
about future issues?

• How should we evaluate foresight
activities?

• What next steps can we take to
improve intergovernmental foresight?

The workshop participants identified the
tracking of key trends as a crucial foresight
function and discussed a variety of techniques
that could be applied to this task,
ranging from modeling to literature surveys.
According to Tom Covington,
Executive Director of the North Carolina
Progress Board, “Doers need information
about potential changes for their specific
communities; we use GIS and other graphics
to show decision-makers how conditions
will change in the future, as well as
financial projections about what future
trends will cost local agencies and taxpayers.”
Participants agreed that the process
of developing long-range plans is often
more important than the printed documents.
The planning process has other,
often overlooked, implications.

For
instance, Oregon found that management
training was needed to help state employees
learn how to implement the Oregon
Benchmarks by articulating goals, developing
strategies and choosing measures of
performance.

Getting the attention of the policy-makers
and alerting them to important information
is a considerable challenge, because
“there is a box of material dumped at their
door daily,” observed Michael Childress,
Director of the Kentucky Long-Term
Policy Research Center. Policy-makers
may reject reports and recommendations
that seem to be biased; so forecasters must
protect their credibility by presenting forecasts
or scenarios in neutral terms and
avoiding taking advocacy positions vis-àvis
issues.

However, recommendations that
are too general are not useful and will be
discarded immediately unless they can be
distilled to a few concrete facts.
Uncertainty plagues most foresight work
and can be dealt with by using scenarios or
presenting ranges for forecasts.

Workshop participants also shared best
practices for communicating with the
public. All agreed that forecasters have a
special role to educate the public about
upcoming challenges. Like policy-makers,
the public and the media need easily
understood explanations.

People
researching long-range issues need a
portfolio of approaches that can keep the
public engaged and the policy-makers
accountable. For example, Oregon’s
Benchmarks report publicly the grades of
Oregon agencies each year on progress
toward their goals.

Another panel addressed the hardest
question: how do forecasters know if they
are making a difference? The rewards of
long-term planning are usually not apparent
until years have passed, nor can immediate,
tangible results from strategic plans
be demonstrated. Utah has initiated
“Governor’s Awards” for quality growth
and uses the media to recognize award
winners. Utah’s planners use the number of
applicants for the award as an indicator of
the difference they are making.

Beyond the obvious trends, the events of
Sept. 11 demonstrated that all levels of
government need to be better prepared for
the unexpected. Deborah Spagnoli of the
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at the
White House spoke to the group about the
essential role of state and local governments
in combating terrorism and ensuring
homeland security.

She emphasized the
challenges to improve communication
among local and state governments in all
four priority areas for homeland security:
first responders, secure borders, bioterrorism
and information sharing. Randall Yim,
Director of the National Preparedness
Team at the General Accounting Office
pointed out that “when threats are so diffuse
and unstructured, ‘hyborgs’ (hybrid
organizations) like terrorist groups can be
more adaptable to change than standard
government agencies.”

At the end of the workshop participants
discussed the need for a State-Regional
Foresight Consortium that would bring
together and support public officials who
carry out strategic planning and long-range
policy analysis at state and multi-state levels.

The Foresight Consortium would
establish a “community of practice”
uniquely focused on building the capacity
of these government entities to identify and
plan for long-term challenges. The
Consortium would also build links to
appropriate federal entities and create a
national network to accomplish the following
goals:

• Build greater support for long-term
planning – Educate public officials,
opinion leaders, and citizens about the
value of long-term planning; show
how integrated foresight efforts can
result in improved policy-making;
share success stories; and explain how
long-term planning has helped communities,
states and regions deal successfully
with coming challenges.

• Highlight critical issues – Spot trends
and emerging issues by scanning key
information sources (government
studies, periodicals, research journals,
private and academic think tank
reports, etc.); collect and disseminate
reports by Consortium members; analyze
critical issues; and provide web
links to articles, studies, research
reports and/or contacts for additional
information.

• Disseminate foresight tools and best
practices – Build skills by sharing
information on successful tools, techniques,
and methodologies for
conducting long-range planning,
including models, geographic information
systems (GIS), public involvement
approaches, and emerging
forecasting methodologies.

• Identify and address common
research needs – Support Consortium
members as they work with
appropriate agencies and organizations
to research emerging and future
issues of common concern.

• Develop methods to evaluate longrange
planning – Assess the effectiveness
of long-range planning and
work to integrate these measures into
performance-based management of
public agencies.

For more information, please see:
http://www.globalforesight.org/statefore
sight.htm

— Suellen Keiner is the director of the
Center for the Economy and Environment
at the National Academy of Public
Administration. David Rejeski is the director
of the Foresight and Governance
Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center for
Scholars and Carly Wobig is the special
assistant to the director.

http://www.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/evn4hcrbaasmyp2auc77hwrxlhkyn6id6rghz3qoylxlri75y5jxspacatpuknl3355mr42pt5n2wmxlkjjbhercl3f/1002sgn_26.pdf