Adventures in Bureacracy

My effort to trade in my New York driver's license for a DC one at the old downtown DMV location two years ago was such a horrific experience that I became demoralized and gave up. But this morning at the District's new Southwest Service Center was a surprisingly painless experience — polite, efficient service in clean, welcoming conditions.

It's a reminder of a point I saw in a David Sirota column that I can't locate anymore, namely that the quality of these kind of services is kind of a big deal politically. When people who spend a lot of time thinking about politics and policy think of "government" we think of Social Security, the Department of Defense, Medicare, the giant agencies that account for the bulk of the federal budget. But when most people think of "government" they think of the agencies they're most likely to interact with personally — the Post Office, the DMV, the IRS form — and these things leave an impression. The argument "would you want your health care brought to you by the people who run the DMV" is a powerful argument to a citizen whose local DMV sucks (compare to: health care by the people who put a man on the Moon, invented the atom bomb and GPS, pilot nuclear submarines beneath arctic ice, etc). And yet the quality of these things varies enormously. The Southwest Service Center is fine, but a little inconvenient for most people. The Post Office closest to my house when I was growing up was terrible (maybe it's fine now) but the Post Office in Harvard Square was fantastic and the Post Office in Castine, Maine is actually kind of stunning, while the T Street Station in DC looks horrible but is actually well-run.

Given that it's fairly easy to look at examples of highly-functioning government "retail" offices and then look at what it would take (in terms of management strategies and resources) to bring other offices up to that standard, it makes a lot of sense for politicians interested in building support for further public investments in health care, education, child care, etc. to pay attention to this stuff. And it also makes sense to make the point that conservative politicians dedicated to the proposition that government can't work have a strong incentive to make sure that government doesn't work.

Photo by Flickr user Joelogon used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Last week I had to trudge down to my local New York State DMV office to renew my vehicle registration. I was prepared for an hours-long demoralizing ordeal that would leave me utterly broken in mind, body and spirit.

As I parked in front of the office, I noticed that my dashboard clock read 8:31. When I got back to my car, task completed and renewal in hand, the clock read 8:38. Seven minutes to complete what I thought would take hours!

Posted by Peter | November 2, 2007 11:00 AM

Well, the DMV in Old Wethersfield, CT, is enough to turn a pinko like me into an anarcho-capitalist.

Posted by Freddie | November 2, 2007 11:01 AM

Gee, government ought to be efficient and convenient, but it frequently isn't, so governments ought to look at their "management strategies and resources" to upgrade their services.

You know, governments have thought of that before.

Posted by ostap | November 2, 2007 11:11 AM

Yeah, in Chicago, where I spent 20 years, they figured this out long ago. When I moved there for college, I was astonished at the difference between the NY state DMV (interminable lines, total lack of communication) and the Illinois DMV (you zip right through). But then, at the Illinois DMV, there's always a big sign with a big picture of the Secretary of State, an elected official usually with designs on higher office. It's all one big advertisement for a high-ranking state politician. And why not? It works!

Posted by pdp | November 2, 2007 11:34 AM

This reminds me a of subject I was just researching for a client. In the newly chartered city of Sandy Springs, GA, the city council has outsourced city hall to a private contractor. Except for elected officials and public safety (police and fire), there are only 4 or 5 city employees, everyone else works for the contractor.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-14-city-hall_x.htm

The state estimated it would cost $50 million a year to run the city government, a contractor came in willing to run everything for $30 million a year. The jury is still out whether services are delivered more effectively than a traditional city government. If they aren't, the politicians who approved the deal will be out on their ear and their successors will have to start from scratch with civil servants.

If it does work out, there are a lot of cities (in Georgia and elsewhere) now waiting to see how the plan goes, who'd start laying off city employees and outsourcing city hall. Good government at 40% off (or 40% more government services with no tax increase) is an alluring pitch.

Posted by beowulf | November 2, 2007 11:37 AM

I got a deficiency notice from the IRS recently disallowing child and childcare deductiosn. I found that I had reversed digits on my son's social security number. I.e., my mistake, not theirs. The notice had a phone number in it so I called. Witin two minutes I was talking to a living human being, gave her the correct number, she corrected the record and the deficiency disappeared. Then the computer told her that the previous year I had made the same mistake and had paid the penalty. She fixed that too and said I'd get a $2K check in the mail within three weeks. I figured the notice had been a scam and the call center was in Nigeria. Or perhaps I had fallen through a wormhole into Bizarro world. But the check arrived as promised.

If only the IRS offered health insurance . . .

Posted by old guy | November 2, 2007 11:39 AM

Thanks Big Media Matt!

I've been making this sort of point for some time now (though not as eloquently as you -- which is why I'm merely post-doc David and you're Big Media Matt).

I wonder how, e.g., red-staters get such a bad opinion of Democrats: could it be because their examples of Democrats in office are "corrupt political machine in nearest big city"?

The thing is that IOKIYAR isn't always hypocrisy. The Dems. have an affirmative case to make that government can do some good things, so they have to be good at it in a way GOoPers do not.

Of course, this really is an argument for electing Dems. as GOoPers actually have every incentive to mess up in office (c.f. P.J. O'Rourke on the difference between Dems. and the GOP who believe "government is the cause of problems and get elected and prove it" -- quote approximate -- also c.f. the joke about going to a Christian doctor who says "don't worry, if you die, you're going to a better place" vs. a Jewish doctor who can't reassure you and hence who fights like heck to help you get better). But still ... Dems. do have a different case to make than GOoPers ... and frankly, many local Dem. machines aren't helping this case to be made.

We Dems. desparately need a house cleaning. At the very least, we can get a bunch of votes with some simple things -- like getting rid of the stupider liquor laws, etc.

Posted by DAS | November 2, 2007 11:47 AM

An important topic, and another reason why I wish Al Gore would run for President again. Remember that he got deep into the weeds of these issues with his Reinventing Government initiative during the Clinton years. President Al could do a lot to streamline and improve govt services--that's the way his mind works.

Posted by Karl Weber | November 2, 2007 11:57 AM

... and the people (DARPA IIRC) who invented the interwebs.

Posted by jason | November 2, 2007 12:17 PM

The DMV process here in DC is ridiculous. My girlfriend, former PG County resident, attempted to trade in her Maryland license for a DC license after she moved in with me and was turned back because she did not have an "original" copy of her birth certificate. She had a SS card, the signed copy of our lease, and her birth certificate, with her baby footprints on it and everything. The people at the DMV told her that this wasn't the "original" birth certificate and that she needed to obtain the original from the hospital where she was born. She was born in Topeka, Kansas at a hospital that no longer exists. When she finally found out where her records were held she was told that she had to come and get it in person. In the end she went back to Maryland and renewed her license. This is a totally fucked up system.

Posted by Paul | November 2, 2007 12:22 PM

Well, Paul, part of that was the problem with Kansas. I'm pretty sure I used my passport for proof-of-identity when getting a DC license, but I do have a copy of my birth certificate from the NY State department of records, and it arrived promptly after I mailed in a form and paid the required fee.

Which is another reason why you should always have a passport-- incontrovertible evidence of citizenship with a picture ID. No disputes over birth certificate records and social security numbers.

Posted by Tyro | November 2, 2007 12:33 PM

Wait - you mean that people use anecdotal evidence to make decisions which can impact their lives significantly, while ignoring statistics which actually give a bigger picture?

My suggestion: just like Banks have figured out – higher good looking young women. I have a feeling Republican men’s anti-government rants would quell a bit if they hired better looking DMV employees.

All kidding aside - I think one of the biggest problems with teh retail government agencies is their absolute lack of recognition that employee appearance (including how the employees dress) have been completely ignored. Subconsciously, we are just more respectful and patient and understanding of those whose appearance gives the message that you care.

Posted by Brad | November 2, 2007 12:36 PM

What's a DMV?

Maine handles routine registration renewals and license renewals on line, and new vehicle registrations at your local town hall.

Until I had a son go through the process of becoming a new driver, and getting a first photo ID, eye test, etc. I hadn't been in a DMV for years.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | November 2, 2007 12:41 PM

Ask any wrinkly about whether he or she wants his health insurance handled by Medicare and Social Security. With the possible exception of the privatized prescription drug benefit (socialism for the wealthy) the answer will be a resounding YES!

Posted by Etaoin Shrdlu | November 2, 2007 1:03 PM

I'd certainly be happy if my health care insurance worked as well as the New York State DMV.

It's certainly possible to do almost everything either online or on the phone, but in the event that you actually have to go to the office, either because you forgot to renew on time or you have to surrender plates or whatever, the experience is reasonably pleasant and efficient.

You go to the info booth, tell them what you want to do and they give you forms you need and a ticket. The ticket has an estimate of how long you have to wait, so if it's a busy day you can pop on over to the bagel place and have a snack. Then you simply sit on one of the benches, read your magazine and look up when you hear the "bong" indicating that the next ticket is being called. If it's your ticket, you go up and do your business.

I contrast this with the hellish, disorganized experiences I've had taking my wife to the ER. I realize the services provided aren't really analogous, still, most hospitals could learn a thing or two from the NYS DMV.

Posted by Chuchundra | November 2, 2007 1:05 PM

I find it funny that right-wing talkers like Rush and Boortz will still on occasion rail against the horrid inefficiencies of the US Postal Service. These guys are so rich that they probably haven't been to a post office in many years. But in the 90s the USPS underwent a major transformation. Every post office I've been to in the past 15 years or so has been clean, cheerful, well run, and efficient--more like a decent little retail chain store than an old-fashioned government office.

beowulf--I guess we'll have to wait for the verdict to come in on the Sandy Springs experiment, but I'm highly dubious. Privatization has never been shown to be cheaper than direct government operation. Privatized contracts are so ripe for abuse and favoritism, and so difficult to police that they're almost always a bad idea.

I seriously doubt that Sandy Springs will ever get rid of the contractor, though. All the contractor has to do is give some juicy contributions to the local elected officials and those officials will tap dance up, down, and sideways to cover for them. Whether the contract jumps up to 50 million or 60 million, or more, the politicians will assure the public that they are getting a good value for their money. And the public will largely be too busy focusing on other things to know any better.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 2, 2007 1:21 PM

So, according to Matt, big thinkers like himself see the big picture, but little thinkers like the average American draw hasty conclusions from bad experiences in government offices.

Which naturally makes me wonder why Matt initially gave up on getting a DC license when most of us would have stuck it out- because we can see the bigger picture.

Frankly, it's a stupid post. Most of us have a 20-minute contact with a government office once a year, and the usual reaction, well illustrated by the thread, is "Damn, this system works pretty well now that you have computers."

Americans get told they don't like government by lavishly funded propaganda organizations like the Brookings Institute, and Matt laps that stuff up like a cat at the milk bowl. More billions are spent keeping Tim Russert and Chris Matthews on the air, and I would certainly like to think the average Joe had something better to do than watch the "presidential debates".

People get angry when they have to wait a long time for a sullen clerk in a dirty office because they know exactly what is going on- a corrupt bureaucrat is giving jobs to friends who show up late and leave early. Conversely, amazingly criminal operations can be carried on by well-dressed polite people who see you promptly in spotless offices.

In fact, even a big thinker like Matt can get fooled by one of these well-dressed criminal gangs once on a while.

Posted by serial catowner | November 2, 2007 1:31 PM

"Given that it's fairly easy to look at examples of highly-functioning government "retail" offices and then look at what it would take (in terms of management strategies and resources) to bring other offices up to that standard,"

Not sure that "resources" is quite the right wornd there. "Incentives" might be better. But if you're supplying a monopoly service then it's pretty difficult to think of what those incentives might be.

Posted by Tim Worstall | November 2, 2007 2:00 PM

Some companies run well and others run horribly. Some govt programs run well and others run horribly.

The question is which programs survive and which don't. When you deal with a large company in a competitive industry, things are going to run (relatively) smoothly - you can pretty much bank on that. Dealing with govt agencies and monopolistic companies is more of a crapshoot.

I think the "public/private" dichotomy is a little distracting. The more important dichotomy is competitive vs. monopolistic. Some things that people want to "privatize" can't be done in a way that will lead to healthy competition, so privatizing is beside the point (and would actually make things worse).

When it's practical to let people compete to provide a service, though, we should. Because the quality of any organization is so dependent on the people, it seems like competition is a much better path (when available) than your idea of "applying good management principles," which I believe is a lot harder than it sounds/seems.

Posted by Holden | November 2, 2007 2:01 PM

Another example of Matt's fundamental dishonesty is his continued reference to increased spending as "investments."

As bad as the Lafferites? Every bit.

Posted by Thomas | November 2, 2007 2:48 PM

fundamental dishonesty is ... continued reference to increased spending as "investments."

Go away, "Thomas".

If the 'increased spending' is wasted, then it's corruption, or bad policy. If it isn't, it damn well *IS* an 'investment' in making things better...which is damn sure what *I* want my government to do.

"Thomas" starts from the knee-jerk assertion that government spending is always bad. This is a flat-out moronic assertion, commonly used by dishonest pricks or simple-minded idiots, that could just as easily (and inaccurately) be applied to 'increased spending' conducted by private businesses.

Posted by Captain Goto | November 2, 2007 3:09 PM

One of the most succesfull (the most?) PR efforts on the right has been to convince people that government agencies are inefficent and impossibel to deal with whiel private sector organizatiosn are great.

The DMV, Post Office, IRS, SS admin, Medicare etc are all head and shoulders above the private sector.

I recently bought a High Def Tivo and so turned in my cable box and had to get the cards from the cable company to make the Tivo work with their service. Sheesh, talk about a hassle, after 45 minutes waiting and 10 minutes arguing with the clerk I gave up on dealling with them sanely and bit the bullet on the $14.99 fee and 1 week wait to have a technician come to my house to simply insert 2 cards; and of course he failed to make them work correctly so I had to fix the set-up after he left anyway!

The next time some right winger spouts off on the DMV or the Post Office send them to their local Comcast office.

Posted by eric k | November 2, 2007 4:57 PM

The next time some right winger spouts off on the DMV or the Post Office send them to their local Comcast office...

I wish you luck.

The argument that everything private is better than anything public is fundamentally a theological one, and you can't refute a theology.

This is why in the old days they burned heretics, instead of debating them.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | November 2, 2007 5:01 PM

I've actually stuck up for the post office (in the Chicago suburbs anyway). Working in a small business, I have to deal personally with phone companies, electric companies, the post office, etc. - and the post office is by far the easiest to deal with. Even when I have a dispute, they were far more likely to fix the problem in one visit, versus multiple phone calls to cable companies or phone companies.

Last year, when I bought my neighbor's car and needed new license plates, I was dreading a trip to the DMV. But I was surprised that it took less than 15 minutes from getting in line to leaving. My uncle lost his license, and it took less than 10 minutes to replace it.

Does this mean that government does everything well? No, but a knee-jerk criticism of the public sector is unwarranted. Now, if you want to talk about the Chicago Transit Authorty....

Posted by KXB | November 2, 2007 5:29 PM

Well, that's not a defense at all, Goto. That's just misdirection and rhetoric. Government spending isn't always bad; much of it is necessary. It doesn't follow that it is an "investment."

Davis, who says that "everything" private is better than "anything" public? The standard assertion isn't even about whether the average quality is higher in private rather than in public. Rather, it's a preference in the design of the system for one kind of accountability rather than another, usually because of the perceived advantages in simplifying the assessment. I don't doubt that government-run liquor stores might do a good job of selling liquor, and I don't doubt that there are many awful privately-run liquor stores, but given the choice of designing the system for selling liquor, I'd go with a system of private stores.

Posted by Thomas | November 2, 2007 5:39 PM