The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.a. Goals and Leadership DevelopmentSmall Group Goal Selection 4ROSEMOUNT YOUTH COMMISSION Within the City Council Goals to Grow, Live and Manage Rosemount, the Youth Commission establish the following as their 2014 -2015 goals GROW Increase Youth job opportunities • Support new and existing business work opportunities to gain experience • Promote Youth volunteerism to build skills Increase Sport/ Recreational opportunities and facilities • Support a Rosemount YMCA facility • Support indoor sports /pool facilities LIVE Increase Youth Commission community presence Maintain current RAAC Partnership Events Identify new partnership opportunities increase recreational, sporting and cultural events Increase connection to Rosemount Neighborhood Family Resource Center — and other similar organizations Increase Youth gathering locations and activities • Support Central Park improvements MANAGE Increase Youth Participation in Political Structures Identify and partner with Rosemount High School student organizations Promote recruitment of younger citizens to the Youth Commission Exploring Innovation in City Government ❖ Reducing cost /increasing organizational efficiency © •3 Improving quality of service a� = E ; • :• Ability of new approach to address existing community need = co ' ' •`• Finding solutions to long - lasting problems •:• 2 cm ; ; ❖ Fulfilling the vision of elected officials * :• � a ; ; ❖ Increasing civic engagement C4 ❖ Responding to pressure from community members ❖ Civic opposition ., ------ - ,- - -- ❖ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you have leadership support? c F • :• What is the city trying to institutionalize? CQ; eo I •:• I Why is it trying to institutionalize it? Have you;developed a framing and ❖ I Qualified or skilled personnel communications strategy?'. o, ; ; ❖ Does the city have a common language to talk'about-i7 nnovation and metrics? ❖ What funding/budget is available to support these. efforts? Is it ongoing? 0 infrastructure + Are there models that other cities are using that can be replicated or adapted? = ea ' I--------------------------------------------------------------------------- I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ❖ Should the initiative be housed in the Mayor's Office? c Data Smart City Solutions: f •� How should stakeholders be incorporated into the model? -� y E I o• How should the initiative allow other agencies to provide an active voice.? httr)://www.livinqcities.org/blog/ ❖ How should benchmarking and measurement be organize -d? I ❖ National Resource Network: •:• What unique skill -set does the initiative need? Do those skilk currently exist in the city today? If not, how can the city organize them? cc ; ; •:• How can - duplicative efforts be streamlined and existing initiatives leveraged? v Better, Faster, Cheaper: ❖ How to continuously support complementary work through multiple agencies? y •.• How will successful efforts be replicated and adapted throughout agencies? _ businessof govern ment.org - - - How will unsuccessful efforts be reworked, phased out and /or reintroduced? CV , ❖ How will these approaches. be transitioned from one administration to the next; how will they be codified? == - - - - - - -� ------------------------------------------_---------------------------------- a • :- Funds and financing •:• Legal requirements * :• Employee time to implement new •:• Lack of employee engagement C4 approach ❖ Civic opposition — I :• Capability to customize solutions for my •:• Complex administrative /approval city /county procedures o- o ❖ I Qualified or skilled personnel ❖ Inadequate technological infrastructure ------'I-------------------- ❖ Data Smart City Solutions: • :• ----------------------------- Living Cities: ti I ' datasmart.ash.harvard.edu httr)://www.livinqcities.org/blog/ Ca I ❖ National Resource Network: ❖ California Civic Innovation Project: nationalresourcenetwork.org http : / /ccip.newamerica.net CD +© i ; • :• Better, Faster, Cheaper: •:• IBM Center, Business of Government '------------ http: / /vvww.goverr in-g.com /blogs /bfc - businessof govern ment.org - - - - - -' - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - _ Concepts adapted from The Case for Strengthening Personal Networks in California Local Government, Understanding loco. i s E e� 1 I F i � 1 a, E a a, aE ' W E I I I I E as � � I E Lie o C 'C Cd a� ,4 , I � I I , i I , ee 3 ' C am , , 4 I E � 4 I c� , I I 1 i Innovation Tvaologies Chafacteristics - -- I ----------------------- Mayoral support ❖ Clear unit mandate ❖ Support serial innovation: Structural, cultural change that strives for continuous, incremental innovations a�a a;. Creative capacity within existing workforce, including education and skills training Political cover /safe space for public employees to innovate Lower organizational hierarchy Supportive of continuous incremental improvements Focus on outcomes, not process, to improve service quality Prioritize what to do with data over what to measure Align data and evaluation tools with strategic goals Unite diverse actors around common goals (networks and leveraged funding) Cultivate pipeline to encourage innovation within and outside government Move innovations from pilot to mainstream Incubate local innovation through skills training and networking Operational change (government and clients) Increase competition for service provision Communication and education Decrease administrative burden on providers Stakeholders are engaged, in conversation and action --------------------------- ------------------- Challenges Examples ga a;a aya Cooperation of relevant departments across City Hall Team capacity Balanced collaborative partnerships Transferability of solutions and technology Cooperation of middle managers Education and communication efforts for all employees (including managers) Rationalization of work processes and utilization of lean practices for standardization Additional measures required to ensure the quality of service increases along with efficiency Adoption of best practices can crowd out risk tolerance necessary for developing future innovations Current measurements cannot account for new kinds of outputs created by innovative processes Adaptive metrics to account for implementation dips and Local innovators outside government unfamiliar with navigating bureaucracy Complex management process Diverse stakeholders with potentially conflicting goals High political cost of breaking status quo - existing service providers can be powerful constituent groups Requires regulations, procedures, convention to be changed or created Citizens /clients typically have little choice among public service provider, even if unsatisfied ❖ Offices of Innovation ❖ Bloomberg ❖ Innovation Delivery Team ❖ (Boston) Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics ❖ Denver Peak Academy •:• Alliance for Innovation (AZ) • :• addresses skill gap in local government by matching with skilled employees of other municipalities ❖ Baltimore CitiStat ❖ NYPD CompStat ❖ SomerStat (Somerville, MA) ❖ Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships • :• Boston GreenLight Fund • :• Teach for America and City Year • :• NYC Center for Economic Opportunity • :• Participatory budgeting • :• Open data legislation NYC Operations cure period review