Posted on

Response to “The White House didn’t like my agency’s research. So it sent us to Missouri.”

I was sent “The White House didn’t like my agency’s research. So it sent us to Missouri.” an op-ed in the Washington Post, by someone I respect. Here were my thoughts in reply:

I think this is good (the actions of the Trump administration).

Above all else, this piece reeked of arrogance. If only we could all be so intelligent, so valuable, so noble as the kindly author.

I started working on machine learning tool that could ingest large amounts of data and use it to predict when and what farmers plant. Eventually, it could be the beginnings of a larger framework for integrating farmer behavior and economics into climate change research.

The last thing I want my tax dollars going towards is some data scientist working towards central planning of farming for his climate change agenda. As the CEO of Better Data, my official stance is that anyone who trys to wow you with the term “machine learning” is bullshitting you when what he really means is “overfitting my data set”.

I mean, is this comedy?

Because the publishing staff all left, dozens of reports on subjects from veterans’ diets to organic foods are delayed.

Oh, no! Won’t someone think of the…veterans’ diets studies?! And how can we live without the government studying organic food for us. Especially given their great track record. Can someone remind me if eggs are currently on the government’s “good” or “bad” list this year? How about red meat? It’s so hard to keep up.

I really resent this “oh I’m just a lowly public servant” shtick.

Contrary to the common talking points about cushy government jobs, we all knew that we could have gotten higher salaries in the private sector, faster advancement elsewhere in the government or more perks in academia.

Notice how he writes this. Private sector has higher salaries, but less job security; faster advancement elsewhere in government but less fulfilling work; more perks in academia, but have to deal with committees and grading. These are all trade-offs. The author and his colleagues have chosen to work at ERS instead of other opportunities, presumably because it was the best option available for each of them. You’re not acting out of charity, guy, this is your job. And one of the downsides of government work of course is your big boss can change every 4 years. And sometimes they’re brought into the job on a mandate to drain the swamp.

I laughed at the contrast of these two

Perdue insinuated that our research was politically motivated, telling reporters that the department needed to avoid past mistakes, in which it made decisions “based on political science rather than on sound science.”

My colleagues and I organized letter-writing campaigns, contacted our congressional representatives and voted to unionize.

How dare Perdue accuse us of being politically motivated! The author is going going to prove him wrong by…politically organizing. Oh.

Of course Perdue is politically motivated. But so is the author. All of us are. Personally, I’d be pleased if the ERS was shut down. If it’s going to exist, I think it and many other agencies should be relocated outside of DC. The DMV has the highest median income in the country. So long as that is the case, you’re going to have populists running on “drain the swamp / hang the elites” rhetoric. Whether or not those populist candidates like Trump are full of shit, the message is going to sell.

This article doesn’t change my mind on it at all. The author spends the whole article complaining about how he’ll have to relocate, and when he quits he gets a new job…in Philly, not DC.

Posted on

Non-Profit Measurement

For-profit companies have it so easy. Maximize revenue, minimize expenses. Make a profit.

There are important steps to making a profit. Develop a product that provides value. Identify customers. Sell customers on your product. Bring in talent and keep them happy.

But at the end of the day, your balance sheet tells you how you are doing. It is not so clear for a non-profit.

I have worked for a few non-profits now. Here is a sample of their mission statements:

…to inspire, educate, and connect future leaders with the economic, ethical, and legal principles of a free society.

…to educate, develop, and empower the next generation of leaders of liberty.

 …to ensure higher education becomes a place where classical liberal ideas are regularly taught, discussed, challenged, and developed, and where free speech, intellectual diversity, and open inquiry flourish.

If you are an organizational leader or a financial supporter, how do you know if a non-profit is successfully advancing such a mission?
This is where non-profit measurement comes in. 
Non-profit measurement is the attempt to measure an organization’s impact. This means attempting to answer questions such as: 
  • What does success look like? 
  • Is our organization moving us closer to success? 
  • How do we know? 
  • If we are working towards long-term results, what short-term indicators can reasonably suggest long-term success?
In my experience, effective measurement provides a common language and clear (if inexact) answers to these questions. These are guidelines to steer team members in making decisions that move the organization in a unified direction. 
If you wonder what I do for a living, I attempt to help the Institute for Humane Studies measure success and make better decisions towards furthering our vision.