As the pandemic wanes: What can we learn about the response of Wisconsin's local governments to the COVID-19 outbreak
In the Spring of 2020, municipal governments across Wisconsin faced the difficult challenge of responding to a global pandemic. Information was limited. The guidance that did exist changed quickly. Messaging from the state and federal government was inconsistent, and often, was a function of partisan political and judicial debates as opposed to objective science.
So what steps did local governments take in response to the COVID-19 disruption? More importantly, what can be learned from what worked, and what did not?
To answer these questions, we surveyed 38 Wisconsin municipal managers, and conducted seven in-depth interviews with a diverse cross-section of local government leaders. We purposely focused on city managers and village administrators because they are hired by legislative bodies, as opposed to being elected by the public. This council-manager form of government is meant to insulate day-to-day operations from politics.
COVID-19 tracker: Keep track of the coronavirus and the vaccine in Wisconsin
More: Number of people hospitalized in Wisconsin with COVID-19 continues to drop to new lows
But the politicization of COVID-19 tested the ability of administrators to operate as apolitical actors. As one city manager aptly put it, “Everything I do is controversial.”
In general, municipal managers felt unprepared to handle the specifics of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one interviewee, “Things were changing so fast, I was working 12 to 16 hours a day.”
Another stated, “I felt prepared on the specifics of emergency management, but did not have good information on how to deal with COVID specifically.”
The general tone of all responses was summed up by another respondent who stated, “Nobody could have been prepared for this. I had capable staff, a supportive board, but I did not know what I did not know.”
The lack of preparation is understandable. Local governments, like the entire world, were dealing with a public health crisis not seen in our lifetime. That does not mean municipal managers did nothing. Most respondents (71.1%) reported restricting access to public buildings and moving municipal meetings online. Locally imposed occupancy limits on private business (5.3% of respondents) and public mask mandates (23.7% of respondents) were much less prevalent.
A significant number of respondents (39.5%) created public information campaigns. However, those communications were primarily aimed at passing on information produced by other entities, like county health departments and state and federal authorities, to local residents.
The situation became more challenging as politics and misinformation complicated local efforts. One city manager told us, “I had the trust of everyone in the early months (but) that became harder to maintain during the second year of the pandemic.”
When pressed as to why managing the pandemic became more difficult over time, one respondent blamed mixed messaging from the state: “The sudden lifting of the Safer at Home Order destroyed the credibility of the state government on COVID.”
Another told us “Watching the inaction in the legislature made it clear to me that we were on our own.”
Overall, about 50 percent of survey respondents felt the state’s response was somewhat or very poor. Only 31 percent felt the response was somewhat or very good.
Our results also highlight why some local governments fared better than others during COVID-19. Professional managers who had good preexisting systems of communication with their county health departments and state legislators reported less confusion.
Similarly, municipalities with established and consistent means of communication with residents were able to get ahead of COVID misinformation. Finally, managers who deliberately shielded their governing boards from COVID politics, and those with a clear articulation of their core goal (ensuring essential services were not disrupted, for example) were able to act more proactively and limit conflict.
Despite pockets of success, the overall government response to COVID-19 in Wisconsin left much to be desired. Some of the challenges were unavoidable given the uniqueness of the crisis, but many were a result of governance failures. Thankfully, there are steps Wisconsin governments can take to address these failures before the next crisis.
First, there is a need to clarify, in statute and ordinance, what levels of government are in charge of specific aspects of public health. Litigating public health roles in the midst of the COVID crisis eroded public trust.
Second, both state and local government need to develop communications systems that align with how residents actually consume information. Factual reports and messaging from government channels should be equally as accessible as unofficial communications from unsubstantiated sources.
Third, the authority to make public health policy decisions should be vested in governments with public health competencies (Public health mandates, for example, should come from governments with health departments).
Finally, every local government should develop a detailed public health crises plan articulating their scope of authority and overarching goals during an emergency period. This plan should be reviewed and updated at regular intervals. Far too many municipalities faced COVID-19 with plans that were outdated, unclear, unknown to the public, or simply non-existent.
Nobody could have predicted the length and severity of the COVID-19 crisis. Nonetheless, it is imperative that we learn from our collective missteps so they do not happen again.
Michael R. Ford is an associate professor of public administration and director of the Whitburn Center for Governance and Policy Research at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Samantha J. Larson is an assistant professor of public administration and deputy director of the Whitburn Center.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Lessons learned from Wisconsin local governments response to COVID-19
