Thank you for the thoughtful reply. The results of change agents and innovation itself, is so often romanticized but we know better. As you describe it is a difficult and arduous process that is risky on many fronts.
Thanks for your continued support, interest, and excitement!
Ray, Great follow-on article to your first post about the NJ Gun Crime Initiative. I appreciate the shout out, but I think I share your concern that replicating the NJ experience doesn’t start at the success story that it has become. Having been engaged in these efforts on a peripheral and support side since about 2007, there are realities that need to be recognized. The success is the result of numerous failures, sunk costs, which in government is rarely acknowledged because it means you admitted that your investment didn’t produce the intended result and the development of “rhino hide” that diverted most of the knives and arrows that came our way when “stuff” didn’t work. Since “critical observers” permeate bureaucracies, abandoning a program that failed usually means that you will not get a chance to implement another, either out of fear of more criticism, or lack of support. I could list “ad nauseum” the many attempts we made to get it right, but we both benefited from leadership that ignored all of those who sat back and pointed out the missteps and trusted us to try again. I am glad you called out some of them. I was just lucky enough to have access to dollars and the support of partners and leadership that allowed me to continue investing in the initiative. Too many to name, but my partner Rachel Tkatch always found an allowable way to invest, the UASI Executive Committee led By Scott DiGiralomo backed us up, OHSP’s Dep Director Gerry McAlear pushed the correlation between terrorism and the proliferation of criminal guns on the street and you can’t forget Tom O’Reilly’s leadership umbrella that we all benefited from.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. The results of change agents and innovation itself, is so often romanticized but we know better. As you describe it is a difficult and arduous process that is risky on many fronts.
Thanks for your continued support, interest, and excitement!
Ray, Great follow-on article to your first post about the NJ Gun Crime Initiative. I appreciate the shout out, but I think I share your concern that replicating the NJ experience doesn’t start at the success story that it has become. Having been engaged in these efforts on a peripheral and support side since about 2007, there are realities that need to be recognized. The success is the result of numerous failures, sunk costs, which in government is rarely acknowledged because it means you admitted that your investment didn’t produce the intended result and the development of “rhino hide” that diverted most of the knives and arrows that came our way when “stuff” didn’t work. Since “critical observers” permeate bureaucracies, abandoning a program that failed usually means that you will not get a chance to implement another, either out of fear of more criticism, or lack of support. I could list “ad nauseum” the many attempts we made to get it right, but we both benefited from leadership that ignored all of those who sat back and pointed out the missteps and trusted us to try again. I am glad you called out some of them. I was just lucky enough to have access to dollars and the support of partners and leadership that allowed me to continue investing in the initiative. Too many to name, but my partner Rachel Tkatch always found an allowable way to invest, the UASI Executive Committee led By Scott DiGiralomo backed us up, OHSP’s Dep Director Gerry McAlear pushed the correlation between terrorism and the proliferation of criminal guns on the street and you can’t forget Tom O’Reilly’s leadership umbrella that we all benefited from.