Introduction
This study project is set against the backdrop of the Portland Unrest, a sequence of protests in Portland, Oregon, from November 2016 to November 2017 and resuming in May 2020. A range of concerns, including immigrant rights, homelessness, racism, police accountability, and free speech, prompted the protests. They encompassed a diverse array of participants with varying levels of intensity, ranging from peaceful demonstrations to violent confrontations (Bratton, 2021; Wikipedia, 2020).
This study project aims to analyze these occurrences, assess the current public policy, implement suggestions to enhance public administration and investigate the interconnections among federal, state, and municipal authorities. This project entails using New Public Management (NPM) concepts, which involve utilizing private sector management ideas to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector organizations (Radnor et al., 2022). According to Professor Edward Westheim, the five core principles of NPM are Alertness, Agility, Adaptability, Alignment, and Accountability (Endeki & Minja, 2021).
Pre-Portland Unrest
Prior to the Portland Unrest, the city was undergoing a phase of comparative tranquility. Nevertheless, there were prominent underlying concerns, such as racial disparity, homelessness, and police responsibility, which contributed to a hostile ambiance (Bratton, 2021). These underlying societal difficulties were latent, poised for a catalyst to stir them. The demise of George Floyd in May 2020 served as the catalyst, triggering a surge of demonstrations throughout the United States, including Portland, where many individuals mobilized to advocate for police reform and racial parity (Cohen & Stevens, 2021). The protests expressed the public’s exasperation and yearning for transformation.
The presence of public policy and administrative difficulties was apparent prior to the disturbance. The primary concerns mainly revolved around the administration of societal matters, such as homelessness and racial disparity, alongside the behavior and responsibility of law enforcement entities (DHS, 2020). The failure to adequately tackle these problems worsened the discontent among the general population and added to the severity of the protests. The Portland Police Department has frequently proclaimed a state of riot in response to the recurring nightly violence, which had been happening before the escalation of federal presence in early July (Francis, 2022). Many people viewed this approach as insufficient and exacerbated the public’s dissatisfaction.
The interrelationships among federal, state, and municipal entities were intricate and frequently tense. Implementing federal law is not contingent upon invitation, and federal law enforcement agents do not necessitate local requests from communities to enforce federal law (DHS, 2020). Frequently, this resulted in clashes with regional and state officials, who had issued directives forbidding the Portland police from upholding laws that could effectively quell the violence (Novick & Pickett, 2022). These disagreements underscored the difficulties of synchronizing actions across several tiers of government. Furthermore, they emphasized the importance of unambiguous communication and cooperation while dealing with intricate matters of public policy.
During the Portland Unrest
Amidst the Portland Unrest, the city had a sequence of demonstrations that were first triggered by the demise of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The demonstrations in Portland have been conducted daily since May 28, 2020, and have attracted crowds exceeding 1,000 individuals. At the same time, most of the protests were nonviolent; a significant number of demonstrations escalated into riots, intense clashes with law enforcement, and the deployment of tear gas and other weaponry. There were multiple occurrences of deliberate fire-setting, theft, destruction of property, and physical harm during nocturnal demonstrations. Following a confrontation between demonstrators and individuals opposing their cause, one individual was fatally shot (Wikipedia, 2020).
The uprising prominently highlighted public policy and administrative matters. The Portland Police Bureau established an Incident Command Post for a record-breaking duration of 170 days, marking an unprecedented milestone in the city’s history. The protests arose as a reaction to a range of societal concerns, including racial disparity, homelessness, and the need for police accountability. The failure to adequately tackle these problems worsened the discontent among the general population and added to the severity of the protests (Novick & Pickett, 2022).
The government’s handling of the disturbance was subject to substantial criticism. At the beginning of July, the federal government dispatched law enforcement officers to Portland to safeguard federal property through civil disorder. The deployment faced criticism for its failure to identify officers clearly and for apprehending demonstrators who were not near federal property. This criticism was voiced by Portland’s mayor and the majority of the state’s congressional delegation. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Department justified the practice by emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the physical safety of its agents. Multiple lawsuits were initiated by journalists and legal observers against local and federal law enforcement, as well as by the state against various federal authorities (McCoy, 2022).
Applying the concepts of New Public Management (NPM), one might claim that the government’s response was deficient in Alertness since it did not foresee the magnitude of the protests and the resulting turmoil. The response also demonstrated a lack of adaptability, as the administration was sluggish in responding to the swiftly evolving situation. The government’s response displayed poor adaptability, as it could have consistently enhanced the quality of its programs and services in light of the turmoil. The government’s actions were not aligned with the people’s demands, as indicated by the extensive criticism of the government’s response. The government’s accountability was questioned when it failed to enhance its responsibility to the public interest (McCoy, 2022).
Post-Portland Unrest
Following the Portland Unrest, the city and its government devised and executed comprehensive strategies to reinstate tranquility and establish a sense of lawfulness. The Portland Police Bureau maintained an Incident Command Post for 170 days, an unparalleled event in the city’s history. The objective of this operation was to suggest recommendations for the Police Bureau to acquire knowledge from past experiences and enhance their performance. The categories examined encompassed the ramifications of the COVID pandemic, the political election cycle and its impacts, community interactions, hierarchical structure, strategic responses and application of force, equipment, training, constitutional rights, responsibility and openness, and officer fortitude (Jacobs, 2022).
Public policy and administrative difficulties remained a source of concern after the upheaval. The individuals whom federal law enforcement officials harmed during the summer of 2020 are still pursuing justice for infringing their constitutional rights. The prolonged riots led to significant harm inflicted against both demonstrators and law enforcement personnel. Although several demonstrators have faced criminal charges, federal law enforcement agencies have not been held accountable for any claimed misconduct (Jacobs, 2022).
The government’s response to the period of unrest was assessed based on New Public Management (NPM) principles. The response received criticism for its lack of vigilance, as it failed to foresee the magnitude of the protests and the resulting turmoil. The response also showed a need for more agility, as the administration demonstrated sluggishly adjusting to the swiftly evolving circumstances on the field. The government’s response demonstrated a need for adaptability, as it failed to consistently enhance the quality of its programs and services in light of the upheaval. The government’s actions were not aligned with the people’s demands, as indicated by the extensive criticism of the government’s response. The government’s accountability was scrutinized when it failed to enhance its responsibility towards the public interest (Bolduc, 2021).
Scenario A – Perspective of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
As an employee in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I observed that the Portland Unrest posed a multifaceted issue that necessitated a synchronized reaction from many federal, state, and local organizations. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was responsible for safeguarding federal property during civil unrest. Consequently, federal law enforcement officials were dispatched to Portland in early July 2020 (BBC, 2020). The action above faced criticism due to its failure to adequately identify officers and its apprehension of protestors not close to federal property. Consequently, this resulted in clashes with local and state authorities (Kidron et al).
The DHS employee would have been primarily focused on implementing federal legislation, safeguarding federal assets, and ensuring the well-being of federal personnel. Nevertheless, the employee would have needed to adeptly manage the intricate dynamics among federal, state, and local agencies and address the public’s view of the federal government’s involvement in the unrest (DHS, 2020). The DHS employee may have recognized multiple concerns regarding public policy and management. These factors may encompass the necessity for enhanced synchronization among federal, state, and local agencies, the requirement for transparent communication with the public on the responsibilities and operations of federal law enforcement, and the imperative for mechanisms to guarantee the responsibility of federal law enforcement personnel.
By utilizing the concepts of New Public Management (NPM), the DHS employee could propose various measures to enhance public policy and administration. These factors encompass various aspects of improving the Department of Homeland Security’s effectiveness. They involve enhancing Alertness by anticipating problems and changes in advance, increasing agility by being more open and communicative with the public and other agencies, improving adaptability by continuously assessing and enhancing the quality of DHS programs and services, ensuring alignment by effectively managing information and collaborating with other agencies to achieve social goals, and enhancing accountability by prioritizing the needs of the people and improving transparency to the public interest (Jacobs, 2022).
Scenario B – Perspective of the City of Portland’s Mayor and His Staff
Evaluation of the circumstances from the viewpoint of a delegate of the mayor of the City of Portland and his team Suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of public policy and administration assistant: As a representative of the City of Portland’s mayor and his team, I saw the Portland Unrest as a significant challenge that assessed the city’s capacity to handle extensive public demonstrations and tackle underlying societal problems. A range of societal concerns, including racial disparity, homelessness, and police responsibility, prompted the protests. The failure to adequately tackle these problems intensified the public’s discontent and added to the fervor of the protests (Bojang, 2020).
The representative would have prioritized upholding public order, safeguarding the rights of demonstrators, and addressing the underlying socioeconomic concerns that triggered the protests. Nevertheless, the representative would have needed to adeptly handle the intricate dynamics among local, state, and federal institutions while effectively managing the public’s impression of the city’s response to the upheaval (Bojang, 2020). Regarding public policy and administration, the representative may have recognized multiple concerns. These factors may encompass the necessity for enhanced collaboration among local, state, and federal entities, the requirement for transparent communication with the public regarding the city’s response to the turmoil, and the imperative for implementing steps to guarantee the responsibility of local law enforcement personnel.
By utilizing the concepts of New Public Management (NPM), the representative could propose various measures to enhance public policy and administration. These factors encompass the following: improving Alertness by anticipating problems and changes in advance, enhancing agility by being more open and communicative with the public and other agencies, improving adaptability by consistently evaluating and enhancing the quality of city programs and services, ensuring alignment by efficiently managing information and collaborating with other agencies to achieve social objectives, and enhancing accountability by prioritizing the needs of the people and improving transparency in serving the public interest (Bratton, 2021).
Conclusion
The study on the Portland Unrest yielded several significant discoveries. The turmoil ensued as a reaction to several societal concerns, including racial disparity, homelessness, and police responsibility. The failure to adequately tackle these problems worsened the public’s discontent and added to the severity of the protests (Wheeler). The government’s handling of the disturbance, at both the municipal and federal levels, received significant criticism for its deficiency in Alertness, agility, adaptability, alignment, and accountability (Stroińska, 2020).
New Public Management (NPM) tenets were crucial in assessing the government’s reaction to the social upheaval. The NPM principles of Alertness, Agility, Adaptability, Alignment, and Accountability served as a framework to evaluate the government’s actions and pinpoint areas that may be enhanced. Implementing these principles emphasized the necessity for enhanced foresight of issues, increased transparency in public communication, ongoing enhancement of programs and services, efficient handling of information, and enhanced responsibility towards the public welfare (Radnor et al., 2022).
Government, business, and society dynamics during the Portland Unrest were intricate and frequently tense. Implementing federal law is not contingent upon invitation, and federal law enforcement agents do not necessitate local requests from communities to enforce federal law (DHS, 2020). This frequently resulted in clashes with regional and state authorities, who had issued directives to the Portland police forbidding them from implementing legislation that could effectively quell the violence (DHS, 2020). These disputes emphasized the difficulties of synchronizing actions across several tiers of government. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of precise communication and cooperation while dealing with intricate matters of public policy.
To summarize, the Portland Unrest was a multifaceted occurrence that challenged the city’s capacity to handle extensive public demonstrations and tackle underlying socioeconomic problems. The government’s handling of the disturbance brought attention to several public policy and administration concerns. The principles of New Public Management served as a valuable framework for assessing the government’s activities and pinpointing areas that require enhancement.
References
Bojang, M. B. (2020). Beyond new public management paradigm: The public value paradigm and its implications for public sector managers. Journal of Public Value and Administrative Insight, 3(2), 1-10.
Bolduc, A. C. (2021). Suburban protest and social conflict: An analysis of social movement dynamics in four Boston area suburbs during the 2020 George Floyd protests (Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University).
Bratton, A. (2021). “What did you see? We didn’t see shit”: Dialectics of Protest and Resistance in Portland.
Cohen, M., & Stevens, J. (2021). A Nation Joins in Tears: Implications of the Domestic Deployment of Federal Troops in Portland, Oregon. NCCRL Rev., 1, 120.
Endeki, D. N., & Minja, D. (2021). Role of new public management practices in service delivery in the public sector: Case of the State Department of Public Works–Kenya. International Academic Journal of Arts and Humanities, 1(2), 188-209.
Francis, E. (2022). Anonymity, Technology, and Conflict in the 2020-21 Portland Protests (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon).
George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon. (2020, July 27). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Portland
Jacobs, P. (2022). Protests, the Press, and First Amendment Rights before and after the” Floyd Caselaw”. U. Pa. J. Const. L., 24, 591.
Kidron, Y. Portland Nightly Protests Changing Public Space, Property, and Protest During a Pandemic. In II International Conference on Night Studies (p. 80).
McCoy, A. (2022). After Floyd. The Baffler, (65), 72-81.
Myth vs. Fact: 50+ Nights of Violence, Chaos, and Anarchy in Portland, Oregon. (2020, July 27). Department of Homeland Security. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/07/27/myth-vs-fact-50-nights-violence-chaos-and-anarchy-portland-oregon
Novick, R., & Pickett, J. T. (2022). Black Lives Matter, Protest Policing, and Voter Support for Police Reform in Portland, Oregon. Race and Justice, 21533687221117281.
Radnor, Z., Osborne, S., & Glennon, R. (2022). Public management theory. In Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 43-56). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Stroińska, E. (2020). New public management as a tool for changes in public administration. Journal of Intercultural Management, 12(4), 1-28.
Wheeler, T., Hardesty, J. A., Mapps, M., Rubio, C., Ryan, D., & Caballero, M. H. (2020). Portland, Oregon. Population, 6.
write