Function Follows Form: How Government Is Structured Has a Lot To Do With the Results It Delivers

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Andrew Kleine
May 8, 2026

“Form follows function” is a widely accepted design principle. From footwear to software, kitchen utensils to office furniture, the things we use in our daily lives are shaped by the purpose they serve and our desires for quality and convenience.

The reverse is also true and often more accurate: function follows form. Structures, systems and incentives constrain or liberate our decisions and behaviors and, ultimately, our outcomes. In local government, where purpose is broad, functions are fluid and priorities seem to change daily, form should be the utmost concern of leaders—yet it is clearly not. Cities and counties work hard to address the issues in front of them, often unaware that their governance models, budget practices and personnel policies make real progress nearly impossible. They look for and try showy policies, initiatives and technologies in hopes of solving their problems, all the while ignoring structural solutions or dismissing them as too theoretical, politically fraught or just plain hard.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest, and most profound, technology promising to transform city operations, elbowing “smart cities” data to the side. I am confident that no matter how whizbang AI turns out to be, it will not reach its full potential inside the confines of how local governments are currently constructed. We have seen this movie before. Traditional budgets cannot make room for needed investments, too many people have veto power, managers are risk averse, talent is boxed out by seniority and frontline workers have no reason to change.

Let’s focus on the budget process, my favorite subject. Traditional budgeting is beautifully designed to perpetuate status quo spending patterns. It starts by bringing the previous year’s budget forward, entitles departments to a base funding level and finds balance via across-the-board cuts that protect low-priority programs while punishing those that deliver value. Once passed, adjusting the budget for new realities or ideas is too cumbersome to bother with and departments have more incentive to spend money than save it.

Ninety-nine percent of mayors who say their budget is priority- or performance-based are deceiving themselves. Many cities and counties do report performance data alongside the budget but have not structurally changed how budget decisions are made. Budget reform requires dismantling and rebuilding the most durable bureaucratic edifice in city hall. It starts with allocating funding to outcomes instead of departments and asking departments to compete and collaborate for funding based on alignment with strategy. It invites competition from external organizations and gives employees and community members a louder voice. It also represents a makeover of the incentives that drive government. Department heads who historically measured their worth in terms of the size of their empire (and budget) are now being praised, promoted and publicized for contributing to better outcomes.

Incentives are often overlooked as a lever for improving government efficiency and results. There are examples of cities sharing productivity savings with employees, designing fee structures to promote recycling and regulatory compliance and making money-back guarantees to encourage timely service. Unfortunately, there are more examples of cities letting civil service rules, collective bargaining agreements and outdated ordinances get in the way of these kinds of innovations.

My friend Mark Funkhouser has argued that cities often succeed or fail not because of who governs them, but because of how their governance systems assign authority, responsibility and consequences. I have witnessed councils jealously hoarding budget authority or trying to claw it away from the executive, thereby diffusing fiscal accountability in a way that causes overspending, failure to face up to brutal facts and the inability to lead the community to a better future.

Changing the form of local government may seem to be a cause only Don Quixote could love, but it is not an impossible dream. Reform efforts flounder when they come across as ideological, so it is key to make them practical — about relatable problems, not windmills (come to think of it, they could be about windmills). The playbook goes something like this:

First, show how a flaw in the current government structure has caused or prevented solving a problem that people care about, such as lack of affordable housing or proliferating potholes.

Second, start with “soft form” changes, adjustments that the council or executive can make — maybe loosening procurement constraints or easing permit approvals. “Hard form” charter revisions can follow, after proof of concept.

Third, craft decision architecture around outcomes. This can include holding budget hearings about outcomes instead of departments or mandating periodic sunset reviews of programs to assess whether they still work and align with priorities.

Government has adopted design thinking in many ways. Libraries have evolved their layouts as books make way for digital media. Applying for permits has shifted from long lines to online systems. Pickleball courts have replaced tennis courts. Now, local leaders must take on the far more difficult task of redesigning government itself.

The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ernst & Young LLP or other members of the global EY organization.

---

Author: Andrew Kleine is a managing director for the Government & Public Sector at EY-Parthenon, Ernst & Young LLP. He is the author of City on the Line: How Baltimore Transformed Its Budget to Beat the Great Recession and Deliver Outcomes (Rowman & Littlefield, 2018). He has served as a county administrator and city budget director. His email is [email protected] and his X/Twitter handle is @awkleine.

 

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...