Article | May 26, 2021
The pandemic has blown up entrepreneurs and start-up ecosystems, so government support for start-ups has become critical.
The majority of them faced cash shortages and a lack of venture capital. For start-ups, cash is the most pressing issue. Furthermore, start-ups experienced a slow fundraising process accompanied by investor indifference.
Furthermore, the global workforce was not left untouched by the spillover. Start-ups began to lay off employees and reduce pay. According to StartupGenome research, three out of every four employees were letting their employer down.
While 39% of them laid off 20% or more of their workforce, two-thirds admitted to laying off 60% or more of their full-time employees. In the United States, the economy experienced the sharpest decline in employment, with 20.5 million people losing their jobs.
Following that, in order to address this and reduce the pandemic's impact on start-ups, the governments of many countries have stepped in to save their country's start-up ecosystem.
We've listed a few of the government's initiatives to help start-ups during the current cash crunch.
Direct grants and zero-interest loans:
Right now, cash is the most important concern for new businesses. Grants are regarded as the most beneficial policy instrument (29%), followed by loans (12%).
Access to venture capital investment:
If history is any guide, venture capital activity will likely decline in 2020 as well. This creates a quandary for the 18% of start-ups that require access to financing tools to increase investment.
Employment support schemes:
COVID-19 has had an impact on workforces all over the world. The US lost a record 20.5 million jobs in April, the fastest and sharpest drop since the government began tracking the data. Given these circumstances, it's no surprise that 17 percent of start-ups rank immediate employee protection as one of their top priorities.
Read More
Government Business
Article | July 14, 2022
While congressional leaders work diligently to develop the next COVID recovery bill, other interesting legislation also is being discussed.
Many of the conversations focus on public funding options after COVID-19. There are no disagreements when it comes understanding the critical funding needs that will be front and center for cities, counties, states, schools, and hospitals as the country begins to emerge from a total focus on the coronavirus.
Many public projects and initiatives will have to be addressed. First of all, crumbling, inefficient and unsafe infrastructure, of all types, must be a priority. Secondly, jobs will be a critical component of the successful re-establishment of economic stability.
It is already apparent that a great deal of new funding will flow to long-standing federal programs. That’s a good thing because public officials already are aware of how those programs function. However, a number of new bills under discussion relate to the provision of additional and innovative ways for governmental entities to secure funding for projects that would stimulate the economy, create jobs, and address aging infrastructure. One particularly interesting new concept being evaluated is tax-exempt COVID recovery bonds.
The current discussions focus on a federal COVID recovery bonding program that would be launched with approximately $25 billion. A small number of states have already initiated programs such as this on a smaller scale.
The funding would be allocated to states based on population. From the governor’s office in each state, funding could be disbursed for projects of specific types.
If COVID recovery bonds become a reality, the program would provide another way for public entities to secure funding that does not come solely from public coffers. Individual private sector contractors, investors, and organizations would provide the funding and work collaboratively with public officials.
This program would be somewhat similar to private activity bonds which provide alternative funding for public initiatives. The new COVID recovery bonds would be tax exempt when used for permitted purposes such as financing airport, port, transportation, sewage, water, solid waste disposal, certain facilities, and other projects.
In the following weeks and months, taxpayers and citizens should watch with eager anticipation. Congressional actions will boost America’s economic recovery and stabilize governmental organizations throughout the country. Inaction is a possibility, too, but that would risk missing out on recovery opportunities.
Congressional representatives base their actions and their votes on input from constituents they represent. There are times when citizens, whatever their opinions, should provide input to elected representatives. This is one of those times.
Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., a business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S. Her recently released book, Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, is a handbook for contractors, investors and the public at large seeking to explore how public-private partnerships or joint ventures can help finance their infrastructure projects.
Read More
Government Business, Government Finance
Article | July 12, 2022
One of the challenges the government faced during the COVID-19 pandemic was keeping operations running. Certain advanced economies and developing nations' business continuity plans gave them an edge over their underdeveloped counterparts. But because of the pandemic, the national economy had suffered the pangs of unemployment to fuel the malicious intents of cyber-attackers, thus, protecting government assets that carried important economic information became a national priority.
National security and staying competitive with other economies worldwide are becoming increasingly crucial in elevating a country’s economy. Keeping all public-sector companies and federal agencies running efficiently is a foundational block for the economy. Companies in public administration, like the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as different ministries, public sector businesses, and more, need data protection from international cyber-threats. They use disruptive business strategies to make their operations more resilient.
Now, that we know the importance of business continuity in the context of federal government and agencies, let us understand what risks does business continuity management mitigate.
Business Continuity Management in Government Easily Mitigates:
Individuals rely on the government during economic crises and disasters. A crisis or a disaster can be a huge risk to the economy, which can bubble up to an irreversible loss if not handled on a timely basis. Mitigating the risks of crises such as natural disasters, cyber security compromises, power and communication outages, terrorism, wars and military activities, global financial crises and more has become crucial. These crises can cause the loss of physical assets, human safety, and infrastructure that hamper government operations. This is why having a BCM plan in place is the need of the hour.
The government must serve and meet the expectations of economic contributors. If there is a divergence or a timely action constraint, the government must maintain peace and harmony for the common good and economic well-being.
Government Continuity to Support Individuals and Public Organizations:
Resuming operations for public organizations and individuals quickly can be almost impossible without the intervention and support of the government. Government continuity is directly proportional to the level of trust, government reputation, and business resiliency. This is possible because the financial loss can be covered by insurance and financial help, as explained below.
Insurance Policy Claims and Coverage: Making it easy to claim insurance during and after the crisis helps individuals and organizations reclaim their finances, thereby restoring essential functions first and full-fledged functions later. Providing reimbursement of expenses and coverage for losses for public organizations and financial assistance for the public sector remains one of the top priorities as far as resuming business operations is concerned post-disaster. Making sure that the insurance can cover the expenses and losses incurred due to the disaster is a part of the business impact analysis (BIA).
Resiliency: Restoring public sector infrastructure in an operating condition, overcoming operational obstacles such as IT, power, and communication outages in a short span of time, and maintaining due vigilance to keep a check on national security builds business resiliency for the public sector.
Reputation and Recovery Management: Reducing the turn-around time to fix and restore normal operations after a disaster provides operational resiliency through recovery management. This keeps a check on the best interests of the economic contributors and enhances their trust and the government’s reputation in the long run.
Now that we understand the risks that a BCP can help mitigate and the role of government policies to support the economic contributors, let us understand how it improves the overall performance of a public organization.
Business Continuity Management for Better Performing Public Organizations:
The federal governments and public organizations have implemented an agile approach to bounce back from disasters, catastrophes, and crises using BCM. Because of this, the federal government is heavily invested into business continuity plans (BCPs) to improve how well their operations work and keep the economy and government stable.
The factors impacting the performance of public organizations using a BCM are as below:
Public organizations must know how BCM components influence performance in public sector organizations.
They must be aware of BCM and the successful implementation of effective BCM. However, some governments that do not invest in a BCM have a much lower level of awareness due to a lack of human resources, finance, and management.
They are allocating enough budget for disaster prevention, preparedness, management, and relief considering the government's initiatives. But not getting enough help from the government can make people unhappy, which can hurt the ruling party and lead to people protesting for their rights.
Even though there is no direct financial benefit or gain from investing in a BCM, BCM testing helps to improve performance significantly.
For governments to consider investing in the successful implementation of BCM and get funding for it, BCM professionals need to predict and evaluate the potential loss due to idle service time and its results.
Each government entity must identify the likelihood of risks, define the best rescue objectives, and indicate the most cost-effective clarification and knowledge about BCM.
Another challenge is using BCM in organizations that cut across several business groups or completing it with collective business-wide support.
These situations show that old management responsibility and regulation are useful for making sure that all members of an organization prefer BCM actions.
Recognizing the potential impacts of BCM on organizational performance is required in order to provide accurate value to the BCM powers, attract consideration, and, finally, obtain adequate assistance from senior management.
In the journey to optimizing the performance of your public sector company using BCM, there are many hurdles that you need to overcome. Let us discuss them further.
Challenges in Maintaining BCPs and Performance Growth in the Public Sector:
Maintaining a business continuity plan as per the recommended guidelines is crucial to optimize its performance and efficacy. Your public sector organization's BCP will need to overcome some of the challenges to enable their performance growth as follows:
Dedication of time from the top management of the public organizations, the ministry, and leaders towards deciding which functions are essential to maintain the BCP.
Lack of complete understanding of all the business functions and their dependencies on other public sector organizations.
Comparing the business functions on the level of criticality.
Not implementing the BCM approach completely.
Tweaking the BCM approach to show everything is taken care of
Inaccurate assumptions are used to create a business continuity plan.
Business Impact Analysis (BIA) - Determining how long a business process can be rendered inoperable without affecting performance.
The Business Continuity Plan (BCP) takes care of aspects such as:
Who will be affected by the business operations disruption?
How and when will customers be notified?
What issues are to be addressed in the first 48 hours?
From the initial response to restoration, unique access roles and functions are assigned.
Testing of BCP should be done regularly with the help of table-top exercises, walkthroughs, crisis communications, emergency enactments
The importance of a BCP cannot be undermined as it minimizes the cost of business disruptions on the operations of public organizations. Let us discuss them in-depth.
The Cost of Not Having a Crisis Plan like a BCP for All Sizes of Public Organizations:
Although the costs involved during times of crisis may be difficult to calculate, there may be significant infrastructure and data recovery charges that can have a long-term impact on business revenue. Monetary loss, revenue loss due to idle time, reputation loss, productivity loss are some of the consequences that small, medium, and large enterprises have to go through. The major losses among them are as under:
Loss of time and revenue for recovery and resuming operations.
The company's brand image and reputation are at stake.
Financial instability and loss
Productivity loss
Customer satisfaction is hampered.
Some laws and regulations are violated during idle time.
Distrust and loss of faith among investors
Employee safety is at risk with the consequences of injury and death.
Loss of infrastructure
A business continuity plan has four strategies to boost business resilience. These include crisis and risk management; disaster recovery; incident response management; and business continuity planning.
Acting quickly to mitigate the risks of loss as per incident response management during the event of distress is the first step. Crisis and risk management take care of the plan of action during the event of distress. The disaster recovery plan takes care of resuming the business operations to their normal condition after the disaster has subsided, whereas the business continuity plan takes care of all these aspects to minimize loss during distress as well as the time required to resume normal operations with the help of dedicated software.
Conclusion:
Performance optimization for public organizations is the number one priority for economic growth. A business continuity plan can directly boost performance as it encourages organizations to identify essential functions and maintain their operations during uncertain times. It helps save time, money, and safeguards people, processes, and technologies in the long run.
Read More
Government Business, Government Finance
Article | July 12, 2022
During the pandemic, the United States supported the WHO through collaborative operations. Let’s understand in detail below.
The United States government has historically supported WHO financially, through involvement in governance and diplomacy, and through collaborative operations. A new chapter in the U.S. relationship with WHO began in 2020, following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Trump administration ceased financial support and started the process to withdraw the country from membership.
Financial Support:
The United States has traditionally been the single largest donor to WHO, but in the 2020–2021 period it was the second largest as other donors, particularly Germany, increased their contributions. The U.S. dropped to third place. The United States contributed an anticipated $581 million to the WHO in 2021 as a result of restored funding from the Biden administration, which included both assessed and voluntary contributions.
The assessed contribution for the United States has been set at the maximum permitted rate of 22% of all assessed payments from member states for a number of years. The U.S. assessed contribution has been very consistent between FY 2014 and FY 2022, varying between $110 million and $123 million.
Increased U.S. support for particular WHO initiatives, such as emergency response, may be reflected in higher levels of voluntary contributions. Other WHO initiatives supported by U.S. voluntary donations include the fight against polio, maternal, infant, and child health initiatives, food safety initiatives, and regulatory monitoring of pharmaceuticals.
Governance Activities:
The United States has long been a prominent and involved member of the World Health Assembly, sending a sizable delegation that is typically headed by a delegate from the Department of Health and Human Services and includes representatives from numerous other U.S. agencies and departments.
Technical Support:
Government officials from the United States frequently act as liaisons at WHO regional offices and headquarters, collaborating daily with employees on technical initiatives.
Partnering Activities:
The United States has collaborated with WHO both before and during epidemic responses and other global health emergencies, notably by joining multinational teams that WHO organises to look into and address outbreaks all around the world. For instance, the US collaborated with WHO and the larger global response to the 2014-onset Ebola epidemic in West Africa, and US scientists were a part of the WHO mission that visited China in February 2020 to evaluate their COVID-19 response.
Read More