1
MovingfromTheorytoPractice:AnEvaluativeAssessmentofSocialEquityApproaches
BrandiBlessett,Ph.D.,RutgersUniversity-CamdenMarcFudge,Ph.D.,CaliforniaStateUniversity–SanBernardino
TiaSherèeGaynor,Ph.D.,MaristCollege
June13,2017
Submittedto:CenterforAccountabilityandPerformanceNationalAcademyforPublicAdministration’sStandingPanelonSocialEquityinGovernanceTocitethisreport:Blessett,B.,Fudge,M.,&Gaynor,T.S.(2017).MovingfromTheorytoPractice:AnEvaluativeAssessmentofSocialEquityApproaches.SubmittedtoCenterforAccountabilityandPerformanceandNationalAcademyforPublicAdministration’sStandingPanelonSocialEquityinGovernance.
2
TableofContentsIntroduction...................................................................................................................................3
DefiningSocialEquity....................................................................................................................6
WhyWeMeasureSocialEquity..................................................................................................11
Theimportanceofmeasurement.............................................................................................14
Theimpactofpoormeasurement............................................................................................14MeaningfulSocialEquity.............................................................................................................19
Usingchoicepoints...................................................................................................................19
Criteriaforsocialequity............................................................................................................21ClassifyingApproachestotheMeasurementofSocialEquity...................................................24
ModelofSocialEquity..............................................................................................................25
Indicators..................................................................................................................................25Outcomeassessments..............................................................................................................32Frameworks..............................................................................................................................36
SocialEquityResources..………………………………………………………………………………………………..………42FutureConsiderations.................................................................................................................49
References....................................................................................................................................54
3
Introduction
Fornearlyhalfacentury,socialequityhasbeenviewedasanintegralcomponentof
publicadministration(PA)theoryandpractice.Althoughequality,atleastrhetorically,hasbeen
afoundationaltenetoftheUnitedStates’democraticsystem,itwasnotuntilthefirst
MinnowbrookConferencein1968whensocialequitywasintroducedasapillarandvalueof
publicadministration(Frederickson,2010).Sincethattime,therehasbeenanincreaseof
scholarlyresearchfocusedonexplainingsocialequityanditsimportance(Gooden,2014;GAO,
2011;Pitts,2011;Svara,Watt,&Takai,2014).WhilethepresenceofsocialequityinPA
literaturehasincreased,thereremainsaninconsistentunderstandingofwhatsocialequity
trulyencompasses,asawellasalong-termcommitmenttoaddressequityissuesinpractice.
Thelackofagenerallyaccepteddefinitionofsocialequitybecomesproblematicfor
practitionersandservesasachallengeforpublicadministrationasafield.Thischallengeis
exemplifiedinthefield’sseeminglyslowprogressiontoidentifymethodstoappropriately
measuresocialequity.
Manyorganizationsdonotpromoteequityasavalueformeaningfulconsiderationor
measurement,whichdecreasestheprofessionalimpetusofpractitionerstoacknowledge
equityissuesforunderservedpopulations.Publicinstitutionsandpublicadministratorsneedto
beawareofinequitiesandhowtheyareperpetuatedacrossdemographicgroupsinorderto
minimizeincidencesofdiscrimination,marginalization,anddisparity.Thedevelopmentofa
comprehensiveandinclusiveresponsefrompublicadministrationhelpstomovesthefield
beyondapassiveacknowledgementthatsocialequityisimportanttoaproactiveinvestmentin
infrastructureandtraininginordertoimprovequalityoflifeoutcomesforunderserved
4
populations.Achievingsocialequityrequiresmorethananagreeduponoperationaldefinition
andtheidentificationofappropriatemeasurementtools.Courageousleaderswhoarewillingto
prioritizesocialequityoutcomesthroughinvestmentsininfrastructureandhumancapitalare
alsoneededifdiscrimination,marginalization,anddisparitywilleverceasetoexistfor
underrepresentedgroups.
Socialequityindicatorsoftenfallbehind,inlargemargins,toeffectivenessand
efficiency,evenwhenincludedinperformancemeasurement(Charbonneau,Riccucci,Van
Ryzin&Holzer,2009;Charbonneau&Riccucci,2008).Thelackofauniversaldefinitionanda
clearmethodformeasuringsocialequityleavesadministratorswithoutanoperationalguide
forassessment.Asaresult,administratorsaretaskedwithimplementingprogramsandpolicies
thatpositivelyimpactsocialequity,oftentimeswithoutacollectiveunderstandingofwhere
exactlytofocusorhowtoeffectivelymeasure.Thisjuxtapositionofexpectationandreality
createsacontemporaneousissue:howdopublicadministratorsmeaningfullyassesssocial
equity?
Pitts(2011)calleduponPAscholarstosupplementexistingnormativediscussionson
socialequitywithempiricalresearchinordertocreate“theknowledgethatpolicymakersneed
tomakepoliciesandprogramsmoreeffectiveateliminatinginequities”(p.i79).Although
existingsocialequityscholarshipespousestheimportanceandvalidityofsocialequityin
programs,policiesandorganizations,verylittleevaluatesthetoolsthatcanbeusedtoimprove
socialequityoutcomes(Pitts,2011;Collins&Gerber,2008;Charbonneau&Riccucci,2008;
Svara&Brunet,2004,Johnson&Svara,2011).Asthereisnouniversalsocialequity
measurementinfrastructure(e.g.specificindicators,tools,frameworks),aswitheffectiveness,
5
efficiency,oreconomy,organizationsarelefttoconceptualize,operationalize,andevaluate
socialequityperformancewithouttheknowledgeandskillsnecessaryformeaningful,rather
thanhaphazardimplementationandassessment.Theimplicationofsocialinequityandthe
consequencesofinactionaretoogreattocontinuetobeignored.Arealcommitmentisneeded
tonotonlyidentifyundueburdens,butalsotoassessorganizationalpractices,policyoutcomes,
andadministrativeactionstoimprovethequalityoflifeforresidents.
Thisreportseekstoachieveseveralgoals.First,theauthorscreateanoperational
definitionofsocialequitywiththeaimofidentifyingacceptedvariablesforthemeasurement
ofdiscrimination,marginalization,anddisparity.Second,weidentifyadecision-making
frameworkandcriteriatoassistinprioritizingsocialequity.Thirdly,weclassifyvarious
approachescommunityandgovernmentorganizationsandutilizetosupportsocialequity
measurementandevaluation.Finally,theauthorsofferstrategiesforlocalandgovernment
organizationstoexceedthelowstandardsforsocialequitymeasurement.
Thediscussionbeginswiththeevolutionofsocialequitydefinitionsandpresentsanew
operationalizeddefinition.Anoperationalizeddefinitionaidsinthedevelopmentofmeaningful
measures.Next,weexplorethebarriersandbenefitstoperformancemeasurementingeneral,
andsocialequitymeasurement,specifically.WethenpresentaModelofSocialEquitythat,
throughtheevaluationofexistingpractices,proposesacategorizationoftheleasttomost
comprehensiveapproachestosocialequitymeasurement.Throughthisevaluation,the
researchersareabletoidentifyreplicableapproachesforsocialequitymeasurement.The
reportconcludeswithfutureconsiderationsforthemeaningfulmeasurementofsocialequity
andrecommendationsforhowadministrationscanengageinsuchendeavors.
6
Definingsocialequity
Socialequityisdefinedinvaryingways.ShafritzandRussell(2005)definesocialequity
as“fairnessinthedeliveryofpublicservices;itisegalitarianisminaction–theprinciplethat
eachcitizen,regardlessofeconomicresourcesorpersonaltraits,deserveandhasarighttobe
givenequaltreatmentbythepoliticalsystem”(p.434).In2013,theAmericanSocietyforPublic
Administration(ASPA)reviseditsCodeofEthicsandincludedastatementon“strengthening
socialequity.”IdeallymembersofASPAwillcommitthemselvestostrengtheningsocialequity
bytreating“allpersonswithfairness,justice,andequalityandrespectindividualdifferences,
rights,andfreedoms.Promoteaffirmativeactionandotherinitiativestoreduceunfairness,
injustice,andinequalityinsociety”(ASPA,2013,para7).WhileShafritzandRussellandASPA
offerstatementsthatconnecttoissuesoffairnessandjustice,theyarealsogroundedwithin
notionsofequalityandequaldistribution.Equality,incertaincontextsisconsideredanaspect
ofsocialequity.Yet,adistributionalapproachtojusticethatisbasedonequality,ratherthan
equity,presumesequalfooting.Basedonthisassumptioneveryoneoriginatesfromthesame
startingpoint.ExistinginequitiesintheUnitedStatesinpubliceducation,criminaljustice,
healthcare,amongotherareas,exemplifysystemicinjusticesthatresultindisproportionate
outcomes.Adeeperexaminationofrace,class,andgenderexperiences,withintheseandother
areas,revealconsistentpatternsofneglectandinactionbypublicinstitutionsand
administratorstoaddressthedifferentialrealitiesforunderservedgroups.Intheseexamples,
equaltreatmentorequaldistribution,wouldonlyexacerbatedisparitiesratherthanworkto
eradicatethem.
TheNationalAcademyofPublicAdministration(NAPA)(2000),definedsocialequity
7
as,
Thefair,justandequitablemanagementofallinstitutionsservingthepublicdirectlyor
bycontract;thefair,justandequitabledistributionofpublicservicesand
implementationofpublicpolicy;andthecommitmenttopromotefairness,justice,and
equityintheformationofpublicpolicy.
WoolridgeandGooden(2009)assert,“theessenceofsocialequityactivelyconsidershowfairly
administrators,systems,andpoliciesoperatewhendeliveringpublicgoodsandservices”(p.
223).JohnsonandSvara(2011)offeradefinitionsuggestingthat
socialequityistheactivecommitmenttofairness,justice,andequalityinthe
formulationofpublicpolicy,distributionofpublicservices,implementationofpublic
policy,andmanagementofallinstitutionsservingthepublicdirectlyorbycontract.
Publicadministrators,includingallpersonsinvolvedinpublicgovernance,shouldseek
topreventandreduceinequality,unfairness,andinjusticebasedonsignificantsocial
characteristicsandtopromotegreaterequalityinaccesstoservices,procedural
fairness,qualityofservices,andsocialoutcomes.Publicadministrationshouldempower
theparticipationofallpersonsinthepoliticalprocessandsupporttheexerciseof
constructivepersonalchoice(p.282).
Thesedefinitionsmovebeyondthe“startingpoint”assumptionandfocusonequity
(ratherthanequality).Theyalsoincorporate,asdoestheASPAprinciple,theidealoffairness.
Theoretically,thesedefinitionsprovideinsightintounderstandingtheconceptofsocialequity
andtheimpactofinequitablepractices,howevertheyarelimitedintheirpracticalapplication.
Theterm“fairness”issubjective.Whatmayseemfairtooneadministratorinonecontextmay
8
nottoanotheradministratorinadifferentcontext.Therefore,measuringfairnessbecomesa
challenge.
AccordingtoDubnickandFrederickson(2010),fairnessissuesare“ladenwith
accountabilityquestions”(p.i147).Consequently,administratorsstrugglewithequitable
application,particularlygivenlimitedresourcesandtime(Maynard-Moody&Musheno,2003).
Discussionsoffairnessoftenrelatetopolicyimplementationandindividualtreatmenti.e.
whetherapolicyisfairinitsapplication,intent,andimpactorifapersonperceivestobe
treatedfairly.Fairnessissubjectiveinitsmeasurabilityasitcanbevieweddifferentlyin
differentcontexts.Definitions,therefore,thatincludesubjectiveconceptslimittheabilityof
administratorsandresearcherstooperationalizeandmeasuresocialequity.Explanatory
discussionsoftheaforementioneddefinitionsmayoffermoreinsightintothemeasurementof
socialequity(seeJohnsonandSvara,2011,Gooden,2015),butthedefinitionsthemselvesdo
notexplicitlyincorporatemeasureableconcepts.
Theexistingbodyofsocialequityresearchfurthercomplicatestheissueofcreatingan
operationaldefinitionofsocialequity.Pitts(2011)argues,“muchoftheresearchoverthepast
20yearshasbecomecomplacentinviewingsocialequityaspartofanambiguousclusterof
conceptsthatdonotneedtobedistinguishedfromoneanother”(p.i78).Publicadministration
scholarshaveneglectedtodedicateampleresearchfocusedondistinguishingsocialequity
fromdiversity,culturalcompetence,andrepresentation(Pitts,2011).Whilerelated,these
conceptsrepresentoverlappingidealshowever;culturalcompetency,diversity,andsocial
equityarealmostalwayslinkedandusedinterchangeably(Lopez-Littleton&Blessett,2015).
9
Thelackofdistinctionbetweentheaforementionedconceptscontributestoimprecise
conceptualizationanddifficultiesintheempiricalmeasurementofsocialequity.
Socialequityreflectsactivitiesdesignedtoenhancethepoliticalpowerandeconomic
well-beingofdisadvantagedpopulations(Frederickson,2010),byredressinginjusticesand
remediatingdamagesthatwerepreviouslyincurred,byfullyincorporatingallsegmentsofthe
communityinthepoliticalprocess,andbyestablishingmeasurestopreventfutureinequities
fromoccurring(Johnson&Svara,2011).Therefore,itisthecombinationofthesecollective
actionsthatcanmitigatethemarginalizingeffectspolicydecisions,inadequateservicedelivery,
andalackofengagementhashadwithunderrepresentedconstituents.Theabilityofpublic
administratorstoeffectivelyaddressinequityrequiresnotonlyanuancedunderstandingof
historical,institutional,andstructuralcontextsbutalsotheabilitytoempiricallymeasureand
understandhowapolicylimitsdisparitiesorsupportsthestatusquo.Arealcommitmentto
socialequityrequiresassessingthepervasivenessofdisparities,asitexistsacrossanyandall
marginalizedgroups,andimplementinganintervention.Thefundamentalstartingpoint
thereforeformeaningfulmeasurementisgroundedwithinaresponsibilitytoadvanceequity
throughtheidentificationandremediationofdisparity.
Figure1.RelationshipofSocialEquityDefinition,Conceptualization,andMeasures
10
Figure1.Relationshipchartillustratingtheimportanceofanoperationaldefinitionintheassessmentofsocialequity.
“Measurementsbeginwithoperationaldefinitions.Operationaldefinitionsare
instructionsordescriptionsofsetsofactionsoroperationsaninvestigatorcanfollowexactly,
designedtolinkconceptstomagnitudesoftheworld”(Bowen&Bowen,1999,p.53).
Figure1illustratestherelationshipbetweenaconceptualandoperationaldefinitionandthe
measurementofsocialequity.Auniversaldefinitionmustaidintheempiricalmeasurementof
theimpactpoliciesandinitiativeshaveonreducingoradvancingdisparity,otherwise,public
administratorswillbefacedwiththechallengeofassessingstrategieswithoutanadequateway
todetermineifsocialequityoutcomeshaveimproved.Thedefinitionspresentedabove
representanevolutionofthefield’sunderstandingofsocialequity.Eachiterationismore
insightfulandinclusiveofthefactorsrelatedtosocialequity,yettheydonotmeetBowenand
Bowen’s(1999)criteriaasoperationaldefinitions.Refininghowadministratorsunderstandand
measuresocialequitycomeswithanevolveddefinitionoftheconcept.Weofferthefollowing
OperaEonalDefiniEon
ConceptualizedTerms
SocialEquityMeasures
11
operationaldefinitionthatincorporatestermsthataidinthedevelopmentofsocialequity
measures:
Socialequity,inpublicadministration,referstopolicyformulationandimplementation,
publicmanagementpractices,theprovisionofpublicgoodsandservices,and
administrator/residentinteractionsthatreduce(andultimatelyeliminate)disparity,
marginalization,anddiscriminationwhileincreasingsocialandpoliticalinclusion.
Thisdefinitionintentionallyavoidstermsthataredifficulttomeasurelike“fairness”and
doesnotsupportanideologygroundedwithinequality.Itdoes,however,incorporate
measureableconceptslikedisparity,discrimination,marginalization,andinclusion.When
assessed,theseconceptsaidagenciesandadministratorsinthedeterminationofpolicy,
program,behavioralandorganizationalimpactasitrelatestoissuesofequity.
Whywemeasuresocialequity
Theimportanceofmeasurement
Extensiveworkhasbeendedicatedtodefiningsocialequityanddescribingwhenitdoes
anddoesnotexist,therehas,however,beenaslowerprogressiontowarditsconceptualization
andmeasurement.GoodenandPortillo(2011)substantiatethispointbyarguingthatthe
advancementofsocialequityinpublicadministrationscholarshipandpracticewouldbe
enhancedby“theneedforconceptualclarityofthetermsocialequity,theneedforincreased
attentiontosocialequityinthepublicadministrationcurriculum,andtheneedforfurther
methodologicaldevelopmentinsocialequityresearch”(p.i63).Withoutsuchholistic
consideration,theoperationalizationandmeasurementofsocialequitywillcontinuetobe
piecemealacrossthespectrumofscholarlyresearch,pedagogy,andpractice.Ultimately,
12
impedingadministratorsfromunderstandingandeffectivelymeasuringsocialequity.
Fredericksonargued,“thegrowingacceptanceofsocialequityinpublicadministrationoverthe
pastthirty-fiveyearshasoccurredduringatimewhentheactualstatusofsocialequityin
Americahasbeeninsteadydecline”(p.33).Acceptance,inthiscase,referstotheoreticaland
conceptualconsiderationsofsocialequitymeasurement,ratherthanitspracticalapplicationin
theprofession.Alackofattentionandcommitmenttoaddressingissuesofinequityhascreated
anenvironmentwhereorganizationssymbolicallyemphasizesocialequity.Inthesecases,
publicadministrationtalksocialequitybutdoesnotwalkthesocialequitywalk.
Measuringtheperformanceofgovernmentismoreimportantnowthanperhapsatany
otherpointinpubicadministration’shistory.Nearly20yearsago,Perrin(1998)assertedthat
performancemeasurementisthenewwayoffocusingontheresultsofpublicprograms.
Currently,publicadministration’sfocusonmeasuringperformance,ingeneral,hasnotwaned
butgrown,whilechallengeswiththemeasurementofsocialequitypersists.
Increasingly,alllevelsofgovernmenthaveaimedtoimproveengagementwiththe
publicbyreportingontheservicesitdelivers.Governmentschoosetoutilizeperformance
measuresbecauseitsuseoftenreflectsthedesiretofindbetterwaystoservethepublic(Kelly
andSwindell,2002).Publicreportingisanattemptbygovernmenttoensureresidentsare
providedwithaccesstoinformationinamannerthatiseasilyretrievable,accurate,andtimely.
Anestablishedbodyofliteraturedemonstrateshowmeasurementcanimproveorganizational
performance(Moxham,2010;Ammons,2007;DeLancer-Julnes,2006;Berman,2002;Kennerly
andNeely,2002)inareasincludingdecision-making,serviceperformance,andpublic
accountability(Epstein,1984).Additionally,theuseofperformancemeasuresandthesharing
13
ofoutcomeshelpstodemonstratetheeffectivenessofgovernmentworkandtheapplicationof
scientificmethods"promisestofurtherprofessionalizethefieldofpublicadministration"(p.
611).
However,beforereportingperformanceinformationtothepubliccanoccuraneffective
performancesystemmustbeimplemented.Thedevelopmentandmanagementofvaluable
performancemeasurementdataisoftendifficultandmaynotsimplybeachievedbymimicking
whatanotherjurisdictiondoes.CharbonneauandRiccucci(2008)statethatperformance
measurementseekstoachieveresultsbaseduponadevelopmentofquantifiableindicatorsto
trackprogramachievementandoutcomes.Astheprimaryfocusofperformancemeasurement
isachievingspecifiedgoals,itssuccesshingesondevelopingmeasurableindicatorstotrack
programperformanceand,ultimately,results(Callahan,2007).Implementingperformance
measuresthatfocusonoutcomes,andnotjustonoutputs,havethepotentialto
simultaneouslyimproveefficiencyandequity.Thus,onegoalofperformancemeasurementis
toestablishasystemthatcanmeasuretheresultsofindicatorsandusetheinformationto
improvemanagementanddemocraticgovernance(YangandHsieh,2007;Moynihan,2006;
Hatry,2002;Wholey,1999).
Managersthatchoosetoadoptandimplementperformancemeasuresmaydosofora
varietyofreasons.Poister(2003)statesthatperformancemeasurementinitiativesareutilized
bymanagementformonitoringandreporting,strategicplanning,financialmanagement,
programmanagementandevaluation,contractmanagement,benchmarking,communicating
withthepublicandmanagingperformance.Publicmanagerschoosetoutilizeperformance
measuresinavarietyofwaysincluding:formulatingandjustifyingbudgetrequests;making
14
internalresource-allocationdecisions;examiningin-depthperformanceissues;motivating
personneltomakeprogramimprovements;formulatingandmonitoringcontractstograntees;
supportingstrategicplanning;evaluatingprograms;communicatingwiththepublictoimprove
trust;andtoprovideimprovedservicesmoreefficiently(Hatry,2007).
Overall,whenconsideringtheimplementationofaperformancemeasurementsystem
keyquestionsmustbeanswered(Hatry,2007).Administratorscanaskquestionslike,whyare
wedevelopingperformancemeasures,whatmeasuresdowewanttotrack,howwillwe
managetheinformation,andwhatdoweultimatelywishtoachieve?Answerstothese
questionshelpdeterminethespecificreason(s)theorganizationisinterestedinmeasuring
performance.Oncedeterminedthatsocialequityistheinterestedmeasure,administrations
shouldthenidentifytheindicatorsassociatedwithdeterminingwhethertheorganizationis
meetingitsgoalsandobjectives.Similarly,iftheorganizationisnotachievingequitable
outcomesthecausesforfailureshouldbeexplored.Theseareimportantconsiderationsfor
administratorsbecausetheorganizationmustdeterminewhowillcollectthedataand
information,howitwillbecollected,andwhoconductanalysis,andhowwilltheresultsbe
disseminated.Performancemeasuresareseenasaninstrumentthatcanincreasethe
accountabilityofpublicmanagers(Hatry,2007)andaddressexistingdisparity.
Theimpactofpoormeasurement
Barrierstoimproveequityexistatvaryinglevels.Amongstthechallengesadversely
impactingthesuccessfulimplementationofperformancemeasuresareinconsistentawards
systems,fragmentationoflocalgovernment,andanabsenceofcostaccountingsystems
(Ammons,1985).Otherobstaclessuchasalackofcreativityandinnovationbypublic
15
managers,considerationoftheinterestsandideasofstakeholders,thehighcostof
implementation,andvalidandreliabledataandgoal-congruencebetweentheorganizationand
thepublichaveconsistentlybeenidentifiedaschallengesassociatedperformance
measurement(Holzer&Yang,2006;DeLancer-Julnes,2006;Coe,2003;Hatry,2002;Perrin,
1998;Ammons,1985).Overcomingpublic-sectorbarrierstosocialequitymeasurement
requiresbuildingsupportandcollaborationfrombothorganizationalleadersandfront-line
employees(Holzer,2004).Todoso,thepublicmanagermustfirstfacilitatethebeliefthata
changeisindeedneededtoimproveperformanceandreducedisparity.Therefore,socialequity
mustberecognizedasanorganizationalvalueandadministrativepriority.
Anorganization’svaluesaredirectlylinkedtoitsmission,whichespousesthepurpose
anddirectivesoftheagency.AstheASPACodeofEthicselevatessocialequityasaprofessional
standard,organizationsandadministratorshavearesponsibilitytoraiseissuesofequitytoa
levelofpriority.Theroleofleadershiptoelevatesocialequityasapriorityandsupport
initiativestoreducediscrimination,marginalization,anddisparityiskey!Secondly,managers
andfront-lineemployeesmustbemadeawareoftheadvantageslinkedtoequitableoutcomes.
Inthiscase,themanagermustbepreparedtoanswerthequestion,inwhatwaysdoes
providingequitableservicestoconstituentsimprovethequalityoflifeofresidentsandenhance
organizationaleffectiveness?Relatedly,theorganizationshouldbeinterestedinincreasingits
understandingofwhatdemonstratessuccessandshortcomings.However,evenwhen
consideringtheabove,thecomplexstructureofgovernmentorganizationsanditsresponsibility
tomultiple(internalandexternal)stakeholdersaddstothecomplexityofsocialequity
16
measurementandmaybeaprevailingreasonwhyequitymeasurementisnotdone
consistentlyandwithfrequency.
Compoundingtothecomplexityofsocialequitymeasurement(orthelackthereof)are
factorsrelatedtorace.Gooden(2014)poignantlyarguesthatconsiderationsofracewithin
publicadministrationleadtoa“nervousareaofgovernment”(p.4).Anervousnessorfearthat
isnotonlyproblematic,butinterfereswiththedailytaskofpublicagenciestoprovide
governmentalservicesinwaysthatalignwithourguidingdemocraticprinciplesassetforthin
theU.S.Constitution(Gooden,2014).Forexample,WardandRivera(2014)thoroughlyexamine
organizationsandpublicpoliciesintheareasofhousing,education,employment,criminal
justice,andevenreligiousinstitutions.Throughtheiranalysis,theyidentifykeyfactorsthat
werefoundationalinperpetuatingtheinstitutionalizedracismthatplaguespublicagencies,
politicalrhetoric,andpublicdiscourseevennow(Ward&Rivera,2014).Policieslikeracially
restrictivecovenants,redlining,mortgagelendingpractices,andracialprofilingseverely
contributedtotheadverserealitiespeopleofcolorfaceinU.S.society.Suchpracticeswere
sanctionedbythestateandtheuseofadministrativediscretionresultedinburdensomeand
exclusionarypracticesonmanyindividuals,families,andcommunities.Therefore,todiscuss
socialinequity,discrimination,marginalization,ordisparitywithoutprioritizingtheroleofthe
stateinsponsoringracistpracticesisdisingenuous.Injusticeneedstobesituatedwithinits
propercontext,ifequityandinclusionaretoeverbefullyrealizedforallgroups.
Equitymeasuresmustbeclearlycommunicatedfromtheorganization’sleaderstokey
stakeholders,includingelectedofficialswithwhomsupportforsuchanimportantinitiativeis
vital.Understandinghoworganizationseffectivelyorineffectivelyprovidepublicjustice
17
requiresanexaminationoftheexternalenvironment,seniorpublicadministrators,public
servants,andorganizationalvalues(Gooden,2014).Ultimately,theseareascontextualizethe
nervousnessassociatedwithattemptstoachieveracialequity.Askingandansweringquestions
impliesacertainlevelofcommunicationbetweenfront-lineemployees,managers,and
decision-makers.Withoutexplainingthebenefitstopersonnelultimatelyresponsiblefordata
collection,entry,andthemanagementofstatisticsandinformation,itcanbedifficulttobegina
performancemeasurementinitiative,letaloneaperformanceinitiativethatinvolvessocial
equity.Poorcommunicationcanultimatelyleadtotop-downpressuresfrommanagementthus
resultingindecreasedemployeemorale,poorservicedelivery,anddistrustandapathyamong
citizens(Kim,2005).Kim(2005)suggeststensionswithinternalstakeholdersmayariseassome
organizationsattempttoremainresponsibletopoliticalandlegalstakeholdersoutsidethe
organization.Toovercomethis,managerscanseeksupportbyforminginformalgroupsthat
discussmethodstoimprovesocialequitybysurveyingstakeholdersand/orresearchingbest-
practicedexamplesfromotherlocalgovernmentagencies.
Representation,diversity,andculturalcompetenceareafewobjectivesthatmanagers
mustacknowledgeandaddressiftheirgoalisimprovedsocialequity.VanWart(2004)asserts
thatvaluesdeterminetheverydefinitionofproductivityaswellasthedefinitionofan
appropriateorganizationalculture,structure,andprocess.Thus,theimplementationofasocial
equitymeasurementsystemmustnotonlymeetthegoalsoftheorganization;butalsoweigh
thevaluesandopinionsofvariousstakeholders.
Theunsuccessfulimplementationofperformancemeasurementstrategiesoftenleads
tonegativeresidentperceptionsofgovernment.Alackoftrustanddecreaseinpublic
18
participationarebothpotentialresultsofanineffectiveperformancemeasurementstrategy.
Performancemeasurement,particularlythosefocusedonissuesofequity,canserveasan
effectivewaytostrengthentrust,ifinnovativemeasurementpracticesaredevelopedto
embracefactorssuchasorganization-wideevaluation,institutionalarrangements,resident
involvementandenhancedcommunicationstrategies.
Thecurrentemphasisonperformancemeasurementistheresultofresidents
demandingthatgovernmentsofferevidenceofprogramandorganizationaleffectiveness
(WholeyandNewcomer,1997).Since,anessentialreasontomeasureperformanceistomake
programimprovementstopublicservices(Hatry,2007),itisvitalthatpublicorganizationswork
toengageresidentsinmeasurementinitiative(s).Whileitmaybemoredifficulttoascertainthe
ideasofresidents,itisnonethelesssignificanttoincludetheirperspectiveswhenconsidering
methodstoimproveorganizationalperformanceandprogrameffectiveness.Bynotengaging
residentconstituents,governmentorganizationsruntheriskofdecreasingthewillingnessand
interestofresidentstobeengagedinfutureparticipationefforts.Unproductivegovernment
performanceadverselyimpactsresidenttrustin(YangandHolzer,2006)andwillingnessto
engagewithgovernment.Ifmethodstoassessgovernmentperformanceareineffective,public
agencieswillexperiencecontinuedtrendsindissatisfaction.Ultimately,government
organizationsmustcommitthemselvestodevelopinfrastructuredesignedtoeliminate
inequities.
Collectively,existingbarriershavethepotentialtohaltequitymeasurementinitiatives
priortotheirstart.Thesebarriersareespeciallyimportanttonotewhendiscussinganew
programthatislikelytocauseashiftinorganizationalculture(e.g.,assessingcultural
19
competencyamongemployees).Inthiscase,itisimperativeformanagementtoclearlydefine
whatitaimstoaccomplish,theoverallbenefits,andhowstaffandmanagerswillcontribute
beforebeginningtheprocess.
MeaningfulSocialEquity
Usingchoicepoints
Fosteringequity,asaconceptandempiricalmeasure,istheresponsibilityofpublic
servantsandorganizations.Individually,administratorsmustbecognizantofthevariousways
sheorhecancontributetoinequitableoutcomesfortraditionallymarginalizedgroups.
Decision-makingprocessesaretherefore;fundamentalopportunitiestoinfluenceoutcomes
towardachieveequityanddecreasedisparity.Associetycontinuestoevolveandchange,social
equitymustbeprioritizedasavaluealongwiththeprofessionalconsiderationsof
effectiveness,efficiency,andeconomy.Itisimportantforadministratorstoembodythe
necessaryknowledge,skills,andbehaviorstoelevatetheimportanceofequity,fostera
culturallycompetentworkforce,andadvanceanideaofdiversityandinclusionthat
encompassesthoughts,perspectives,andactionswithinandacrosspublicorganizations
(Blessett&Gaynor,2017).
Choicepointsisadecision-makingframeworkthatcanbeusedtoadvanceequityand
counteracttheimplicitandexplicitbiasesthatnegativelyshapedecisionsmadewithinpublic
bureaucracies.Forexample,consciousdecision-making,inotherwords,canbelikenedtoafork
intheroad,wherebypublicadministratorsfindthemselvesstandinginthemiddleofthefork
consideringwhichpathordecisiontofollow.Theadministratormustconsidertheimpactof
eachdecision,whetherthedecisionfostersorobstructsinequity.Thepointatwhichthe
20
administratorfindsthemselvesneedingtomakeadecisionisachoicepoint.Inthisspace,
decisionmakerscancriticallyevaluatetheirownbiases,howthosebiasesdirectlyinfluencethe
existenceofinequities,andhowtheirdecisionscanshapeequitableoutcomes.Suchan
approachrecognizesthateachsmallchoicemayproducecumulativeeffectsmoreprofound
thanonelargedecision.Administratorsmustbeequippedwiththeskillsandabilitiesto
interrogatetheshortandlong-termconsequencesofpublicpolicydecisionsorprogram
objectives,particularlyasdisparitiesexperiencedbyunderservedgroupscanbeexacerbated
withoutsuchconsiderations.
Theuseofchoicepointspromotestheinstitutionalizationofequitywithinthe
administrativedecision-makingprocessesofpublicorganizationsbecauseitraisesthelevelof
consciousnesswithrespecttotheneedsofvulnerablegroups(Blessett&Gaynor,2017).The
approachalsobringsmindfulnesstodecision-making,whichelevatessocialequityintothe
forefrontofadministrativepracticesandbehaviors.BroomeandMurray(2002)state
Wedonotmakedecisionsrandomly,butascalculatedresponsestowhatweperceive
asrelevantconditionsatthepointofchoice.Recognizingthecloserelationshipbetween
theseconditionsandourresponsestothemmaybeasteptowardimproving…decision-
making(p.76).
Keleher(2014)recognizesthattoadvanceequityanddecreasediscriminatorytreatment,
individualsinorganizationsmustfocusonthefollowingquestions:
1) Whatarethedecision-makingpointsthataffectoutcomes?
2) Whatdecisions/actionsmaybereinforcingthestatusquo,implicitbias,and
21
inequities?
3) Whatalternativeactionoptionscouldproducedifferentoutcomes?
4) Whichactionswillbestadvanceequityandinclusion?
5) Whatreminders,supports,andaccountabilitysystemscanbestructuredinto
routinepracticestokeepequityahighpriority?
Embeddingthesequestionsintotheadministrativedecision-makingstructurewillinitiatethe
processtoinstitutionalizesocialequitywithinandacrosspublicorganizations.
Criteriaforsocialequity
In2004,SvaraandBrunetofferedfourcriteriaofsocialequityforsystemically
measuringitsachievement.NAPA,in2005,institutionalizedthesecriteriaasawaytomeasure
socialequity.Proceduralfairness,quality,access,andoutcomeswereidentifiedasspecific
socialequitycriteriaadministratorsshouldconsiderwhenconductinganequityassessment.
Proceduralfairnessinvolvestheexaminationofproblemsorissuesrelatedtoprocedural
rights(dueprocess),treatmentinaproceduralsense(equalprotection),andtheapplicationof
eligibilityrequirementswithinpoliciesandprograms(Johnson&Svara,2011).Inhealthcare,
disparityinproceduralequityisevidentinthe“separateandunequal”(Smith2005,asquoted
inHug,2011)primarycareprovidedtoBlacksbymanagedcarefacilities.Withincriminal
justice,judicialsystemshavebeenused,asisthecasewithFerguson,Missouri,toaffordWhite
offenderswithopportunitiestoreduceorexpungeminorviolations,whilesimultaneously
forcingBlackoffenderstobeeitherfinanciallyresponsiblefortheiroffenses,maneuverthe
courtsystem,orboth(DOJ,2015).
22
Qualityandprocessequityinvolvesa“reviewofthelevelofconsistencyinthequalityof
existingservicesdeliveredtogroupsandindividuals”(Johnson&Svara,2011,p.288).Perhaps
theclearestexampleofinequitiesinqualityistheFlint,Michiganwatercrisis.Duetocity
government’sdecisiontoswitchFlint’swatersourceandMichigan’swillfulignoranceto
remediate,Flintresidents(61.5%ofwhoaremembersofunderrepresentedracial/ethnic
groups)nowhavepublicwaterwithunsafelevelsofleadandbacteria(Lin,Rutter,&Haeyoun,
2016).Inthisexample,thereisvastdisparityinthequalityofserviceofferedtoFlintas
comparedtoothercommunitiesinMichigan.
Accessordistributionalequityinvolvesareviewofcurrentpolicies,services,and
practicestodeterminethelevelofaccesstoservices/benefitsandananalysisofreasonsfor
inequitableaccess.JohnsonandSvara(2011)suggest“severalalternativedistributional
principles”(p.288)thatcanbeusedinpromotingequity:simpleequality(samelevel/amount
ofservice),differentiatedequality(basedonhigherneedorselectioncriteria),targeted
intervention(concentratedonatargetarea),redistribution(redressunequalresources),and
distributiontoachieveequality(equalresults).Publiceducationactivistsandscholarsargue
thateveryschool-agedchildintheUnitedStateshastherighttoaccessaqualitypublic
education.However,accordingtotheU.S.DepartmentofEducation(2016),BlackandLatino
studentshavelessaccesstohighlevelmathandsciencecourses,giftedandtalentedprograms,
andadvanceplacementcourses.Thesedatademonstratethatstudentsofcolor,acrossthe
UnitedStates,donothaveequitableaccesstohigh-levelacademicprograms.
Finally,outcomesinvolveanexaminationofwhetherpoliciesandprogramshavethe
sameimpactforallgroupsandindividualsserved(SvaraandBurnet,2004).JohnsonandSvara
23
(2011)state“theanalysisshouldincludeconsiderationofhowsocialconditionsandindividual
behavioraffectoutcomesorlimittheimpactofgovernmentservices,thatis,whatunderlying
conditionscontributetothedifferencesinoutcomes?”(p.288).Administratorsmustbecritical
intheirassessmentofequitableoutcomesinsuchawaythattheyexamineandunderstandthe
contextsthatcreated(in)equitableoutcomes.Accordingtoa2006reportbyUnitedCerebral
PalsyandChildren’sRights,childrenwithspecialneeds(e.g.mentalandbehavioralhealth
problems,fullyhandicapped,receivingspecialeducationservices)experience
disproportionatelypooreroutcomeswhileinthefostercaresystem.Childrenwhoare
differentlyabled“arelesssafe,andmorelikelytobemaltreated,aremorelikelytobeon
psychotropicmedications,havepoorereducationalexperiencesandoutcomes,aremorelikely
tobeinstitutionalized,experiencemoreplacementinstability,andhavelongerlengthsofstay”
(p.5).Administratorsshoulduseequityassessmentstoreviewthepolicies,programs,and
decisionsthatleadtodisproportionateoutcomesandworkwithorganizationalleadersto
remedythem.
Theconsiderationofhistoryandcontextisequallyasimportantasestablishingclear
methodstomeaningfullymeasuresocialequity.Gooden(2015)argued,“socialequity
recognizesthehistorical,political,andeconomicinfluencesthatstructurallyinfluencethe
prospectsforaccess,opportunityandoutcomes”(p.213).Whenassessingsocialequity,
administratorsmustunderstandhistoryandcontextandrecognizehowandinwhatways
publicpoliciesandadministrativedecisionshavecreatedandsustaindiscriminationand
disparity(Johnson&Svara,2011).Havingaclearunderstandingofhowsocialconstruction-the
characterizationofpeopleandplacebasedonarbitraryfactorsofworthanddeservingness
24
(Schneider&Ingram,1993,1997)-influencesimplicitandexplicitbiases,andconsequently,
shapesthedevelopmentofprogramandpolicydecisionstoaidintheestablishmentof
programsandpracticesthatfosterequityandreducedisparity.Withoutsuchanunderstanding,
disparitypersists.
Forexample,anassessmentofaccessanddistributionalequityofpublicwaterinFlint,
Michiganwoulddeterminethatsimpleequality(equalreceiptofservices)hasbeenachieved.In
thiscase,allMichiganresidentshaveequalaccesstopublicwaterservices.Importanttothis
assessmenthowever,ishistoryandcontext.UnderstandinghowFlint’stwentiethcentury
segregationandhousingpoliciescreatedmarginalizingandsociallyexclusiveenvironmentsthat
haveshapedthecurrentwatercrisisoffersadministratorsagreaterunderstandingoftherole
publicadministrationhasplayedinthepersistenceofinequitiesacrosstime(Michigan,2003;
Highsmith,2016).Withoutsuchafocus,anadministratormaysimplychoosetoacknowledge
theachievementinequalservicedeliveryordownplaytheseverityofthecontaminatedwater
issue.
Collectively,thefourcriteriaaidinthemeasurementoforganizationalperformance,
program/policyeffectiveness,andmanagementstrategiesaroundtheissuesofdisparity,
marginalization,discrimination,andsocialandpoliticalinclusion.Thesecriteriaofferasolid
foundationtowardthedevelopmentofspecificindicatorstoinitiateaccuratemeasurementof
socialequityandalignwiththemeasureableconceptsofferedintheevolveddefinitionofsocial
equity.
ClassifyingApproachesintheMeasurementofSocialEquity
25
Approachesthatseektomeasureandevaluatesocialequityarevastintheirbreadth,
depth,andscope.Someapproachesidentifyspecificindicators,whileothersare
comprehensiveintheirconsiderationofcontextualfactorsthatmayimpactsocialequity.Inthis
study,socialequityapproacheshavebeenclassifiedinwaysthatallowcommunitiesandlocal
governmentstofullyconsiderthevaluesocialequityhasonorganizationaloperations,
programs,andpolicies.
Modelofsocialequity
TheModelofSocialEquity,developedforthisstudy,recognizesthevaryingapproaches
forthemeasurementandevaluationofsocialequityandprogressesfromleasttomost
comprehensive(seeFigure2).Therefore,giventhecontext,priorities,andresourcesavailable
toanorganizationorcommunity,socialequitycanalwaysbeanachievablegoal.
Figure2.ModelofSocialEquity
Figure2.TheModelofSocialEquitydepictsaprogressionofapproachescurrentlyusedforequityassessment.Theseapproachesrangefromtheleastcomprehensive–indicatorstothemostcomprehensive–frameworks.
26
Indicators.GAO(2011)definesanindicatoras“aquantitativemeasurethatdescribesan
economic,social,orenvironmentalconditionovertime”(p.57).Socialequityindicators
operationalizesocialequityandareconsideredtobetheleastcomprehensiveapproach
becausetheydonotallowforanunderstandingofcontext(e.g.social,political,economic,or
historical)orincludefeedbackloops.Forexample,unemploymentorpovertycanbemeasured
overtime,butthatmeasurementdoesnotcontextualizehoworwhychangehasoccurred.In
thisregard,afocusonindicatorsissimplytomeasuretheperformanceofkeyvariablesof
interest.Measurementinanycapacityisanimportantconsiderationforresearchersand
practitioners.HuandOlshfski(2008)suggesttheportionoftheworkthatismeasuredisthe
portionofworkthatgetsattendedto;therefore,whatwechosetomeasureillustrateswhatis
valuedinaparticularsituation.
Aspreviouslynoted,socialequityhasnotbeenprioritizedinacomprehensivemanner
acrosslocal,state,andfederalgovernmentsduetoalackofconceptualclarityandtheuseof
inadequatemeasurementindicatorstomonitorandtracksuccess.Previouslydefined
constructsofsocialequity(e.g.justice,fairness,equality)donoteasilylendthemselvesto
specificandmeasurablevariables,whichispartiallywhysocialequityhasneverbeenfully
implementedacrossgovernmentorganizationsorprograms.Identifyingandmeasuring
meaningfulgoalscanaidepublicadministratorsinmovingbeyondasymbolic
acknowledgementthatrecognizessocialequitytowardempoweringthefieldtowalkthesocial
equitywalkthroughreal-worldengagement.Suchengagementrecognizesthatmeasuring
socialequityrequiresandawarenessoftheenvironmentalcontext.Conceptslikepoverty,
unemployment,orinfantmortalityarerelativelystableandcanbeappliedacrossavarietyof
27
contexts,whereastermssuchassustainability,trustorsuccessrequireamorein-depth
considerationofthesocial,economic,cultural,andpoliticalcontextsinordertodevelop
meaningfulindicators.
Althoughsocialequityisdifficulttomeasure,itmustbedoneifadvancementsaretobe
madewithrespecttosocialequityoutcomes.Movingforward,moreattentionisneededto
appropriatelyconceptualizeandoperationalizevariablesrelatedtosocialequitybecauseitis
notaone-size-fitsallapproach.Inallrespects,accurateoperationalizationlinkingconstructsto
performanceindicatorsisanimportantfirststepandrequiresacommitmentoftimeand
resourcesifprogressisevertobemade.Forexample,theGovernmentAccountabilityOffice
(GAO)(2011)conductedastudyofnationalandinternationalkeyindicatorssystemsforthe
purposesofdevelopingakeysystemfortheUnitedStates.Suchacomprehensivestudywas
commissionedtoinvestigate(1)howindicatorsystemswerebeingused;(2)howindicator
systemsaredesignedandmeasured;(3)factorsnecessarytosustainasystem;and(4)potential
implicationsforthedevelopmentanduseofaU.S.system(GAO,2011).Keyindicatorsystems
canhelpto“…identifyacountry’ssignificantchallengesandopportunities,informchoices
regardingtheallocationofscarcepublicresources,assesswhethersolutionsareworking,and
makecomparisonswithinthecountryandtoothercountries”(GAO,2011,p.11).
Theidentificationofdisparities.
Despitebeingtheleastcomprehensiveapproachtosocialequitymeasurement,theuse
ofindicatorsareanimportantfirststepbecauseitallowspublicorganizationstoidentify
existingdisparitieswithincommunitiesandamongststakeholdergroups.Ifadministratorsdo
notcollectdata,howwillorganizationsknowtoadjusttheexpectations,priorities,and
28
objectivesofpoliciesandprograms?Minimallyhavingbaselineinformationaboutapopulation
orcommunitycanilluminatethewaysinwhichgovernmentofficialscanproceedtoproduce
thebestoutcomeforitsconstituents.DuringtheObamaadministration,theDepartmentof
Justice(DOJ)investigatedseveraljurisdictions,mostrecentlyFerguson,MO(2015),Baltimore,
MD(2016),andChicago,IL(2017),whichrevealedpatternsofpracticethatviolatedtheUnited
StatesConstitutionanditslaws.Theseinvestigationsspecificallywereinresponsetodeadly
interactionsbetweenBlackresidentsandlawenforcementofficers.Whilemanyincidences
werecaughtoncamera,videoevidence(bodycameraorcellphone)didnotresultin
widespreadaccountabilityforharassment,brutality,orevendeath.Infact,videorecordings
authenticatedrealitieslongexperiencedbypeopleofcolor.However,withoutuniformdata
collectionaboutthepervasivenessofdeadlyinteractionsresidentsgenerally,butBlackpeople
specifically,havewithlawenforcementofficers,itisdifficulttodiscernthedepthofdisparity.
Inresponse,websiteslikeTheCountedbytheGuardianandKilledbyPolicedeveloped
infrastructuretokeeparunningtallyofdeadlyresident-policeinteractions.Themethodologies
foreachsitediffered,butsimilardatawascollectedsuchas:race,gender,age,state,and
whetherthepersonwasarmedorunarmed.Thesedatabasesprovidedthepublicwithdata
thatwaseithernotcollectedorsharedpublicallybylawenforcementagencies.Theavailability
ofsuchdataresultedinwidespreadpublicoutragebycommunitiesofcolorandcallsfor
accountabilitywithrespecttotheimplementationofjustpolicingpractices.
Whenindicatorsareused,disparitiesareknownandstrategiescanbeidentifiedto
reduceharm.TheDOJreportsrevealedthatwheredatawascollected,itwasuncoveredthat
policeofficerswereengagedindiscriminatorypolicingpracticesthatresultedin
29
unconstitutionalsearches,seizures,andarrests,whichdisproportionatelytargetedpeopleof
color.Forexample,BlessettandBox(2016)examinedthepracticesofFerguson,Missouri’sCity
Hall,PoliceDepartment,andMunicipalCourtsinusingthejusticesystemasarevenuetool.In
otherwords,Blackresidentswerethreatenedwithfines,fees,andjailtimeforminoroffenses,
resultingindependencyandfinancialindebtednesstolocalgovernments.Ultimately,theCity
ofFergusonuseditsBlackresidentsasarevenuesourcetofundlocalgovernment.Collectively,
theseactionsaffecttheperceptionandlegitimacyoflawenforcementagenciestoserveand
protectallfactionsofthepublic.Attheendofeachinvestigation,theDOJoffereddozensof
strategiestoremediatewrongdoingandbuildbridgesbetweencommunitiesofcolorandlaw
enforcementagencies.
Anindicatorsystem:VirginiaPerforms.
VirginiaPerformsisa“performanceleadershipandaccountabilitysystem”forthe
CommonwealthofVirginiathatincludesasystemof“socialindicators”designedtoprovide
citizensandpolicymakerswithahigh-levelassessmentofVirginia’sconditionsandprogressfor
betterstrategicthinkingandperformance-drivendecisionmaking(GAO,2011,p.77).Virginia
PerformswasidentifiedasaComprehensiveKeyIndicatorSystembyGAOandwashighlighted
inthecasestudyprofilepartofa2011report.VirginiaPerforms(2017)alignsspecificstate
governmentoutcomeswithlargerstatewidegoalsandpartnerswithofficesandagencies,such
astheGovernorofVirginia,theVirginiaGeneralAssembly,theCouncilonVirginia’sFuture,the
DepartmentofPlanningandBudget,andtheWeldonCooperCenterforPublicService.Thisisa
collaborativeendeavorwithinputfromdiversestakeholders,whocontributetothestrategic
visionandprioritiesoftheCommonwealth.TheVirginiaPerforms(2017b)websiteidentifies
30
indicatorsforseveralareas:Economy,Education,Health&Family,PublicSafety,Natural
Resources,Transportation,andGovernment&Citizens.VirginiaPerformsisawell-developed
indicatorsystemthatalsoincludesascorecardthatenablesaquickoverviewofprogressin
eachareabyindicator(seeFigure3).
Figure3.VirginiaPerformsScorecard
Source.VirginiaPerformsScorecard.Retrievedfromhttp://vaperforms.virginia.gov/Scorecard/ScorecardatGlance.php
IntheareaofGovernment&Citizens,VirginiaPerformsidentifiesanddefinesanumber
ofimportantvariablesdesignedtoincreasethesocialandpoliticalinclusionofitsresidents.For
example,VirginiaPerforms(2017c)providesdefinitionsanddatasourcesforallindicator
variables;definitionsarelistedbelow:
• VotingAgePopulation(VAP)istheestimatednumberofpeople18yearsofageorolder
inanarea.TheVAPestimateincludespeoplewhoareineligibletovote(e.g.non-
31
citizens,felons),butexcludesresidentvoterslivingabroad,suchasformilitaryorwork
reasons.
• CitizenVotingAgePopulationsexcludesnon-citizens,butdoesincludeotherswhoare
ineligibletovote,suchasfelonswhosevotingrightshavenotbeenrestoredand
personswhoareincarcerated.
AccordingtoVirginiaPerforms(VirginiaPerforms,2017c)“voterregistrationisastrong
indicatorofcitizencommitmenttotheircommunities,”whichiswhythestatewantsan
informedandengagedcitizenry.
Usingthisdata,graphshavebeengeneratedtocomparevoterparticipationbystate
andbyregion(VirginiaPerforms,2017d).Althoughsuchvoterinformationisimportant,a
limitationofVirginiaPerformsisthelackofdemographicdataavailablerelatedtovoting
registration.VirginiawasoneoftheninepreclearancestatesidentifiedintheVotingRightsAct
of1965.“Preclearance”referstoamandatethatrequiresstatestoseekfederalapproval
beforechangesaremadetovotingprocedures.Thisrequirementwasputinplacebasedonthe
historyofinstitutionalizeddisenfranchisementofBlackvotersbystatelegislatures.Blessett
(2015)arguesfrom2001-2010,Virginia,Texas,andLouisianaadoptedthelargestnumberof
disenfranchisementpoliciesduringthedesignatedtimeframeat31,27,and22respectively.
WhileVirginiaPerformscanbeapplaudedforitseffortstomeasureperformanceacrossa
numberofdifferentsocialfactors,withoutdemographicconsiderations,specificallyrace,
disparitywillneverbefullyunderstoodandtherefore,socialequitynevermeaningfully
addressed.Additionally,withoutbaselinedemographicdatawithrespecttovoterregistration
andturnout,itisdifficulttoknowifdisparitiesexistorthepervasivenessofdissimilarityfor
32
peopletryingtoaccesstheballotbyrace,gender,orclassdifferences.Thisisespeciallytruefor
issueslikevoting,wheresystemicdiscriminationbyadministratorshasresultedinBlack
communitiesbeingintentionallytargetedfordisenfranchisement.
Theevolveddefinitionofsocialequityarguesforsocialequitytoincreasesocialand
politicalinclusion,thereforeraceindicatorsarefoundationalvariablesofinquirytoeffectively
discernthelevelofdisparity,marginalization,ordiscriminationthatexistsinacommunity.
Disaggregateddemographicdataisneededtohighlightfactorsthatinhibitsocialandpolitical
inclusionandminimizesocialequityaltogether.Ultimately,measurementisaprocessof
observingandrecordingobservationscollectedaspartofaresearcheffort(Trochim,2001).Yet,
effectivemeasurementrequirescontextualconsiderationsandopportunitiestoimplement
feedback,alongsidewell-developedindicators.Itisimportantthatthetheoreticalconstructsof
apolicyorprogramarealignedwiththeobservableindicatorstomeasureperformance.
VirginiaPerformsreflectstheconceptualclarityanduseofindicatorstocollectandanalyze
statelevelperformancemeasures.Outcomeassessments.Thenextstepintheprogressionof
socialequitymeasurementistheuseofoutcomeassessments.Indicatorsenableorganizations
orcommunitiestoadequatelymeasureperformance,whileoutcomeassessmentsareusedto
evaluateifequitygoalshavebeenachieved.Inotherwords,outcomeassessmentsdomore
thandescribedisparity,italsoexaminesthecausesandconsequencesofdisparityinorderto
identifyandadvocatefortheappropriatesolutionstobepursued.Suchtoolsarewide-ranging
inscopeandincludeafeedbackloop,whichallowcommunitiesandorganizationstolearnfrom
previousactivitiesinordertomaketheappropriateadjustmentsforaction.Socialequity
assessmenttoolsevaluatetheprogressofspecificareasofinterest,suchasenvironmental
33
justice,policing,accesstohealthcare–issuesthatalsorevealaraciallydisproportionateeffect
oncommunitiesofcolor.
TheNationalEquityAtlas(2016d),isanassessmenttoolfromPolicyLink,is“…a
comprehensiveresourcefordatatotrack,measure,andmakethecaseforinclusivegrowthin
America’sregions,andstates,andnationwide”(para2).TheAtlascontainsdataon
demographicchange,racialandeconomicinclusion,andthepotentialeconomicgainsforracial
equityforthelargest100cities,largest150regions,all50states,andtheUnitedStatesasa
whole(PolicyLink,2016d).Additionally,indicatorsarespecificallyidentifiedfordemographics,
economicvitality,readiness,connectedness,andeconomicbenefits(PolicyLink,2016e).Using
datafromtheNationalEquityAtlas,Ross(2017)arguedtheaggregationofracespecificdatais
importantforlocalgovernmentofficialsandplannerstounderstand,track,andaddress
disparitiesintheircommunities.Forexample,
PovertylooksdifferentforWhitepeoplethanforpeopleofcolorbecausepeopleof
colorassignificantlymorelikelytoliveinhigh-povertyneighborhoodseveniftheyare
notpoor.Thisnotonlyhighlightsthelonghistoryoffederallysupportedracial
residentialsegregationbutitalsounderscorestheimportanceofinformeddata-driven
planningandpolicymaking(Ross,2017,para3).
Thedevelopmentofrace-basedindicatorstomeasureperformanceisessentialforpolicy
makerstounderstandandaddressthedisparitythatendureswithinracialandethnic
communities.
“AnEquityProfileofNewOrleans”isarecentstudypublishedbyPolicyLinkandthe
ProgramforEnvironmentalandRegionalEquity(PERE)attheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia.
34
Thereportusestheequityindicatorsframeworkforcommunities,asdevelopedbyPolicyLink
andPERE,tounderstandandtrackthestateofequityandequitablegrowthlocally.Indicators
anddatasourcesareprovidedfortheareasunderinvestigation,suchas:demographics,
economicvitality,readiness,connectedness,andeconomicbenefits(Langston,2017).Dataand
analysisispresentedtohelplocalleadersdevelopsolutionsgiventhespecificenvironmental
contextoftheirlocalcommunity.TheNewOrleansEquityreportiscomprehensiveandoffers
usefulstatisticalanalysisregardingthewaystoachieveequitableoutcomesacrossthe
community.Intheimplicationspartofthereport,severalobservationsaremadetohelp
organizationsachieveequitableoutcomes:growgood,accessiblejobsthatprovidepathwaysto
themiddleclass;increasetheeconomicsecurityandmobilityofvulnerablefamiliesand
workers;cultivatehomegrowntalentthroughastrongcradle-to-careerpipeline;createhealthy,
opportunity-richneighborhoodsforall;buildresilientconnectedinfrastructure;increaseaccess
tohigh-quality;affordablehomesandpreventdisplacement;andexpanddemocracyand
ensurejustpolicingandcourtsystems.
Givenalloftheinformationprovidedinthisreport,localstakeholdershavean
opportunitytodevelopmeaningfulinterventionstoaddressthevariouschallengesidentified.
“Business,community,andpoliticalleaderscanbuildmomentumbyworkingtoconnect
communitiesofcolortojobs,businessopportunities,qualityeducation,andcareertraining”
(Langston,2017,p.94).Overtime,thebaselinedatacanbeusedtocompareandcontrast
progressmadeonanyoralloftheidentifiedissues.Accordingtothisreport,TheOfficeofthe
Mayorhaslaunchedan#EquityNewOrleansstrategydesignedtoembedequitythroughout
government(Langston,2017).Therefore,whatevercollaborativeinterventionsdevelopedby
35
localstakeholderscanbeassessedtodetermineifNewOrleansismovingtowardanequitable
city.
TheNationalEquityAtlasiscutting-edgebecauseofitscomprehensiveness,butalsodue
totheexplicitnaturethatraceisaddressedthroughoutthemodel.Race,unfortunatelyis
inextricablytiedtosocialinequity,aswitnessedacrossanynumberofqualityoflifemeasures.
Gooden(2014)concedesthatstructuralracism(e.g.policies,cultural/norms,laws,social
acceptance,andorganizationalpractices)isatthecoreofracialinequitiesintheareasof
health,education,criminaljustice,economicwell-being,housing,andtheenvironment.
Structuralracismrecognizesthecollaborativeandcooperativewaysinstitutionsworktogether
toproduceracialgroupdisparities(Gooden,2014).Thesecollectiveactionsdemonstratehow
governmentatalllevelshascontributed,unconsciouslyorconsciously,tothedisparitythat
existsandpersistsinracialandethniccommunities.Structuralracismis,therefore,embedded
inthepracticesofpublicinstitutionsandreinforcedbypublicadministratorsusingpublic
resources.Consequently,thelackofconceptualclarityandempiricalquantificationcomesas
nosurpriseconsideringthatsocialequity,asastrategy,hasyettobecomeatoppriorityin
publicadministration.Arguably,thehesitationtosupportissuesofequityrelatetothecreation
ofequalplayingfieldsandvastbenefitsthatempowercommunitiesofcolorattheexpenseof
thoseprivilegedbythecurrentcontext.
Withrespecttotheevolveddefinitionofsocialequity,PolicyLink’sequitytoolscanbe
usedtohelpreducedisparity,marginalization,anddiscriminationacrossanumberofqualityof
lifeissues.PolicyLink’sworkcomprehensivelyseekstoimprovethehealthoutcomes,economic
status,andinfrastructureaccessforunderrepresentedcommunities,whileattemptingto
36
improvethequalityofengagementthatoccursbetweenresidentsandtheinstitutionsthat
servethem,suchaslawenforcementagencies.
Frameworks.Socialequityframeworksrepresentthemostcomprehensiveaspectinthe
progressionofsocialequitymeasurement.Frameworksrepresentafullyintegratedapproach
tosocialequitymeasurementbecauseitrecognizestheimportanceofenvironmentalcontext,
understandsthemeasurementconditions,setspolicypriorities,buildsassessmentintopolicy
proposals,requiresadministrativechangestosustaineffortsandusesafeedbacktoadjustto
policyandprogramoutcomes.Truechangehappenswhenallofthesefactorsare
acknowledged,considered,andunifiedasstrategiestoeffectchange.
TheSustainabilityToolsforAssessing&Rating(STAR)CommunitiesRatingSystem
(2017)isrecognizedas“thenation’sleadingcomprehensiveframeworkandcertification
programforevaluatinglocalsustainability,encompassingeconomic,environmental,andsocial
performancemeasures”(para1).STARCommunitiesempowerlocalgovernmentstodetermine
theircurrentlevelofsustainabilitybysettingtargetsandmeasuringprogressalongtheway
(STAR,2017).WithintheSTARCommunitiesRatingSystem,thereareeightgoalareasof
considerationwitheachhavingspecificmeasurementindicators:BuiltEnvironment;Climate
andEnergy;Economy&Jobs;Education,Arts,&Community;Equity&Empowerment;Health&
Safety;NaturalSystems;andInnovation&Process.Eachgoalareaisequallyweightedat100
points,withtheexceptionofEducation,Arts,&Community(70points)andInnovation&
Process(50points).Indicatorswithineachgoalareaalsohaveaspecificnumberofpoints
associatedwiththem,therefore,acommunitycanstrategicallyfocusitseffortsonobjectives
37
thatoffersthebiggestreturnoninvestment(seeFigure6).Ultimately,communitieswantto
scoreasclosetothemaximumof720pointsaspossible.
Figure6.STAR’sObjectives.
Source.STARCommunities,2015,STARCommunityRatingSystem(Version1.2),p.11.CopyrightSTARCommunities.
STARCommunitiesoffertwotypesofevaluationmeasures:thecommunity-level
outcomesandlocalactions.Community-leveloutcomesaremeasureable,contextual-level
indicatorsthatshowcommunityprogressonaSTARgoalarea,whilelocalactionsfocusonthe
stepstakentomovetowardachievingdesiredcommunity-leveloutcomes,suchastherangeof
decisions,investments,programs,plans,andcodesalocalcommunityputsinplace(STAR,
2017).Whilehavinggoalareasandspecificindicatorsformeasurementisawonderfulfirststep
38
inanyevaluationprogram,theactionsofthelocalactorsarecriticalwithrespecttosustaining
changeovertime.Therefore,STARCommunitiesalsoassignsaportionofthepointswithineach
categorytothoseinitiativesthatfocusonimplementation-basedactions–actionsoractivities
thatdemonstrateacommitmenttoimprovementandprogressovertime(STAR,2015).
Additionally,STAR’sevaluationmeasuresmustmeetthefollowingcriteria:relevant,feasible,
timely,useful,systemic,reliable,andvalid.Aspreviouslymentioned,theappropriate
operationalizationofvariablesiscriticallyimportanttoensureperformanceisbeingmeasured
accurately.EvaluationmeasuresthatmeetSTAR’scriteriahelpscommunitiesbethoughtful,
inclusive,andstrategicaboutwaystoimproveforshort-andlong-termplanning
considerations.Overall,localofficialsarenotlefttofigureouthowSTARcanbeusedintheir
communitiesbecausethereisanabundanceofresourcesavailable,suchasadvisoryassistance,
toolkits,casestudies,andwebinars.
SimilartotheNationalEquityAtlas,STARCommunitieshasaspecificfocusonequity.
Measurementindicatorsfocusoncivicengagement(15points),civilandhumanrights(10
points),environmentaljustice(15points),equitableservicesandaccess(20points),human
services(20points),andpovertypreventionandalleviation(20points)(STAR,2015).Thelast
threeobjectivesareworththemostpointsallowingcommunitiestoprioritizeeffortsinan
attempttosecurethemostpointsavailableforthisgoalarea.Accessisoneofthe4criteriafor
socialequitywithEquitableServices&Accessspecificallyrecognizing“…equitableaccessto
foundationalcommunityassetswithinandbetweenneighborhoodsandpopulations”(STAR,
2015,p.77)areimportantinthedevelopmentofasustainablecommunity.Forexample,within
thisareacommunitiesshould
39
demonstrateincreasedaccessandproximitybyresidentsofdiverseincomelevelsand
race/ethnicitytothefollowingcommunityfacilities,services,andinfrastructure:public
transitfacilitiesandservicelevels;publiclibraries;publicschools;publicspaces;
healthfulfood;healthandhumanservices;digitalaccessorhighspeedinternet;urban
trycanopy;emergencyresponsetimes(STAR,2015,p.84).
Low-incomepersonsandfamilies,alongwithracialandethnicgroupsareoftentimesadversely
impactedbynothavingaccesstoqualityservicesduetoproximityorthelackofavailability.
Suchissuescompounddisparityinwaysthatmaybedifficulttoovercome.STARCommunities
offerslocalofficialssuggestionsforavarietyofactionsthatcanmitigatedisparityandincrease
equitableaccessandempowermentforallresidents.Recommendationsinclude,constructing
newfacilitiesandinfrastructuretoreduceexistingdisparities,providingequityanddiversity
trainingforlocalgovernmentstaff,andadoptinganequityplanthatestablishesaclear
commitmenttoequityinlocalgovernmentdecision-making,activities,andinvestments(STAR,
2015).
Socialequityindicatorsandassessmenttoolsalloworganizationsandcommunitiesto
essentiallypickandchoosewheretheywanttofocustheirattention.STARCommunities,on
theotherhand,isacomprehensiveandintegratedapproachthatrequirescommunities(e.g.
town,city,orcountygovernments)tofullycommittoallaspectsoftheprogramifbenefitsare
tobegained.AnadditionalbenefittoparticipationintheprogramistheSTARCertification,
whichdemonstratesthatacommunityhasimplementedcredibleandtransparentprogress
towardthesustainabilitygoalsoutlinedbytheSTARCommunityRatingSystem(STAR,2017b).
Asof2017,therearemorethan40communitiesacrosstheU.S.withSTARCertification:29
40
communitieswitha3-STARcertificationlevel(200-399points);24communitieswitha4-STAR
certification(400-599points);and4communitieswitha5-STARcertification(600+points)
(STAR,2017c).Ultimately,STARCommunitiesrepresentsacomprehensivemodelthatenables
measurement,analysisandevaluation,whichempowerslocalgovernmentstoenactpolicies
andprotocolstoachievelong-termchange.CommunitiescommittedtotheSTARCommunities
Frameworkwillarguablydecreasedisparity,marginalization,anddiscrimination,thus
consequentlyincreasingsocialandpoliticalinclusionofunderrepresentedgroups.
TheCityofSeattlehasbeenidentifiedasanexemplarwithrespecttohowithas
integratedanequitylenstoitsmissioninservingitsresidents.“TheSeattleRaceandSocial
JusticeInitiative(RSJI)isacitywideefforttoendinstitutionalizedracismandrace-based
disparityinCitygovernment”(asquotedinGooden,2014,p.79).RSJIhasbeeninexistencefor
overten-yearsandhasworkeddiligentlytobringaboutsystemicchangeinthecity.In2014,
Seattle’sMayorsignedanexecutiveorderaffirmingandexpandingRSJI,whichwillrequireCity
stafftoestablishnewgoals,trackoutcomesovertime,andreportontheCity’sprogress(RSJI,
2015).Seattle’ssuccessstemsfromanunderstandingthatinstitutionalracismandrace-based
disparityarenotquickfixes,butratherrequirethoughtfulactionandalong-termcommitment
toalleviatetheinequitiesthatexistthroughoutthecity.Thisapproachrecognizesthatsuch
institutionalizeddiscriminationdidnothappenovernightandwillrequiretime,resources,and
energytoundothesystemicinjusticethathaveburdenedcommunitiesofcolorforgenerations.
Oftentimes,communitieswanttojumpintosolutionswithoutdoingtheverydifficultworkto
connectpast(institutionalandadministrative)practicestocontemporaryformsof
marginalization,disenfranchisement,anddisparity.Aninterrogationofpolicy,practices,belief
41
systems,andbias(consciousandunconscious)arekeyfactorstomovetowardequitable
outcomesinlocalgovernment.
Forexample,theCityofSeattleexplicitlyacknowledgedtheroleinstitutionalracismin
creatingandperpetuatingdisparity;citywidetrainingsonraceandracismwereinstituted;
agencyplanswereupdatedtoreflectaraceconsciouslens;andamajorpublicityeffortensued
toinformthepublicofnewinitiatives,programs,andpoliciesdesignedtoreduceinequityin
thecity(Gooden,2014).Thirty-sevenlisteningsessionswithCityemployeesandcommunity
memberswereconductedtolearnabouttheracialequityissuesthatweremostpressingfor
peopleandtoencourageideasforthebestwayRSJIshouldaddressthem(RSJI,2015b).Lessons
learnedandstrategicstepsforwardsuggestedforRSJIincluded,butwerenotlimitedto:
ensuringracialequityinCityprogramsandservicestomaketangibledifferencesinpeople’s
lives;workingwithcommunity-basedorganizationstosupportthemovementtoendstructural
racism;andhelpingtoleadregionalandnationalnetworksforracialequity(RSJI,2015b).
Seattle’sapproachtowardextendingequityhasresultedina5-starratingfromtheSTAR
CommunitiesFramework–recognitionsharedwithonly3othercities.
Theprogressionofsocialequitymeasurementisanevolutionoftheleasttomost
comprehensiveapproaches.Indicatorsoperationalizesocialequity,butdoesnotoffercontext
toconsidertheimpactofmeasurement.Outcomeassessmentsevaluatetheprogressofsocial
equitymeasurementbecauseitnotonlyrecognizescontext,butmakesadjustmentsbasedon
feedbackthatistrackedovertime.Finally,frameworksarethemostcomprehensivebecauseof
itsfocusontheuseofindicatorsanditssystemicdatacollectionprocesses.Additionally,there
isafocusonbuildingrelationships,engagingstakeholders,andcreatingactionableplansfor
42
policymakersandadministratorsforaccountability.TheSTARCommunitiesFrameworkis
definitelyanoverwhelmingprocessifonelooksattheprograminitsentirety.However,
incrementalapproachestoequitycanhelpimproveopportunitiesforsuccess.Asmentioned,
Seattle’sRacialandSocialJusticeInitiativehasbeenon-goingforovertenyears,which
demonstratesafullcommitmentbycommunityleaderstocreateamoreequitablecity,thus
servingasmodelsforitsregionalneighborsandthenationasawhole.Ifsocialequityistoever
beachieved,itneedschampionswhoarecommittedtotheprocessforthelonghaul.
SocialEquityResources
Socialequityrepositoriesarethinktanksandresearchconsortiumsdesignedtogather
informationandofferbestpracticesforsocialequitymeasurement.Repositoriesareresources
forcommunitiesandlocalgovernmentsinterestedinlearningaboutsocialequity,becoming
socialequityconscious,anddevelopingindicatorsandperformancemeasurementtools.Within
thiscontext,repositoriescultivatecollaborativerelationshipsamongstcommunitiesandlocal
governmentsinterestedinvarioustopicsacrossanynumberofareas,includingsocialequity.
Severalusefulsocialequityresourcesarehighlightedinthissection.
TheCommunityIndicatorsConsortium(CIC)(2017)isclassifiedasarepositorybecause
itrecognizesthatthedevelopmentofperformanceindicatorsisnotaonesizefitsallapproach
andworkswithcommunitiestodevelopindicatorsandmeasureperformance.“TheCommunity
IndicatorsConsortiumadvancesandsupportsthedevelopment,availabilityandeffectiveuseof
communityindicatorsformakingmeasurableandsustainableimprovementsinqualityof
communitylife”(CIC,2017b,para4).WhileCICdoesnotdevelopmeasures,ithascreateda
collaborativeenvironmentwherecommunity-basedpractitioners,academicians,planners,civic
43
leaders,communityleaders,andmanyotherstakeholdersareabletoengagewitheachother
tobrainstormanddevelopbestpracticestrategiesandindicatorstoimprovecommunity
outcomes.CICprovideswebinars,offersconsultingservices,andhassupplementalresources
availabletohelpcommunitiesdevelopsoundindicatorstoaccuratelymeasureperformance.
CIChasaresourcepagethatisanaccumulationofalloftheIndicatorProjectssubmitted
tothesite.Informationisavailablebygeographiclocationandissuearea.Usersarealsoableto
disaggregateprojectsthatarestillactiveorhavebeencompleted.Collectively,thesereports
enablecommunitiestoidentifybestpractices,consultwithpractitionersandcommunity
leadersaboutchallengesandsuccessesoftheirrespectiveprojects,andultimatelybuild
relationshipsandshareresourcesrelatedtotheirspecificareasofinterest.Theaforementioned
VirginiaPerformsisoneoftheIndicatorsProjectsrecognizedontheCICwebsite.
TheHaasInstituteforaFairandInclusiveSocietyisarepositoryofinformation
groundedinabeliefthatU.S.democracyisinneedofasocialcompactbasedonacoresetof
inclusivevalues(Haas,n.d.).Furthermore,
Thecompactrecognizesthatwemayhavemanydifferentstrategiesforachievingour
goals,butweareunitedbycommonvaluesthatguideouractions.Thevaluesinthis
compactarenonpartisanandreflectourgroundinginamoralitythatrecognizesthe
worthofallpeople.Webelievethesevaluesarecentraltoanylegitimatedemocratic
government(Haas,n.d.,para3).
HousedattheUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley(UCBerkeley),theHaasInstituteisahubfor
engagedscholars,researchers,andcommunitypartnersworkingtoadvancebelongingforall
membersofsociety(Haas,n.d.).Thisworkisconductedacross6facultyresearchclusters
44
(alignedalongdemographicfactors,sucharace,religion,disability,andLGBTQidentity)and11
areasofworkincluding,butnotlimitedtothe:InclusivenessIndex,RacialPoliticsProject,
GlobalJustice,andanEquityMetrics(Haas,n.d.b).
TheEquityMetric,forexample,usesresearch-basedmethodologiestoinvestigatethe
intersectionofspaceandracial/socialinequities,developdiagnostictoolsandother
measurementindicatorstounderstand“othering,”andprovidepolicyrecommendationsto
improvestructuresandinstitutionstoreducemarginalitiesandimproveinclusionand
opportunitiesforall(Haas,n.d.c).OpportunityMapping2.0,theInclusivenessIndex,andEquity
IndicesResearchareoverarchingprojectswithintheEquityMetricdesignedtoenhancethe
collectiveunderstandingofinequityusingmaps,indicators,andresearchfocusedon
understandingandcontextualizingequityandwell-being.
Theexplicitandcrosscuttingfocusondemographicissuesandpolicy,engagement,and
inclusionisimportant.TheInclusivenessIndexisanannualpublication,whichincludesa42-
pageindexofmapsandinfographics,designedtocapturethedegreeofgroup-basedinclusion
andmarginalityexperiencedacrosstheworldandintheUnitedStates(Haas,n.d.d).Thegoalof
theInclusivenessIndexinitiativeistoidentifypolicies,interventions,andotherfactorsthat
haveproventobeeffectiveatamelioratingmarginalityandpromotinginclusivity,belonging,
andequity(Menendian,Elsheikh,&Gambhir,2016).WithintheU.S.,indicatorsfocusonareas
suchasincomeinequity,politicalrepresentation,incarceration,andanti-discriminationlaws
(seeFigure4).WhileFigure4doesnothavemeasuresforeachoftheareasidentified,itisa
goodstartingpointtobeginlinkingdatapointswithrelevantdatasourcesforequity
considerations.
45
Figure4.U.S.IndicatorsandDataSources.
Source.U.S.IndicatorsandDataSources.RetrievedfromC.Menendian,E.Elsheikh,&S.Gambhir,2016,InclusivenessIndex:MeasuringInclusionandMarginality,p.39.Copyright2016byHaasInstituteforaFairandInclusiveSociety,UniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley.
TheHaasInstitutehasaplethoraofresourcesavailablefororganizationsandcommunities
interestedinissuesspecifictoequity.TheInstitutesaffiliationwithUCBerkeleyensuresthat
thepublications,presentations,reports,andwebinarsofferinsightgroundedwithincurrent
researchonequityandinclusion.
TheCommunityIndicatorsConsortiumandtheHaasInstituteforaFairandInclusive
Societyarebothexamplesofrepositories.Thescope,breadth,anddepthoftheseapproaches
tosocialequityvary.Itshouldbeunderstoodthatnotallresourceswilladdressallaspectsof
marginalizationthatexistsinacommunity.TheHaasInstituteisdeeplyfocusedonequityissues
46
acrossallunderrepresentedgroupsandtherefore,raceconsciousnessisalsounderstoodasa
keyfactorinminimizingthe“othering”andthemarginalityexperiencedbyunderrepresented
groups,globallyandintheUnitedStates.GiventhefocusandtoolsoftheHaasInstitute,ithas
theabilitytoincreasesocialequitythroughincreasedsocialandpoliticalinclusion,which
contributestoareductionindiscrimination,marginalization,anddisparity.Socialequity
considerationswithrespecttopoliticalandsocialinclusionareindirectconsiderationsforCIC.
Inthisregard,theabilitytodecreasemarginalization,disparity,anddiscriminationispossible,
butrequiresthoughtfulengagementbypractitionerstospecificallyaddresssocialequity.Such
actionscouldbeinstigatedbythespecificareasoffocus,thetypesofindicatorsidentifiedor
developed,andtheconsciousapproachtoaddressinequity,asitexistsforunderrepresented
groups.AlthoughCICdoesnotspecificallyfocusonissuesofrace,itisstillausefulresourcefor
communitiesandorganizationsinterestedinperformancemeasurement.TheCommunitiesof
PracticefacilitatedbyCICenablesgroupstointeract,collaborate,andlearnfromeachother’s
successesandfailures.Bothrepositorieshavestrengthsandweaknessesgiventheneeds,
priorities,andresourcesavailabletocreateindicatorsandmeasureperformance.Performance
measurement,generally,andsocialequity,specifically,isnotaone-size-fitsallapproach.
Consequently,itisimportantforcommunitiesandorganizationstobeconsciousconsumersof
theresourcesandtoolsattheirdisposal.
PolicyLink(2016)isa“nationalresearchandactioninstitutionadvancingeconomicand
socialequitybyLiftingUpWhatWorks”(para1).Specifically,PolicyLinkacknowledgesthat
thoseclosesttotheproblemarecentraltofindingsolutions;thereforethewisdom,voice,and
experienceoflocalresidentsandorganizationsarefoundationaltotheirwork(PolicyLink,
47
2016).ByLiftingUpWhatWorks,PolicyLinkfocusesitsattentiononhowpeopleuselocal,state
andfederalpoliciestocreateconditionsthatbenefiteveryone.Asaresult,PolicyLink’sworkis
groundedintheconvictionthatequity–justandfairinclusion–mustdriveallpolicydecisions
(PolicyLink,2016).PolicyLinkisdiverseinitsapproach(e.g.research,engagement,and
analysis),whichenableorganizationsandcommunitiestoconsidersocialequityacrossmultiple
areasofinterestandtypesofstrategies.UsingPolicyLink’sGettingEquityAdvocacyResults
(GEAR)(2016b)model,organizationsandcommunitiesbeginbybuildingthebase;namingand
framingequitysolutions;movingtheequityproposal;andbuilding,advancing,anddefending
strategiestoaddressequity(seeFigure5).Equityworkiscomplexandrequiresorganizations
andcommunitiestothoughtfullyconsiderthewaysinwhichallthegearsmovetogether.
Consequently,thedevelopmentofappropriatemeasuresandbenchmarksenableorganizations
andcommunitiestodeterminetheprogressofequityinitiativesovertime.Thisfeedbackloopis
acriticalcomponentofsocialequitymeasurement.
Figure5.PolicyLink’sGEARModel
48
Source.PolicyLink’sGEARModel.Retrievedfromhttp://www.policylink.org/book/export/html/282
Equityisanimportantconsiderationinallaspectsoflife.Interactionswiththecriminal
justicesystemrevealadisproportionateimpactforBlackandLatinomen,women,andchildren.
Positiveinteractionsbetweencommunitiesandpolicearefundamentallyimportantto
thesafetyandsecurityofresidents,officers,andsocietyat-large.Inthisview,PolicyLinkhasa
setofequitytoolsforCommunity-CenteredPolicing,whichwasinspiredbytheaftermathof
MichaelBrown’sdeathby,DarrenWilson,awhitepoliceofficerinFerguson,Missouri.Policy
Link(2016c),alongwiththeCenterforGlobalPolicySolutions,andover1,400socialjustice
leaders,congressionalmembers,faithleaders,artists,andactivistssignedanopenletterto
PresidentObama,urgingfederalactionthroughtheJusticeDepartmenttoimprovepolice-
communityrelationshipthroughsevenprinciples.Theprinciplesare:EnsureTransparencyand
49
Accountability;InvestinTraining;EnsureDiversity;ProactivelyEngageinCommunities;Reject
Militarization;ExamineandImplementGoodModels;andImplementTechnologyandToolsfor
Oversight.Collectively,theyaredesignedtobuildmutualtrustandrespect,increasesafetyin
communities,andminimizesenselesskillingsandexcessiveuseofforcebypolice(PolicyLink,
2016c).Subsequently,theseprinciplesrepresentsoundareasforassessmentastheyare
conceptuallyclearandappropriateindicatorscanbedevelopedtomonitorperformanceover
time.
Aspertheevolveddefinitionofsocialequitypresentedearlier,investingintraining,
rejectingmilitarization,andcultivatingadiverseworkforcehasthepotentialtoreduce
disparity,marginalization,anddiscrimination.Lawenforcementagenciesactivelyengagein
communitiesthroughtheimplementationofnewmodelsofpolicingandcanincreasethesocial
andpoliticalinclusionofunderrepresentedgroupsinthedevelopmentandimplementationof
newpoliciesandprograms.Ultimately,theseprinciplesworktoimprovethequalityofservice
deliveryincommunities,whichmayproducerelationshipsthatarerootedinthereciprocityof
trustandcommunication.
FutureConsiderations
Thisprojectthoroughlyexaminedexistingpracticesofsocialequitymeasurementby
localgovernmentnonprofitorganizations.TheModelofSocialEquitydemonstratesthewide
varietyofassessmentpracticesthatareusedtodeterminewhetherprogramshavemadeshifts
todecreasedisparity.Althoughvaryinginlevelsofcomprehensiveness,eachapproachto
assessingsocialequityincludesclearlydefinedmeasures.AsBowen&Bowen(1999)surmised,
“measurementsbeginwithoperationaldefinitions”(p.53).Imperativetothescholarshipand
50
practiceofsocialequityisanoperationaldefinitionthathas,embeddedwithinit,clearly
conceptualizedconceptsthatcanbeusedtoaidinthedevelopmentofspecificindicators.The
socialequitydefinitionpresentedatthebeginningofthisreport-policyformulationand
implementation,publicmanagementpractices,theprovisionofpublicgoodsandservices,and
administrator/residentinteractionsthatreduce(andultimatelyeliminate)disparity,
marginalization,anddiscriminationwhileincreasingsocialandpoliticalinclusion–offerswhat
BowenandBowendeterminerequiredforeffectivemeasurement.AsshowninFigure7,this
operationaldefinitionpresentsdisparity,marginalization,discrimination,andsocialand
politicalinclusionasmeasureableconcepts.Whenevaluatingtheimpactanagency,its
workforce,orassociatedprogramsandpolicieshavehadonsocialequity,administratorscan
usethisdefinitiontogroundassessmentmeasureswithintheseconcepts.Themeaningful
measurementofsocialequityrequirestheexplicitconnectionbetweenprogramgoals,
expectedoutcomes,andtheoperationaldefinition.
Figure7.CompletedRelationshipofSocialEquityDefinition,Conceptualization,andMeasures
51
Figure7.Relationshipchartillustratingtheimportanceofanoperationaldefinitionintheassessmentofsocialequity.Thechartdepictshowtheevolveddefinitionofsocialequitypresentsoperationalizedterms,whichaidsinthedevelopmentofsocialequitymeasures.
Theexaminationofcurrentequityassessmentpracticesconfirmstheoverarching
argumentspresentedwithinthebodyofsocialequityliterature.Themeaningfulmeasurement
ofsocialequityisnotwidespread,infact,itisquitelimitedtofeworganizationsand
governments.Toeffectivelyachievemeaningfulsocialequitypractices,administrators,in
additiontotheuseofanoperationaldefinition,mustconsiderhistoricalandsocialcontext.
Withouttheconsiderationofcontext,datacollectedlacksmeaning.Historicalandsocial
contextshapesassessmentdataandaidsadministratorsinunderstandingwhatshiftsinequity
actuallymean.Anevaluationofdatathatexcludescontextislimitedinitsbreadthanddepthof
understandinghowandwhychangeoccurs.Acontextualunderstandingofequitydata
strengthensadministrators’abilitytomakedatadrivendecisionsthatincorporatefeedback
loops.
52
Feedbackrootedwithintheassessmentprocessensuresthemostcomprehensive
approachtosocialequitymeasurement.OneofthemostdistinguishingaspectsofSocialEquity
Frameworksistheinclusionoffeedbacksystemsthatuseequitydatatoimpactfuturedecisions
andprograms.Tosimplymeasurepointsofequitywithinaprogram,policy,ororganizationis
notenough.Theincorporationoffeedbackiswhatmakestheassessmentprocessaneffective
one.Usingdatatodevelopstrategies,policies,programs,andinternalprocedurestosupport
areasofgrowthandrectifyareasofweaknessensureseffectivepracticesofsocialequity
measurement.
Moreover,meaningfulsocialequitymeasurementisnotraceblind.Bymostmeasures,
raceplaysasignificantroleindegreesofdisparity,marginalization,andinequity.Acolor-blind
approachtosocialequity“fostersthesystematicdenialofracialsubordinationandthe
psychologicalrepressionofanindividual’srecognitionofthatsubordination,therebyallowingit
tocontinue”(Gotanda,2000,p.35).Byignoringraceinsocialequitymeasurement,
administratorsandorganizationsareconsciouslyperpetuatingsystemsandbehaviorsthat
sustaininequityanddisparity.Vitaltoaneffectivemeasurementofsocialequityisan
understandingofhowpublicadministrativeactionsimpactdifferentracialandethnicgroups.
Themostcomprehensiveapproachtosocialequitymeasurementismissingthemarkifitisnot
arace-consciousapproach.
Inorderforthemeasurementofsocialequitytoriseontheprioritylistof
administratorsspecifically,andorganizationsgenerally,leadersofthoseorganizationsmust
developaculturethatvaluessocialequity(internallyandexternally).Aculturethatvalues
issuesofequitydedicatesresources(humanandfinancial)todevelopsoundstrategiesto
53
implementhighlycomprehensiveapproachesforsocialequitymeasurementandholdsthe
entireorganizationaccountablefortheprogressiontowardtruesocialequity.Theoretically,
accountabilityshouldbeasignificantcomponentofsocialequitywork.Inordertoensurethat
administratorsandorganizationsareeffectiveintheirsocialequitypracticestheyshouldbe
heldaccountablefortheirbehaviorsanddecisionsandforprogram/policyoutcomes.However,
practically,accountabilitypracticesforsocialequityworkisquitecomplicated.Forequitytobe
anorganizationalpriority,itmustfirstbevalued.Sincethemeaningfulmeasurementofsocial
equityislargelycenteredwithinvalue-basedinitiatives,organizationsmustembodyanequity
cultureforaccountabilitysystemstowork.Ifanorganization’sculturedoesnotvalueand
considerissuesofequityatthehighestlevelsofpriority,accountabilitystructures(evenifin
place)wouldbesymbolicatbestandwouldnot,necessarilybeenforced,norwouldequity
practiceswouldbemorethansuperficialeffortsdesignedtocheckofftheequitybox.
Truesocialequityisreflectedintheidealsoffullsocialandpoliticalinclusionandthe
eradicationofdisparity,discriminationandmarginalizationofthosemostmarginalizedby
publicadministration’s(in)actionsandbehaviors.Itisonlywhenequityisexperiencedbythose
whoaremostmarginalizedinU.S.society,thattruesocialequityisachieved.Forpublic
organizations,thejourneytotruesocialequitybeginswithastrongcommitmenttothegoalof
promotingequity.Achievingsocialequitymustbeacollectiveeffortofallindividualsinthe
organizationandbeattheforefrontoftheiractions.Mostimportantly,thejourneytowards
achievingsocialequityembracesthedevelopmentandimplementationofpolicy,
management,provisionofgoodsandservices,andbehaviorsthatreducedisparity,
marginalization,anddiscriminationandincreasesocialandpoliticalinclusion.Truesocialequity
54
canonlybeachieved,however,throughthemeaningfulmeasurementofsocialequity.Once
appropriatemeasuresareidentified,thendeterminingtheextenttowhichsocialequityis
actuallyachieved,ornot,willbecomeeasiertoassess.Thisreportservestooffernumerous
approachestounderstanding,measuring,andconsideringsocialequity.
References
AmericanSocietyforPublicAdministrators.(2013).Codeofethics.Retrievedfromhttps://www.aspanet.org/ASPA/About-ASPA/Code-of-Ethics/ASPA/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics.aspx?hkey=fefba3e2-a9dc-4fc8-a686-3446513a4533
Ammons,D.(2007).Performancemeasurement:Atoolforaccountabilityandperformance
improvement.CountyandmunicipalgovernmentinNorthCarolina,16,1-12.Ammons,D.(1985).Commonbarrierstoproductivityimprovementinlocalgovernment.Public
ProductivityReview,9(4).293-310.
Berman,E.(2002).Howusefulisperformancemeasurement?PublicPerformance&ManagementReview,25(4),348-351.
Blessett,B.,&Gaynor,T.S.(2017)Choicepointsasaframeworkfordecision-making.In
Ward,J.(Ed.)Leadershipandchangeinpublicsectororganizations:Beyondreform(pp.273-285).NewYork,NY:Taylor&FrancisGroup.
Blessett,B.,&Box,R.C.(2016).Sharecropperfinance:Usingthejusticesystemasapublic
revenuesource.PublicIntegrity,18(2),113-126.Blessett,B.(2015).Disenfranchisement:Historicalunderpinningsandcontemporary
manifestations.PublicAdministrationQuarterly,39(1),3-50.Bowen,W.M.,&Bowen,C.(1999).Typologies,indexing,contentanalysis,meta-analysis,and
scalingasmeasurementtechniques.InG.J.Miller&M.L.Whicker(Eds.),HandbookofResearchMethodsinPublicAdministration(pp.51-86).NewYork,NY:MarcelDekker,Inc.
Broome,B.J.,&Murray,J.S.(2002).Improvingthird-partydecisionsatchoicepoints:ACyprus
casestudy.NegotiationJournal,18(1),75-98.Callahan,K.(2007).Performancemeasurement.InE.M.Berman(Ed.),EncyclopediaofPublic
AdministrationandPublicPolicy(pp.1459-1464).NewYork,NY:CRCPress.
55
Charbonneau,E.,&Riccucci,N.M.(2008).Beyondtheusualsuspects:Ananalysisoftheperformancemeasurementliteratureonsocialequityindicatorsinpolicing.PublicPerformance&ManagementReview,31(4),602-619.
Charbonneau,E.,Riccucci,N.M.,VanRyzin,G.G.,&Holzer,M.(2009).Theself-reporteduse
ofsocialequityindicatorsinurbanpolicedepartmentsintheUnitedStatesandCanada.StateandLocalGovernmentReview,41(2),95-107.
Coe,C.K.(2003).Areportcardonreportcards.PublicPerformance&ManagementReview,
27(2),53-76.Collins,B.K.,&Gerber,B.J.(2008).Takenforgranted?Managingforsocialequityingrant
programs.PublicAdministrationReview,68(6),1128-1141.CommunityIndicatorsConsortium.(2017).Home.Retrievedfrom
http://www.communityindicators.net/home.
CommunityIndicatorsConsortium.(2017b).Aboutthecommunityindicatorsconsortium.Retrievedfromhttp://www.communityindicators.net/about
U.S.DepartmentofJustice.(2017).InvestigationoftheChicagoPoliceDepartment.Retrievedfromhttps://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925846/download
DepartmentofJustice(DOJ).(2016).InvestigationoftheBaltimoreCityPolicyDepartment.
Retrievedfromhttps://www.justice.gov/opa/file/883366/downloadDepartmentofJustice(DOJ).(2015).InvestigationoftheFergusonPoliceDepartment.Retrieved
fromhttps://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report_1.pdf
Dubnick,M.J.,&Frederickson,H.G.(2010).Accountableagents:Federalperformance
measurementandthird-partygovernment.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory:J-PART,20(suppl1),i143-i59.
Epstein,P.(1984).Usingperformancemeasurementinlocalgovernment.NewYork:Van
NostrandReinhold,Co.Frederickson,H.G.(2010).Socialequityandpublicadministration:origins,developmentsand
applications.Armonk,NY:M.C.Sharpe.
Gooden,S.(2015).FromEqualitytoSocialEquity.InM.Guy&M.Rubin(Eds.),PublicAdministrationEvolving:FromFoundationstotheFuture(p.211-232).NewYork:Routledge.
56
Gooden,S.(2014).Raceandsocialequity:Anervousareaofgovernment.NewYork,NY:Taylor&FrancisGroup.
Gooden,S.,&Portillo,S.(2011).AdvancingsocialequityintheMinnowbrooktradition.Journal
ofPublicAdministrationResearch&Theory,21(suppl1),i61-i76.Gotanda,N.(2000)ACritiqueof“OurConstitutioniscolor-blind.”InR.Delgado&J.Stefancic
(Eds.),Criticalracetheory:Thecuttingedge(p.35-40).Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.
GovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO).(2011).Keyindicatorsystems:Experiencesof
othernationalandsubnationalsystemsofferinsightsfortheUnitedStates(GAO-11-396).Retrievedfromhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11396.pdf
HaasInstitute,The.(n.d.).NewSocialCompact.Retrievedfrom
http://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/newsocialcompactHaasInstitute,The.(n.d.b).AreasofWork.Retrievedfrom
http://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/area-of-work
HaasInstitute,The.(n.d.c).EquityMetrics.Retrievedfrom http://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/equitymetricsHaasInstitute,The.(n.d.d).InclusivenessIndex.Retrievedfrom
http://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/inclusivenessindexHatry,H.(2007).Performancemeasurement–Gettingresults.Washington,D.C.:Urban InstitutePress.Hatry,H.(2002).Performancemeasurement:fashionsandfallacies.PublicPerformance&
ManagementReview,25(4),352-358.Highsmith,A.(2016,January29).Flint’stoxicwatercrisiswas50yearsinthemaking.Los
AngelesTimes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0131-highsmith-flint-water-crisis-20160131-story.html
Holzer,M.(2004).PublicProductivityHandbook.NewYork,NY:CRCPress.Hu,L.,&Olshfski,D.(2008).DescribingandMeasuringPhenomenainPublicAdministration.In
KaifengYangandGeraldJ.Miller(Eds.),HandbookofResearchMethodsinPublicAdministration(2nded.,p.205-212).BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.
Hug,R.W.(2011)Socialequity,health,andhealthcare.InN.Johnson&J.Svara(Eds.).Justice
57
forall:promotingsocialequityinpublicadministration(p.121-164)NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Julnes,P.D.L.(2006).Performancemeasurementaneffectivetoolforgovernment
accountability?Thedebategoeson.Evaluation,12(2),219-235.Johnson,N.,andSvara,J.(2011)Towardamoreperfectunion:Movingforwardwithsocial
equityinN.JohnsonandJ.Svara(eds)Justiceforall:Promotingsocialequityinpublicadministration(p.265-290).Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe,Inc.
Kelly,J.M.,&Swindell,D.(2002).Amultiple-indicatorapproachtomunicipalservicesevaluation:Correlatingperformancemeasurementandcitizenssatisfactionacrossjurisdictions.PublicAdministrationReview,62(5),610-621.
Kennerley,M.,&Neely,A.(2002).Aframeworkofthefactorsaffectingtheevolutionof
performancemeasurementsystems.InternationalJournalofOperations&ProductionManagement,22(11),1222-1245.
Kim,S.(2005).Balancingcompetingaccountabilityrequirements—Challengesinperformance
improvementofthenonprofithumanservicesagency.PublicPerformanceManagementReview,29(2),145-163.
Lin,J.,Rutter,J.,andHaeyoun,P.(2016)EventsthatLedtoFlint’sWaterCrisis.NewYorkTimes.Retrievedfromhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/21/us/flint-lead-water-timeline.html?_r=0
Lopez-Littleton,V.,&Blessett,B.(2015).Aframeworkforintegratingculturalcompetencyinto
thecurriculumofpublicserviceprograms.JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,21(4),557-574.
Maynard-Moody,S.,andMusheno,M.(2003).Streetwiseworkers:Enacting
identitiesandmakingmoraljudgment.AnnArbor,MI:UniversityofMichiganPress.MichiganDepartmentofCivilRights.(2003).Michigancivilrightscommission:1964–2004
fortyyearsandbeyond.Retrievedfromhttps://www.michigan.gov/documents/MCRC_history_book_77052_7.pdf
Menendian,S.,Elshikh,E.,&Gambhir,S.(2016).Inclusivenessindex:Measuringinclusionand
marginality.Berkeley,CA:HaasInstituteforaFairandInclusiveSociety,UniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley.
Moxham.C.(2010).HELPORHINDERANCE?Examiningtheroleofperformance
measurementinUKnonprofitorganizations.PublicPerformance&Management
58
Review,339(3),342-354.Moynihan,D.P.(2006).Managingforresultsinstategovernment:Evaluatingadecadeof
reform.PublicAdministrationReview,66(1),77-89.NationalAcademyforPublicAdministration(NAPA).Socialequityingovernance.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.napawash.org/fellows/standing-panels/social-equity-in-governance.html
Perrin,B.(1998).Effectiveuseandmisuseofperformancemeasurement.AmericanJournal
ofEvaluation,19(3),367-379.
Pitts,D.W.(2011).Alittlelessconversation,alittlemoreaction:Usingempiricalresearchtopromotesocialequity.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearch&Theory,21,i77-i82.
Poister,T.H.(2003).Measuringperformanceinpublicandnonprofitorganizations.San
Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Langston,A.(2017).AnEquityProfileofNewOrleans.Retrievedfrom
http://nationalequityatlas.org/sites/default/files/NOLA_profile_final_revised_21Apr2017.pdf
PolicyLink.(2016).About:Missionstatement.Retrievedfrom
http://www.policylink.org/about/mission-statementPolicyLink.(2016b).GEAR–GettingEquityAdvocacyResults.Retrievedfrom
http://www.policylink.org/equity-tools/gear/introductionPolicyLink.(2016c).Beyondconfrontation:Community-centeredpolicingtools.Retrievedfrom
http://www.policylink.org/equity-tools/beyond-confrontation-community-centered-policing-tools
PolicyLink.(2016d).Nationalequityatlas.Retrievedfrom http://nationalequityatlas.org/about-the-atlasPolicyLink.(2016e).Abouttheatlas:Dataandmethods.Retrievedfrom
http://nationalequityatlas.org/about-the-atlas/data-methodsRacialandSocialJusticeInitiative(RSJI).(2015).Wherewe’vebeen.Retrievedfrom
http://rsji.org/where-weve-been/RacialandSocialJusticeInitiative(RSJI).(2015b).Racial&SocialJusticeInitiative:Vision&
59
Strategy2015-2017.Retrievedfromhttp://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/RSJI/rsji-2015-2017-plan.pdf
Ross,A.(2017).Chartoftheweek:Whyweneeddatabrokendownbyrace/ethnicity.
Retrievedfromhttp://nationalequityatlas.org/data-in-action/SaveTheDataSchneider,A.L.,&Ingram,H.(1997).Policydesignfordemocracy.Lawrence,KS:University
PressofKansas.Schneider,A.,&Ingram,H.(1993).Socialconstructionoftargetpopulations:Implicationsfor
politicsandpolicy.TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview,87(2),334-347.SentencingProject,The.(2016).Issues:Racialdisparity.Retrievedfrom
http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/racial-disparity/Shafritz,J.,&Russell,E.(2005).Introducingpublicadministration.NewYork,NY:Pearson
Longman.SustainabilityToolsforAssessing&Rating(STAR)Communities.(2017).Ourframework.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.starcommunities.org/about/framework/SustainabilityToolsforAssessing&Rating(STAR)Communities.(2017b).STARcertified.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.starcommunities.org/certification/SustainabilityToolsforAssessing&Rating(STAR)Communities.(2017c).Certifiedfor
communities.Retrievedfromhttp://www.starcommunities.org/certification/certified-star-communities/
SustainabilityToolsforAssessing&Rating(STAR)Communities.(2015).STARcommunityrating
system.STARCommunities:Washington,D.C.Svara,J.,andBrunet,J.(2004)Fillingintheskeletalpillar:Addressingsocialequityin
introductorycoursesinpublicadministrationJournalofPublicAffairsEducation10(2)99-109.
Svara,J.H.,Wall,T.&Takai,K.(2014).Localgovernments,socialequity,andsustainablecommunities.Washington,D.C.:InternationalCity/CountyManagementAssociation.
Trochim,W.M.K.(2001).TheResearchMethodsKnowledgeBase.Cincinnati,OH:AtomicDog
Publishing.
UnitedCerebalPalsyandChildren’sRights(2006).Retrievedfrom
60
http://www.childrensrights.org/wpcontent/uploads/2008/06/forgotten_children_children_with_disabilities_in_foster_care_2006.pdf
U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(2016).2013-14CivilRightsDataCollection(CRDC).Retrieved
fromhttps://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdfVanWart,M.(2004).Acomprehensivemodeloforganizationalleadership:theleadership
actioncycle.InternationalJournalofOrganizationalTheory&Behavior,7,173-208.VirginiaPerforms.(2017).AboutVirginiaPerforms:Virginia’sperformanceleadershipand
accountabilitysystem.Retrievedonhttp://vaperforms.virginia.gov/extras/about.php
VirginiaPerforms.(2017b).VirginiaPerforms:Home.Retrievedfromhttp://vaperforms.virginia.gov
VirginiaPerforms.(2017c).Voterregistration&turnout.Retrievedfromhttp://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/govtCitizens/voterRegistration.php#data
VirginiaPerforms(2017d).Voterregistration&turnout:GraphsataGlance.Retrievedfrom
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/govtCitizens/voterRegistration-graphs.phpWholey,J.S.(1999).Performance-BasedManagement:RespondingtotheChallenges.Public
ProductivityandManagementReview,22(4),288-307.Wholey,J.,&Newcomer,K.(1997).“Clarifyinggoals,reportingresults.”InNewcomer,K.
(Ed.),Usingperformancemeasurementtoimprovepublicandnonprofitprograms(p.91-98).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
Wooldridge,B.,&Gooden,S.(2009).Theepicofsocialequity:Evolution,essenceand
emergence.AdministrativeTheory&Praxis,31(2),222–234.Yang,K.,&Holzer,M.(2006).Theperformance–trustlink:Implicationsforperformance
measurement.PublicAdministrationReview,66(1),114-126.Yang,K.&Hsieh,J.Y.(2007).Managerialeffectivenessofgovernmentperformance
measurement:Testingamiddle-rangemodel.PublicAdministrationReview,67(5),861-879.