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.