Module 7 Lecture Notes – Social Equity in Public Administration

Social Equity

In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin wrote, “If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin”

Governments at all levels are in part responsible for many of the glaring inequities we see today and should therefore lead the way to solutions

Public policies adopted over time at the federal, state, and local levels have created and exacerbated many of the inequalities that our communities are struggling with today

Social Equity – Theoretical Argument

Theoretical Argument

Reasoning: A service can be well managed, efficiency and economical but we must ask, well managed for whom? Efficient for whom? Economical for whom? We have generally assumed a convenient oneness with the public, and have not focused our attention or concern to the issue of variations in social and economic conditions. It’s of great convenience, both theoretically and practically to assume that Citizen A is the same as Citizen B and that they both receive public services in equal measure. This assumption may be convenient, but it is obviously both illogical and empirically inaccurate

Frederickson: A public administration that fails to work for changes which try to redress the deprivation of minorities will eventually be used to repress those minorities

Essence of Social Equity – 1st Dimension

Two Dimensions

1st Dimension: the definition and analysis of social equity

Definition: The fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract, and the fair and equitable distribution of public services, and the implementation of public policy, and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy (Academy, 2000)

It is egalitarianism in action – the principle that each citizen, regardless of economic resources or personal traits, deserves and has a right to be given equal treatment by the political system (Shafritz and Russell, 2002)

Essence of Social Equity – 1st Dimension

In contrast to equal treatment for all, equity proposes that benefits be greater for those most disadvantaged (Denhardt, 2004)

To be sure, many sectors of society must be involved with a comprehensive response effort, but the administrative aspects associated with social equity are prominent. Within this mandate, strategies must recognize some obvious realities

Public administration should be viewed as the discipline that ensures fairness; however, saying that is insufficient. One must verity its adequacy and confirm that it works well.

Social equity indicators can help focus the attention of policymakers, staff and those governed to the quality of social equity in each community. These indicators should be part of the accounting frameworks of government, which is as important as the financial and performance indicators emphasized today

Equity may be inherently inefficient under a strict governmental performance definition. As part of an overall framework of costs to the community and over a long period of time, however, its productivity and assistance in creating a sustainable and healthy community can convince even the stickiest of budget experts

Essence of Social Equity – 2nd Dimension

1. 2nd Dimension: the normative essence of social equity that is focused on the institutional structures that continue to promote social inequities

2. Empirically speaking, the essence of social equity in public administration is almost exclusively focused on disparities that exist along certain dimensions, such as race/ethnicity, gender, and income.

3. Whether the topic is education, housing, employment, health, transportation, or poverty, there are two clear and dominant trends

a. Racial minorities tend to fare worse than their white counterparts (Wooldridge and Gooden, 2009)

b. Those who are in poverty fare worse than the middle class and the wealthy (Wooldridge and Gooden, 2009)

c. Example: Stark statistics reported in a Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies show that

i. Borrowers who are African American, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska native are more likely than white borrowers to have subprime loans of each type – home purchase, home refinance, and home improvement.

ii. In 2006, more than one-half (52.9 percent) of African Americans and nearly half of Hispanics (47.3 percent) who acquired home-purchase loans had subprime loans. This is contrast to the fourth (26.1 percent) of American Indian or Alaska Native homebuyers also purchased homes with subprime loans (Leigh and Huff, 2007)

d. In the US, inequities in wealth are also pronounced

i. “The enormous wealth gap between white families and Blacks and Hispanics grew larger after the most recent recession

ii. White households had a median net worth of greater than $88,000 in 2002 (Armas, 2004)

a. 11 times more than Hispanics

b. 14 times more than Blacks

e. “No large government agencies have been established of which the primary mission is achievement of racial-ethinc equality (Waldo, 1972)

Normative Essence of Social Equity

The normative essence of social equity identifies, analyzes, or replicates organizations, policies, or programs that have been successful in significantly reducing or eliminating racial inequities

Example: Using a geographical information system (GIS) mapping, a locality examined the transport time from multiple census tracks to the nearest emergency hospital. They found a clear pattern of racial disparities.

On the whole, residents who live in white majority census tracks have shorter hospital transport times than those who live in majority-minority census tracks.

After discovering this, the locality starts a “15 minutes to health care” initiative.

Within 5 years, the locality is committed to ensuring that all residents live within 15 minutes of a health-care facility

Accomplished this through building new roads, economic development incentives, etc.

The locality is successful in eliminating social inequities in hospital transport times.

The key point is that the organization (the locality) prioritizes the examination and elimination of social inequities

Normative Essence of Social Equity

It advances the discussion beyond individuals and focuses on organizational or structural actions.

It examines how an organization or system – particularly a public organization or system – undertakes a serious examination of its current practices and policies, demonstrates organizational commitment to addressing racial disparities, or has modified organizational behavior or practice specifically for the purpose of reducing racial disparities in client outcomes

Essentially, the normative essence of social equity becomes an effective learning tool for agencies and policymakers because it documents how equity was achieved and produces rigorous models for others to consider.

Government agencies and policy makers are eager to achieve social equity within their spheres of influence

Evolution of Social Equity

Social equity in public administration is linked to the 1971 book by John Rawls, titled A Theory of Justice

Rawls developed a principle of justice as ‘fairness” in which “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for all” (p.250).

Argued that a modern theory of government should equalize the distribution of social and economic advantages.

Challenges us to remove our “veil of ignorance” and to use our innate sense of justice to derive principles of equity without the bias of knowing our own situation”

This type of government moved beyond “ballot box democracy” to include equity and justice in the availability of public services (Frederickson, 1980)

This makes social equity a core concern of public administration

Minnowbrook 1

While the concept of social equity can be traced back to the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and Wilson, within modern public administration, social equity was brought to the forefront of public administration discourse at the first Minnowbrook conference

The first Minnowbrook conference was convened by Dwight Waldo, after observing the shortcomings of academic discourse surrounding the future of public administration. He described it as “old men talking to old men about irrelevancies”. The Minnowbrook conference was organized to allow young voices in the field discuss what they believed to be the most important issues facing public administration.

Minnowbrook 1 – Topics

Waldo asked the attendees to “make a broad and synoptic approach to the discipline of public administration”

Topics Discussed

Anti-positivism, dissatisfaction with the state of the discipline, personal morality and ethics, innovation, improved human relations, client centered responsiveness, and social equity

Minnowbrook 1 occurred with the backdrop of the 1960s, when (similar to today) a national conversation was occurring focused on civil rights, racial inequality, and injustice.

Minnowbrook I attendees noted, “A government built on a Constitution claiming the equal protection of the laws had failed in that promise. Public administrators, who daily operate the government, were not without responsibility” (Frederickson, 1990, p.228).

Minnowbrook 1 – New Public Administration

Minnowbrook I served as the foundational basis for New Public Administration (NPA)

NPA rejected the idea that administrators are value neutral and recognized a constellation of five normative core values that, although legitimate, can often be conflictual. Values include:

Responsiveness

Worker and citizen participation in decision making

Social Equity

Citizen choice

Administrative responsibility

New Public Management calls for public administrators to become an instrument for achieving social equity

Includes an array of value preferences, organizational design preferences, and management style preferences

This Week’s Readings

The State of Social Equity in PA

“During the past thirty years, as social equity has grown in importance in public administration, there is an irony: Americans have become less equal in virtually all aspects of social, economic, and political life.” (Frederickson, 2005, p. 31)

The State of Social Equity in PA

For the first several generations of the field of public administration it was simply assumed that good administration of government was equally good for everyone

Social uprisings of the 1960s made it clear that this was not the case

Public administrators could not logically claim to be without responsibility for some practices that resulted in obvious unfairness and injustice, so an argument emerged for social equity as an added ethic in public administration

Became the “third pillar” of public administration

“The ethical and equitable treatment of citizens by administrators is at the forefront of concerns in public agencies. Reinforced by changing public attitudes, the reinventing government movement and civil rights laws, the new public administration has triumphed after a quarter century. Now it is unthinkable (as well as illegal), for example, to deny someone welfare benefits because of their race or a job opportunity because of their sex. Social equity today does not have to be some fought for by young radicals as administered by managers of all ages” (Shafritz and Russel, 1990)

Eye roll

Social Equity – The Early Years

Early ears of social equity in public administration

Emphasis on race and gender in employment, democratic participation, and service delivery

Three obligations of social equity (Shafritz and Russell, 1990)

Obligation to administer the laws they work under in a fair manner

Interpreting obligations to advance social equity is to feel bound to proactively further the cause – to seek to hire and advance a varied workforce

The government can only go so far in forcing social equity. But there is no limit to the amount of inspiration it can provide to encourage people to do the right, decent, and honorable thing

Equity is now broadly defined to include

Race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, certain mental and physical conditions, language, and variations in economic circumstances

Income and Political Inequality

Frederickson makes a point to single out income inequality and political power inequity as a big problem for the future of public administration

Rising economic inequality is accompanied by other forms of democratic privation

Highly unequal voices in political affairs and government processes that are much more responsive to the privileged than to other Americans

Disparities in participation mean that the concerns of lower or moderate-income Americans, racial and ethnic minorities, and legal immigrants are systematically less likely to be heard by government officials.

In contrast, the interests and preferences of the better-off are conveyed with clarity, consistency, and forcefulness.

Walking the Social Equity Talk

When it comes to social equity, we should think globally and act locally. All important matters of social equity are local, in the sense of consequences.

Jurisdictional fragmentation

Concentration of ethnic minorities in low-income urban areas has a spiraling effect on inequality as the basic elements of opportunity – access to good schools, jobs, transportation, housing, and safety have become largely unavailable to residents of these neighborhoods.

Public administrators at the local level are increasingly in a position to either influence policies or implement already established policies in a way that ameliorates some of the effects of poverty and opens opportunities

Walking the Social Equity Talk

Everyone within public administration should engage in the war of ideas

We must relentlessly ask the so-called second question.

First question: Is an existing or proposed public program effective or good?

Second question: For whom is this program effective or good?

The war of ideas is not necessarily won by good ideas

Determination, organization, money, and persistence behind an idea are likely to win the war

Walking the Social Equity Talk

When public administration is practiced at the street level it employs a form of social equity

Street-level bureaucrats (e.g., police officers, teachers, social workers) face scarce resources, limited time, ambiguous expectations, and conflicting rules

To manage their way through these limitations, they apply a form of public service delivery and distribution based on what is described as “client worthiness”

Client worthiness – when public employees affix particular identities to their clients based on past experiences

Walking the Social Equity Talk

Senior public administrators and those who study public administration are part of the elite, the privileged

PA research can be patronizing

Researchers must look after the interests of those who are denied opportunities or are disadvantaged regardless of their competence

Walking the Social Equity Talk

It’s time for moral indignation, for passion and anger

Inequality is a moral problem, and if you are convinced that it is a real problem in America today, you should not be afraid to say to – and not be afraid to recommend whatever policies or programs you believe might make a real lasting difference

Social Equity: It’s Legacy, Its Promise (Guy and McCandless, 2012)

“Social equity is rooted in the idea that each person is equal and has inalienable rights. Because of America’s unique blend of social, religious, economic, and political characteristics, we value this concept despite, or perhaps because of, the simultaneous tensions of a capitalist economy, which requires inequality, set within a democratic constitutional system, which assumes equality.” (Guy and McCandless, 2012, p. 55)

Equity vs. Equality

While equality can be converted into a mathematical measure in which equal parts are identical in size or number, equity is a more flexible measure allowing for equivalency while not demanding exact sameness

Equity vs. Equality – Example

Civil Rights Legislation vs. Affirmative action

14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 and provides for equal protection under the law. The criterion considers whether group members have been historically discriminated against, have a highly visible trait (like skin color), or have little to no power to protect themselves in the political process

Affirmative action was a lever to advance equity, such that all else being equal, members of an underrepresented group would have priority in the hiring process to rectify prior exclusion.

Affirmative action continues to receive pushback

Policy initiatives that advance equality are less controversial than those designed to advance equity.

While equality creates parallel lines on a ledger sheet, equity changes power relationships that our society have become used to

Social Equity vs. Productivity

Both look at inputs

Equity looks at inputs in terms of the sources which they were derived (income, socioeconomic status, geographic groups)

Equity targets the distribution of services and their impact on different populations

Productivity measures look at the dollar value of inputs

Productivity measure focus on the quantity or quality of outputs

Dyckman (1971): Measures of social equity must ACCOMPANY measures of productivity to assess the adequacy of public services

Productivity

Chitwood 1974: Argued that government activities focusing on productivity had overlooked the importance of social equity and the administrative obligation to practice distributive equity

Importance of

Providing services like education, police, and fire protection to those who are unable to obtain them through market mechanisms in the quantity or quality that is essential

Providing services (education, job training) so that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete for and occupy all positions in society

Providing services that ensure people will receive the benefits to which they are entitled under law (public defender) and outreach activities that notify them of their rights to program benefits

Providing services (food stamps and housing) so that everyone can meet minimum survival needs

Achieving Social Equity in Productivity

To achieve this, Chitwood argued that distributive functions should occur in one of three patterns:

equal services

proportional services (services delivered in amounts that reflect an increasing function of a specified characteristic), or

unequal services that correspond to relevant differences

Or rather – the quantity of services provided should vary directly with the specified characteristic possessed by the client

Upholding Equity

It had traditionally been the courts that acted as change agents, rather than administrators

Upholding affirmative action

Class action suits against organizations that would not hire people of color (looking at you law enforcement)

This was reinforced by the attention equity gathered within public administration

Studies were commissioned to evaluate program formulation, results, efficiency, and equity

Social indicators were used to highlight service gaps

These studies brought attention to

the need for participative decision making

equal employment opportunity

Proponents argued that merit and equity were compatible

By insisting that any selection method measure the ability of a person to perform a specific job, appointing authorities would remain faithful to the intent of civil service laws and to the civil rights act of 1964

This evened the playing field, because other characteristics such as race or gender couldn’t be used to filter candidates into or out of the applicant pool

Compound Theory of Equality

There are simple individual equalities, meaning one person one vote (Kant)

Segmented equality – equality within segments but not equality between segments

Block equalities – equality between groups and subclasses

Domains of equality – goods, services, or benefits are distributed

Equalities of opportunity – equal opportunity for a job if both have the same probability of getting a job and the same talent (means

Value of equality – only the individual can judge which or what pleases them

*Rule-based distribution of shares (equity) is based on non-neutral judgments about each person’s needs

*Example: giving more police protection to someone who has been threatened than someone who has not

The Social Equity Lens – Socioeconomic Class

Social equity is a habit of mind for the decision maker, an administrative goal that can be measured, AND a lens through which needs are identified and processes are grounded

Social problems through a social equity lens

Socioeconomic class

American Dream – those who study hard, work hard, and invest well will pull themselves up from their bootstraps and achieve all that is good in a consumer culture

DiIulio (2004): Fount that the dream is more a myth than a reality

Tracked 6000 people born between 1942 and 1972

Of the 42% of people born into the bottom of the income distribution, only 7 percent rose to the top tier

Upward mobility is the measure of success, and policies are designed with the assumption that if one works hard they can achieve the American dream

Why is this rare?

Global economic restructuring

Poor job opportunities

Inadequate transportation

Education/training

Looking at this issue through a social equity lens allows us to identify blocks and establish goals to reduce the impact of wealth on upward mobility

The Social Equity Lens – Schools and Transportation

Safe Schools

When property taxes fund schools, lower income communities don’t receive the same level of resources as high-income communities

Segregation continues…

Apartheid educational system

Inequity in schools impacts inequity in other aspects of life

Without a good education, how are students expected to succeed?

If the resources for primarily Black schools are based on the income of people who live in the neighborhood, who have been struggling with inequitable hiring practices just compounds the inequity and ensures that that group of people can’t pull themselves out of poverty

Public Transportation

Without public transport, disadvantages have little access to job opportunities in other parts of the city

Public provision of highways for vehicles but not the provision of light rail and buses advantages one set of citizens over another

The Social Equity Lens – Healthcare

Health care

Which citizens merit access to care?

Adequacy of health programs for the underinsured and poor are lacking. They have:

Piecemeal services

Long waits

Outrageous costs

Incomprehensible regulations

Looking at this through a social equity lens allows policy makers to debate the issues in terms of how access can be ensured in a fair and just manner

Social Equity Indicators

When equity outcomes are measured with the same gravitas as other operations, like the number of cases processed or the number of home loans issued, this positions equity as an essential component of public performance

Indicators

Procedural Fairness – due process, equal protection, and equal rights

Access – distributional equity

Quality – level of consistency across services delivered to all constituents

Equitable outcomes – the degree to which programs and policies produce an equitable impact for those served

Challenges for the Future

Social equity has a capacity to frame deliberations, emphasize fairness, and monitor outcomes

The penalty for not attending to social equity issues is that in its absence there is civil unrest and political instability

Social equity is a moral imperative of the field

Administrator commitments

Procedural Justice/Fairness

Equity in the availability of services and benefits

Equity in the process of providing services and benefits

Equal level of outcomes for all groups

Guarantees of a place at the table to express views on policy choices and service delivery

Social equity falls naturally within the purview of public administration, for government is the entity of last resort when the market and social dynamics create problems that do not resolve on their own

Improving Community Relations: How Police Strategies to Improve Accountability for Social Equity Affect Citizen Perceptions (McCandless, 2018)

Social equity scholarship is increasingly examining how accountability for social equity is achieved, or how public agencies improve public services’ access, outcomes, processes, and quality

Social equity accountability: how administrators take steps to promote fairness

Admitting social equity issues

Making equity a priority equal to efficiency

Measuring and tracking progress

Giving everyone a place at the table

Establishing community partnerships

These steps enhance answerability and improve perceptions of legitimacy

Accountability in Policing

Policing is a great example of the need for greater accountability with social equity

Minorities often experience inequitable experiences with police, whether being stopped, searches, and arrested in greater proportions or being killed while unarmed

Police often acknowledge these issues and take steps to address inequities

Engaging in community policing

Undertaking performance measurement related to equity

Expanding ethics training

Improving Community Relations

Research Question: How do strategies of police agencies that foster accountability for social equity affect citizen perceptions?

What did we learn?

What happens in a police-citizen interaction is a microcosm of discourses on the meaning of fairness, particularly whether agencies admit issues, which is the beginning of social equity accountability

This is dependent on how officials socially construct the meaning of their experiences and the experiences of others

The decision to include more citizen decision-making, or the degree to which everyone is given a place at the table affects what police ultimately do.

When officials position equity and safety as competing goals, levels of citizen inclusion drop.

Citizens appear included more when groups mobilize to air grievances and when officials support inclusion as a way to improve practice.

When city-level groups cooperate to define what equity means in practice, departments engage in practices that positively affect citizen perceptions.

When discourses favor officials, the results appear to be more negative perceptions

KEY TAKEAWAY: Social equity accountability requires some redrawing of power relationships so historically marginalized groups can exercise their voice.

Does Coproduction of Public Services Support Government’s Social Equity Goals? The Case of US State Parks (Gazley et al., 2020)

Article focus: Are benefits distributed equitably to service users when philanthropy is used to underwrite or substitute for public services

There’s a connection between community wealth and the capacity of government-supporting charities

Strong relationships have been found between community wealth and the presence of a school-supporting charity

Also, how many dollars per student were raised

These equity concerns are intensified as scholars have found that these government-supporting charities may crowd out public resource investment in corresponding services at the city level

Poorer and more deprived communities may get the worst of both worlds because of the existence of these government-supporting charities

Must consider the research that demonstrates connections between human health outcomes and access to green space and the natural environment.

Coproduction

Coproduction – the involvement of multiple groups or individuals in the delivery of public services

Coproduction activity provided by volunteers and donors to public parks charities is a response to government “failure,” whereby the service is not sufficiently popular to be provided by public funds but is still able to generate niche support

In these instances, private citizens with resources and motivation may step in to offer the necessary collective action

Coproduction has been regarded as a central mechanism for improving public service delivery through citizen participation and involvement since the early 1980s.

Benefits

Mechanism for citizen voice and civic engagement

The predicted outcomes are two forms of philanthropic failure.

Philanthropic Insufficiency

Philanthropic insufficiency: when voluntary contributions do not adequately meet demand in the absence of taxation authority

In some cases, this is tackled by allowing the charities to collect user fees/entrance fees instead of using tax dollars

In other cases, charities may be financially unstable and unreliable especially during economic downturns

Neither situation supports a socially equitable outcome

Either restricts user access on the basis of ability to pay (no longer a public good)

Or they rely on inequalities in community wealth to coproduce the service

Philanthropic Particularism

Philanthropic particularism: the potential ability of a private sector service provi