and counties and some of the challenges they face. Thus, while the findings are still preliminary, I put forward the following four lessons that represent some insights from my work to date: 1. Recognize that “we” were/are part of the problem. 2. Grasstops and grassroots are important. 3. Data is many things and serves many functions. 4. We have lots of tools; we need better skills. “We” Were/Are Part of the Problem
T
he United States has a long history of public efforts aimed at ameliorating social and economic inequality. Many of these programs—and the agencies associated with them—have been developed and implemented at the national level. It has become evident, however, that inequality and the related lack of opportunities for advancement manifest themselves most clearly at the local level.1 As a result, many cities and counties have made the advancement of equity a central objective in their policies and programs. That said, given the idiosyncratic nature of local jurisdictions, and the nascent nature of these efforts, lessons about challenges and opportunities are still emerging. About five years ago, I took notice of the growing movement among local governments to address inequity. With support from the American Society for Public Administration’s Center for Accountability and Performance, I (along with a doctoral student of mine) sought to document and understand this emerging field of practice, paying particular attention to the role of performance measures.2 More recently, I have continued my work as one of the inaugural members of the ICMA Local Government Research Fellowship program. In this capacity, I have been examining a series of local jurisdictions and related professional organizations. In particular, I am conducting interviews and focus group meetings with key stakeholders in several cities to develop in-depth case-study evidence to help synthesize issues, challenges, and best practices associated with the local pursuit of social equity. While the “final” results of my work will be presented at the 2019 ICMA Annual Conference in October, I am starting to gain some clarity on how the issue of equity is being addressed by cities
The U.S. government, like others, has unfortunately played a key role in creating and maintaining social inequities. While all levels of government are culpable in having shaped the distribution of (dis)advantage across the country, this is particularly true of local governments. One need only look to the history of American land use regulations to understand how regulatory tools have been used to segregate communities in ways that limit opportunities for employment, education, and access to public amenities.3 Recognizing that the public sector has played a role in creating an uneven playing field, however, is not a judgment on those who work in local government. Rather, it is often the first critical challenge facing those who wish to advance social equity from within public sector organizations. The leaders and staff of a jurisdiction need to understand their institutional history with respect to social inequity. To this end, stakeholders need to develop a shared language with which they can have a meaningful conversation that facilitates the implementation of actionable programs. This important first step is what the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) refers to as “normalizing.”4 Normalizing means employing “a racial equity framework that clearly articulates our vision for racial equity and the differences between individual, institutional, and structural racism as well as implicit and explicit bias. It is important that staff—across the breadth and depth of a jurisdiction—develop a shared understanding of these concepts.”5 Further, GARE suggests that an important part of normalizing the issue of racial equity is to recognize its urgency. “The most effective path to accountability comes from creating clear action plans with built-in institutional accountability mechanisms. Collectively, we must create greater urgency and public will in order to achieve racial equity.”6 The interviews I have conducted make clear that normalizing was one of the most “eye-opening experiences” for those involved. It was vital to moving the organization forward from broad conversations about equity to actionable programs and plans. In addition, it helped overcome key “sticking points” for many individuals— notably, the recognition that structural change within the institution is not a “judgment” on the individual. Recognizing institutional racism and/or implicit bias does not make you a bad person, but rather points to areas where change can and must be made. Grasstops and Grassroots Are Important
The second insight from my case studies is the importance of developing social equity initiatives through both the organization’s grasstops (leadership) and its grassroots (staff). First, while many SEPTEMBER 2019 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | 41