Local Government

• Published date: 01 March 2017
• Date: 01 March 2017
• Author: Susan T. Gooden,Grant E. Rissler
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17720268
• Subject Matter: Governance Matters

Governance Matters
State and Local Government Review
2017, Vol. 49(1) 37-47
Local Government:
ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
Social Equity “First Responders” sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17720268
journals.sagepub.com/home/slg
Susan T. Gooden1 and Grant E. Rissler1
Abstract
Public administrators at all levels are discussing implications of President Trump’s proposed budget.
While eventual outcomes remain uncertain, a recent interview of a panel of local government
practitioners highlighted that when such reductions occur, local governments often operate as “first
responders” in serving the most vulnerable residents within their respective communities. They run
toward the potential equity crisis rather than away, in part because they see those affected as
neighbors. In essence, their focus on social equity includes an emphasis on direct services as well as
trust building. The panel also highlighted the importance of trust building and leadership for sus-
tainability of social equity work and noted assessment and performance improvement as a key
opportunity for academic/practitioner collaboration.
Keywords
social equity, local government, first responders, practitioner
Speculative discussions regarding implications
services that impact their overall well-being and
of President Trump’s “skinny budget” are
threaten their overall livelihood. Rather than
occurring among public administrators at all
“running away” from their residents and local
levels. What programs will be cut, by how
government’s commitment to provide services
much, and within what time frame? While
in an equitable and just manner, a panel discus-
much of this discussion remains uncertain,
sion we recently held with four local govern-
when programmatic and budgetary reductions
ment administrators suggests they are both
occur, local governments often operate as “first
initiating and acting on requests to better serve
responders” in serving the most vulnerable res-
underrepresented residents. In doing so, they
idents within their respective communities.
exhibit an acute awareness that should cuts be
Local governments are often the first to observe
made, their emphasis on responding to the most
the disproportionate social impacts of reduc-
tions on impoverished residents, who are too
often underrepresented minorities.
1 L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public
The National First Responders Organization
Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA,
(2017) defines the term “first responder” as “an
USA
individual who runs toward an event rather than
away.” In the case of budgetary reductions, local
Corresponding Author:
Susan T. Gooden, L. Douglas Wilder School of Govern-
governments are in the first responder position
ment and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth Univer-
to provide support, assistance, or advice to resi-
sity, PO Box 842028, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
dents, who are confronting loss of critical
Email: stgooden@vcu.edu

---

38
State and Local Government Review 49(1)
affected members of their communities will
management (Scorsone and Plerhoples 2010) and
need to increase. Why? As one panelist
weathering the great recession (Levine and Scor-
explained these residents “are our neighbors.”
sone 2011). As Perlman (2009) explains, during
They are not an abstract number in a statistical
times of fiscal distress, state and local govern-
data table. Rather, they are specific faces who
ments “need to sustain coordination and coher-
occupy the same geographical space and are
ence among a wide variety of actors with
deserving of humanistic service.
different purposes and objectives” (p. 203). This
More than 90,000 local governments in the
includes an increasing reliance on the nonprofit
United States provide an array of direct service
sector for safety net and social services (MacIn-
to residents including, for example, public edu-
doe 2013). Relative to changes in presidential
cation, transportation, sanitation services,
administrative priorities, as Kunde and Stenberg
health services, public safety, library services,
(1993) explain, “while the President provides
homeless services, and parks and recreation
essential leadership and vision, the buck does not
services to name a few (Maynard and Clark
stop at his desk when intergovernmental matters
2013). Researchers analyzing the local govern-
are involved” (p. 210).
ment role in service provision to disadvantaged
communities have focused on whether pro-
grams and budgets are redistributive. Public
Capturing Practitioner
choice theorists of local government spending
Insights—A Panel Approach
and policy have argued that because residents
In order to gain insights from local practi-
can relocate to a nearby jurisdiction with rela-
tioners, we assembled a panel to participate in
tive ease, localities face pressure to compete
a conference call discussion to learn more
with each other to offer better services at lower
about their jurisdictions’ efforts to address
costs, in part by attracting wealthy residents
issues of social equity and social justice. Pane-
and potentially minimizing redistributive
lists were identified from their involvement in
spending to assist residents with low incomes
International City/County Management Asso-
(Tiebout 1956; Peterson 1981; Minkoff 2009).
ciation1 (ICMA) and/or the Government Alli-
Others advocating a political model, including
ance on Race and Equity2 (GARE). Having a
Sharp and Maynard-Moody (1991), argue that
diverse group of practitioners in terms of region
localities with fiscal capacity may redistribute
of the country, locality size, gender, and race
income locally in order to minimize social dis-
was also a priority. In May 2017, we held a
turbances that can emerge from highly unequal
one-hour telephone panel discussion with the
societies. As Minkoff (2009) notes, some
panelists, providing them with an advance list
research shows that local governments supple-
of semistructured questions. These questions
ment grant money received from other sources
asked about the equity activities of the local-
with their own-source dollars (Kantor 1995;
ities, the original motivation for engaging in
Craw 2006). Two other critical factors have
social equity work and factors that have sus-
also been advanced by Hajnal and Trounstine
tained it since, the panelists’ sense of how the
(2010). First, the level of local need impacts
proposed Trump budget might impact their
whether local governments invest in redistribu-
work, and both what types of research would
tive policies. Second, institutional structures
most help them in their equity work and what
are important—for example, a city manager
advice they would have for others just starting
form of government is argued to reduce respon-
out. The panelists included:
siveness to low-income residents and reduce
redistributive policy choice.
Austin (city), TX—Mr. Bert Lumbreras,
Previous research has also examined the rela-
assistant city manager
tionship of local government during times of fis-
Boulder (city), CO—Ms. Karen Rahn,
cal crisis or administrative change. This includes,
director of the Human Services
for example, an examination of cutback
Department

---

Gooden and Rissler
39
Hillsborough (county), FL—Mr. Carl Har-
6.7 percent in Austin compared to a national
ness, chief human services administrator
average of 5.1 percent. Austin and Hillsbor-
Kent (county), MI—Dr. Daryl Delabbio,
ough also stand out for the relative size of their
county administrator and comptroller
Hispanic residents and for having a foreign-
born share of their population (18.4 and
The panel conversation was digitally
15.8 percent, respectively) that exceeds the
recorded and transcribed. Immediately follow-
national average of 13.2 percent.
ing the panel, we identified broad patterns and
In terms of economic indicators, both Austin
themes from the conversation. We further
and Boulder cities are significantly above the
reviewed the written transcript to cross-check
national average in terms of median and mean
initial theme identification. The panelists spoke
income but also show higher poverty rates
with us on a confidential basis without specific
(18 and 23.1 percent, respectively) than the
quote attribution in our analysis.
other two locations or the national average
Due to the small, purposeful sample, the
(15.5 percent). This pattern emerges despite
findings summarized below cannot be general-
having a lower unemployment rate. Finally,
ized directly to all local public administrators.
another measure of economic vulnerability is
For instance, many smaller localities (under
the rate of uninsured residents. Here Austin and
100,000 residents) would not be represented
Hillsborough, at 18.2 and 16.3 percent, respec-
by this group. However, the mix of region, size,
tively, show a much higher portion of the pop-
and challenges faced, as well as the openness of
ulation lacking health coverage than is the case
the questions utilized, matches our intent to
in Boulder or Kent.3
“take the pulse” of a range of practitioners in
Table 2 provides selected highlights of
the current context. Following a brief demo-
initiatives or actions related to social equity
graphic and economic comparison, and high-
based on a review of each locality’s Web site.
lights of social equity activities across the
(In order to improve consistency of findings
localities, the findings elaborated below are
across different Web site structures, three stan-
themes...