Social Equity and Evidence: Insights from Local Government

• Author: Susan T. Gooden
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12851
• Published date: 01 November 2017
• Date: 01 November 2017

822 Public Administration Review • November | December 2017

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 6, pp. 822–828. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12851.

Susan T. Gooden is professor of public

administration and policy in the

L. Douglas Wilder School of Government

and Public Affairs at Virginia

Commonwealth University. Her most recent

book is

Race and Social Equity: A Nervous

Area of Government

(M.E. Sharpe, 2014).

She is president of the American Society

for Public Administration (2016–17) and a

fellow of the National Academy of Public

Administration.

E-mail : stgooden@vcu.edu

Evidence in Public

Administration

Abstract : This article examines the role of evidence-based decision making in social equity, with a particular focus

on local government. It offers an assessment of the past, present, and future of such efforts by engaging themes from

Matias Valenzuela ’ s article based on King County, Washington. King County is one of more than 70 local governments

that are members of the Government Alliance on Race and Equity, a growing national network of governments using

an evidence-based approach to achieve racial equity. In general, previous social equity measures have focused largely

on measuring the extent to which disparities exist. More recently, tools and resources have become available to assist

local governments in designing and evaluating their approach and performance in reducing social inequities. Future

evidence should include more standardized measures to benchmark success, provide comparative analysis, and better

support the identification of best practices .

Kimberley R. Isett, Brian W. Head, and Gary VanLandingham, Editors

Susan T. Gooden

Virginia Commonwealth University

Social Equity and Evidence:

Insights from Local Government

M atias Valenzuela ’ s article presents an

informative account of King County,

Washington ’ s approach to institutionalizing

equity and social justice throughout local government.

He discusses the persistent inequities characterizing

King County that are largely embedded in structural

root causes and argues that targeted universalism offers

a useful approach to identify effective interventions

and strategies. He argues that this work requires a

grounding in science and evidence, as well as strong

and dedicated leadership. The Evidence in Public

Administration feature of Public Administration Review

facilitates dialogue between scholars and practitioners

about evidence in public decision making (Isett, Head,

and VanLandingham 2016 ). In response to Valenzuela,

this article discusses data and evidence in social equity,

with a particular focus on local government.

Previous social equity measures have focused largely

on measuring the extent to which disparities exist. In

recent years, more tools and resources have become

available to assist local governments in designing

and evaluating their approach and performance

in reducing social inequities. Future social equity

assessments should include some degree of

standardized measures to benchmark success, provide

comparative analysis, and support the identification

of best practices. While the focus of this article is

social equity and evidence in the United States,

such assessments are important globally. The United

Nations Sustainable Development Goals, for example,

directly focus on social equity outcomes with specific

target measures by 2030.

1

The Past: Measuring Inequity

Inequities in the United States have been documented

empirically across different policy domains (e.g.,

Bullard 1994 ; Fix and Turner 1999 ; Kozol 1991 ;

Quadagno 1994 ; Yinger 1995 ). Government agencies

at the federal, state, and local levels routinely provide

data on services and outcomes, and this often includes

reporting by race, gender, and income (e.g., U.S.

Census Bureau 2010 ; U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights 2003 ). These data capture and track important

equity disparities, and most of these data are available

for public use or accessible upon request. Based on a

wide range of data, we have learned a lot about social

equity.

For example, racial minorities are educated in poorer-

quality schools, face more environmental risks,

have less access to health care, have higher levels of

unemployment, receive harsher criminal sentences,

and are less likely to own a home than their white

counterparts. Women are paid much less than men

for doing the same job, are underrepresented in

science and technology, are much more likely to face

sexual harassment in the workplace, and in many

countries around the world have limited access to

education. Wealthier households are far more likely

to have health insurance, have better quality of care

as they age, and work in jobs that have benefits that

promote job security and family engagement, such

as paid sick leave and vacation time, far more often

than the working poor. Many of these disparities

are now considered common knowledge, but

much credit is owed to the research community