Tuesday, June 21, 2016

"Speaking for Ourselves" - Collaborative Research with, for, and about New Arrivals

All large communities experience the arrival of new people. Sometimes the newcomers arrive from nearby; sometimes they arrive from afar. Sometimes newcomers and longer-term residents have similar languages, customs, and cultures; other times, they differ, at least on the surface. The constant blending of people from different places constitutes a regular aspect of life in most parts of our globalized, modern world.

In Minnesota in the 2010s, the migration of people into the state is not just something that happens to occur. It’s something that needs to occur. In 2013, the Minnesota State Demographic Center indicated that “greater numbers of migrants, both domestic and international, will be necessary to meet our state’s workforce needs and to buttress economic activity.”

Here in Minnesota, we have the opportunity to welcome newcomers and to maintain a high quality of life for all residents, new and long-term. To accomplish that effectively requires that we learn what’s working for our new arrivals, along with what issues and challenges they face.

For that reason, Wilder Research carried out a major study – Speaking for Ourselves – to focus attention on foreign-born people who have settled in Minnesota’s Twin Cities region. We wanted to learn about their lives – their families, education, jobs, health, and engagement in their communities.

The findings confirm some notions and challenge others. You can find easy-to-read summary reports on our website. For most topics, the research reveals a blend of positives and negatives. For example:

Health. About three-quarters of those who participated in the survey consider their health “excellent,” “very good,” or “good.” However, these ratings fall slightly lower than the health self-ratings of other Minnesotans. Health care, employment assistance, housing, and food assistance were all identified as helpful resources. Yet lack of health insurance, cost of health care, and cost of insurance create barriers to obtaining needed health care – despite federal and state initiatives intended to make health care more accessible.

Education. Parental encouragement helps to keep children in school, and about three-quarters of survey participants feel “fully able” to provide a home environment good for studying. On the other hand, only about one-quarter feel “fully able” to help their children with homework in English. Nearly all believe their children will go to college, but about three-quarters consider financial issues a barrier to obtaining post-secondary education.

Connections to mainstream institutions. Almost all of the immigrants and refugees who participated in Speaking for Ourselves had heard about or visited a public library. However, large proportions had not heard about or visited some major cultural institutions, such as the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, the Minnesota History Center, and the Minnesota Children’s Museum.

Civic and social participation. Survey respondents frequently offer assistance to neighbors, family, and friends. Yet, they tend not to volunteer their time in formal volunteer programs.

Those few findings illustrate the social assets existing among immigrants to our region; they also illustrate some of the challenges immigrants face. It is important to consider both the needs of these newcomers as well as the assets and resilience factors they possess, and to engage with these newcomers about their experiences and preferences, as we discuss and decide on programs and public policies to meet their needs.

A hopeful sign: organizations in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul region, as well as members of immigrant groups themselves, have begun to follow up on the study’s findings. Anna Bartholomay’s blog highlights some of this activity, as does one of the study reports. Cultural institutions who have had some successes in attracting visitors and recruiting volunteers from immigrant communities have embraced the study’s findings to formulate new plans of action to increase their appeal to, and relevance for, the region’s newest arrivals.


Our work on this study involved representatives of immigrant groups as partners, as well as representatives of some government and nonprofit organizations. This collaboration produced relevant and important findings useful for improving our quality of life in Minnesota, as well as useful for educating other communities around the world.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

HMIS: Using Data for Social Good

Who is homeless? What services do they receive? Who provides those services?

Vantage points for understanding homelessness differ greatly. Some members of our community have direct, personal understanding. They experience, or have experienced, life without a permanent place to live, or they work, day in day out, with or for homeless people. Other members of our community have little or no firsthand knowledge – developing an understanding based on occasional observations of homeless people or on news articles about the homeless population.

Similarly, HMIS – the Homeless Management Information System – is selectively known. People who deliver services to the homeless, and people who establish policies and funding for those services – they know HMIS very well. The general public, on the other hand, has never heard the acronym, although they might have read news reports based on HMIS data. In addition, they have unknowingly benefited from HMIS to the extent that the agencies which they support through tax dollars, or to which they make charitable contributions, can provide services more effectively and efficiently because of HMIS.

HMIS History

How did HMIS come to be? In 2001, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to collect better data on homelessness. HUD created a vision for HMIS using wisdom from communities who had already developed information systems to track services to homeless people. Locally, Wilder Research served as a pre-HMIS pioneer, establishing an emergency shelter database in Ramsey County under the leadership of Dr. Richard Chase in 1991. HUD mandated what data homeless service providers must collect in order to receive federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants, the primary source of federal funding directed at homelessness. HUD provided limited technical assistance, and made limited funding available for competitive applications from communities.

Local networks of homelessness service providers, called Continuums of Care, had the obligation to implement sophisticated, internet-based data systems in order to continue to receive McKinney-Vento funding, which remains the federal government’s primary source of funding directed at homelessness.

We at Wilder Research moved forward, along with Minnesota Housing, to collaborate with the Continuums of Care and other stakeholders to create the vision and governance for the new system, select a technical vendor, and secure funding. Minnesota Housing, the Family Housing Fund, and the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund contributed funding. Data collection began in 2003, when Wilder Research assumed the authority of Lead Agency and System Administrator for Minnesota’s Homeless Management Information System.

Today, HMIS serves all 10 Continuums of Care in Minnesota – including over 800 end-users and 230 service providers-- tracking the volume and type of service use by homeless people within agencies, across agencies, and for the entire state. It is used for both federal and state reporting.

HMIS “Reaching Maturity”

In 2015, given the growth in size and cost of HMIS over a decade, we worked with others to analyze the system and develop a new plan. During the planning process, HUD advisors proposed that responsibilities for managing HMIS be split, with one organization focused on governance and another on administration. A decision was made that Wilder Research would continue in its role of system administrator; Minnesota Housing would take on governance and policy. We established the goal to issue an RFP in 2017 for a new system administrator.

These proposed changes, we hoped, would set Minnesota’s HMIS on a firm footing for the next decade.

In 2016, the 10 Continuums of Care decided to accelerate the organizational shift. So, in collaboration with HUD, the state of Minnesota, the Continuums of Care, and others, we are transferring our responsibilities to another organization.

Data for Social Good: Into the Future

We at Wilder Research are very proud of our legacy with HMIS. Creation of a data system, especially with many moving parts, always involves daunting challenges. I particularly want to acknowledge the Wilder Research staff who contributed so much to this effort. They care deeply about providing the highest-quality service, producing high-quality data, and ending homelessness.  

The service delivery system for homeless people in Minnesota has many facets. Establishing a high quality HMIS required strategic, political, and technical savvy which we contributed along with other stakeholders to make HMIS the valuable resource that it is today, providing data for social good.


(Interested in some research based on HMIS information? Take a look at these outcomes and return-on-investment reports.) 
      

(Interested in further reading about HMIS or Wilder Research’s triennial statewide survey of homeless people? Visit these sites: Minnesota's HMIS and Minnesota Homeless Study.)

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Informed Public Decision Making


The Bern?
The Donald?
The Hill?
The Cruzinator?

Perhaps you have a favorite; perhaps you have not yet decided.

The once-every-four-years politics as circus has revved up in spring 2016, with the media sometimes more focused on topics like Hillary’s email indiscretions and Donald’s portrayal of Ted’s wife than on the issues of substance that we as voters should seriously ponder.

The who certainly has a lot of importance at all levels of government. We should select competent public officials. But, in the long term, the how has significant importance as well. How do we determine the best course of action for a city, a state, a nation? How – by what means – do we establish wise policies that will enhance the quality of life for everyone in the most equitable ways?

At Wilder Research, we focus on the long term, seeking to improve the means – the how – by which public officials and the general public can make the best choices. We shed light on what programs work. We seek to understand social and economic trends and how they influence the well-being of residents of our communities. We assist others to build their capacity to effectively implement programs and to make policy and funding decisions that will move community trends in a positive direction. All of those activities take time. They don’t happen overnight.

Sound public decision making requires measured, careful combining of values with evidence. We at Wilder Research seek to collaborate with community leaders of all types, bringing relevant, trustable, non-partisan evidence into their deliberations.

These examples demonstrate how we’ve informed decision making at local and state levels: 
  • As part of the Minnesota Strengthening Families Affected by Incarceration Collaborative, Wilder Research analyzed the impacts of parental incarceration upon young people and held forums to bring that information to the forefront. Now, state agencies use the research findings to educate the legislature. 
  • A Health Impact Assessment, done in collaboration with the Public Health Law Center, informed the revision of the Minnesota Department of Education’s Guide for Planning School Construction Projects. Historically, the guide has offered a compendium of design standards and state mandates for school districts doing new school construction or renovation. The HIA illuminated the many ways that school location and design can optimize student health. So far, at least one superintendent has used the HIA report to inform facility audits.
  • Our study of the return on investment in Supportive Housing demonstrated returns of $1.44 for every public dollar invested. Its very compelling findings have figured in multiple funding and legislative proposals. An additional study on this topic will come out soon. 
  • Minnesota Early Childhood Risk and Reach – in which we assembled, in partnership with the University of Minnesota and state agencies, key indicators of early childhood development in Minnesota – showed that Ramsey County is a high-risk county, resembling many greater Minnesota counties more than other metro counties. The project offers evidence that developmental risk levels will likely rise without concerted effort to rectify income and racial disparities. 
  • Regarding disparities, the disparities section on Minnesota Compass, along with other work at Wilder Research, has added to the rationale for the Governor’s recently-announced, $100 million dollar initiative to reverse racial disparities. 
  • Our research on the Safe Harbor Law and the No Wrong Door model raised awareness about sex trafficking in Minnesota. The Safe Harbor Law legally redefined prostituted Minnesota girls under 18 as crime victims. The study is now being used by government and non-profit agencies statewide to improve services and to educate and mobilize the public to end the prostitution of Minnesota girls. 
  • Our monitoring of mental health needs and patient flow through the health care system in the East Metro produced information used to support increased access to, and payment for, Crisis Stabilization Services, including the development of a mental health urgent care facility in Ramsey County; we expect further use of this ongoing study. 
  • Speaking for Ourselves, an innovative study of immigrants in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul region, carried out with representatives of those communities, has shed new light on mental health (policies that improve access to culturally appropriate behavioral health services), health (dedicating resources focused on healthy eating, physical activity, and tobacco/alcohol/drugs for immigrant and refugee communities), education (improving access to culturally appropriate early childhood education, as well as a pipeline for immigrant and refugee students in the Twin Cities to receive teacher education so they can work in and diversify the Twin Cities teaching force). 
  • The State of the Infrastructure survey, in the field again this year for MnDOT and MN2050, examines whether asset management will most efficiently and effectively care for Minnesota’s infrastructure assets. 
In these efforts and more, we hope to enable public officials and other community leaders to apply the best possible knowledge to their decisions, to use data effectively, to learn from experience, and to continually grow in their ability to govern wisely. We don’t subscribe to a narrow partisan creed. You won’t find us collaborating with Super PACs or producing soundbites for shock value. We prize the strategy we pursue – seeking to provide compelling rationales and evidence for public decision making that benefits everyone.


Saturday, February 27, 2016

What is Equity?


I suspect that most of us subscribe to the concept of equity in a general sense. But if pressed, could we define it unequivocally? Moreover, could we really commit ourselves to it and strive to achieve it? For example, how would you answer these questions?

A child born in one zip code in 2016 will likely live 5 years longer than a child born a few miles away in a different zip code in the very same city. Does this seem fair?

A black child born during the past few years in the United States will, on average, live to age 75; a white child born during the same time period will, on average, live to age 79. Does this seem fair?

A child living on one side of a street attends a school with a shortage of books, outdated facilities, and no access to music instruction; a child living across the street, in a different school district, attends a school with enough books, modern facilities, and a variety of enrichment classes. Does this seem fair?

Most people would respond that these situations are not fair. Few people take satisfaction in a status quo with sizable disparities based on where people live, their race, or a history of exclusion. But how would you respond to these possible remedies?

Certain groups of Christians, Jews, and Muslims have practiced gender segregation of various forms historically and to the present day. Should we accept such segregation as reasonable accommodation of diverse cultural norms, thereby equitable across varied cultural communities? Or, should we denounce it as a violation of our values, a barrier to gender equity?

A white applicant to an educational program does not receive admission, in favor of a student of color with lower admissions test scores, in order to rectify historical injustice. Does this seem fair? If it does seem fair, would you change your opinion if you knew that the white student’s grandparents had marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to end racial discrimination? What if you knew that the Nazis had murdered her great-grandparents in the Holocaust?

Should we merge school districts so that all children, regardless of where they happen to live, have equal access to the same resources?

When we consider remedies, it usually reveals great disagreement, even among people who proclaim a strong commitment to “equity.”

Social commentators of many different stripes have cited extreme income “inequality” as one of the most dangerous trends the world faces at present. I would agree that having a minuscule portion of the human population controlling a huge portion of the world’s wealth will very likely lead to trouble. But does it constitute only a severe disparity that we must live with in an imperfect world, or a morally indefensible inequity that we should seek to eliminate? Must the wealth of the world be divided into 7,300,000,000 equal shares (or thereabouts) to achieve equity, or can some people fairly have larger shares than others?

Does equity require equality?

If not, what’s the tipping point at which inequality becomes inequitable? A common twentieth century response involved distinguishing between equality of opportunity and equality of result. That provided temporary satisfaction to those wishing to reform the status quo, until we realized that a universal guarantee of eligibility to stand at the starting line doesn’t provide much advantage to people who lack training, a good coach, and proper running shoes.

Equity is something that decent people can love in principle, struggle to define and measure, and severely disagree in the identification of a means to achieve it.

So, where does that put Wilder Research, given our mission to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities through research – and our obligation to carry out this mission in an independent, nonpartisan, solidly-evidenced way?

We consider the movement toward equity an inchoate process at present – something that we understand enough to enter, but which we need to mold and shape with others based on what we learn as we all move forward.

We like the suggestion put forth by the Minnesota Department of Health that health inequities are avoidable disparities in health status based on social characteristics such as race, income, or geographic location. This implies that we can do something to influence them.

We shed light on disparities in educational achievement, homelessness, life expectancy, juvenile justice, and other areas, raising them up for careful examination.

We participate in activities to promote equity, so long as those activities remain inclusive and nonpartisan. Our endeavors in early child development and in education, for example, intend to promote full community efforts to enable all young people to thrive in their personal, family, work, and community lives.

Finally, we remain eager to collaborate, playing whatever role we have the competence to play – providing enlightening information, conducting methodologically rigorous research, convening groups to understand these issues – with partners who seek to take action to enrich the lives of everyone and make this world a better place.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

2016: Building Community

What do efforts to deal with global warming, the displacement of refugees, and the fight against terrorism have in common with efforts to address local quality of life issues such as failing physical infrastructures, the educational achievement gaps among racial and income groups, tensions over police shootings, and growing income disparities?

All of these issues require that we form strong social bonds if we want to make progress and improve our quality of life. Building community – in its broadest sense – demands our attention for this new year.

We, the inhabitants of this planet, share a common destiny. We will succeed or fail together to overcome ecological and social challenges at the global level. Nothing but working together – setting a worldwide vision and achieving it – will enable humanity to survive and thrive. Joint efforts have become a necessity for resolving economic, social, environmental, and other problems that transcend political boundaries and require us to forge social ties throughout a world community.

Closer to home, local quality of life issues related to infrastructure, education, housing, health care, and other parts of our lives demand reliance on our social groups – families, neighbors, community associations. The education of our children, for example, requires strong ties between parents and children, within neighborhoods, and between communities and schools. Each part of the community needs to stand up, do its part, and communicate with the other parts.

As the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.” By implication, we must nurture a cooperative spirit among the “all” in order to nurture the well-being of every “one” of us.

What practical implications does this reality have? Just a few examples, related to issues in the current press.

The achievement gap. For those who see the achievement gap as someone else’s problem, who feel that any mismatch between the competencies of our graduates and the needs of employers falls only on the shoulders of the business community to solve, please understand that all children are our children. We have a connection to them along with moral and practical imperatives to ensure their healthy development. If any of them fail, we all as a community fail.

Police/resident tensions. Recent police shootings have exacerbated already strained relationships between the police and some residents of our communities. One public official went so far a few weeks ago as to suggest that residents of his area should throw stones at the police. If we want to move forward productively, we need to resist the temptation to construct barriers. Community leaders should invite police officers to the next neighborhood barbecue, ask some of them to join in at youth clubs or school events to discuss their work, and take whatever steps possible to forge social connections that will build understanding and trust.

Immigration. We all come from somewhere else. Even our Native American residents migrated from another place. We serve as temporary caretakers of our land and our civilization, with generations of people to follow, some who look like us and many who do not. While surely we must protect ourselves from those who would do harm, we must put more focus on connecting with new arrivals. Efforts to foster continued success for today’s immigrants — private and public efforts alike, collective and individual — will pay rich dividends and honor our own immigrant pasts.


All of us can provide more examples. The theme is clear. Nurturing social connections, building community – we must focus on those activities during 2016 in order to achieve a better world for all.