Wilder Research Continues

The work of Wilder Research is more important than ever.

Last week, much news appeared regarding changes in the Wilder Foundation’s structure and services. In order to have the maximum community impact, within a challenging economic environment, the Foundation decided to focus on three strategic priorities: Children and Families; the Elderly; and Community Research and Leadership. The Foundation will transition out of some programming.

What about Wilder Research? All of our major initiatives will continue.

In fact, in these demanding times, we expect to expand our projects, especially those we do in collaboration with other organizations, and especially those in which we can influence action which will address and resolve the tough community issues we face.

Ironically, the news stories about Wilder’s changes, in the Pioneer Press and Star Tribune, appeared directly beside other stories describing challenges which confront us – in one paper, a story about the diminishing “safety net” for the unemployed, and in the other paper, a story about the critical need for developing the science and math skills of our student population, not just to increase their ability to take jobs, but to create a workforce necessary for the economic vitality of our entire community.

Yes, research has probably never been more important. Whether we like it or not, our government, our community, our organizations must do more with less. Whether we like it or not, the world has changed. Globalization, the current recession, the Internet, global warming – take your pick – all have had significant impacts on local communities. The complexity of today’s issues means that we need to combine good information, committed individuals, and a common sense of purpose – with the result that we improve the quality of life of all our residents.

We look forward to working with you to lead the community through the stormy waters of the present.

Local GDP growth: positive signs for our communities and the nonprofits which serve them?

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released figures two days ago, which provide cause for both concern and optimism – but hopefully more of the latter than of the former.

On the national level, new data for 2008 show that “the slowdown in U.S. economic growth was widespread: 60 percent of metropolitan areas saw economic growth slow down or reverse.” However, some metropolitan areas did increase their economic output. The Twin Cities region, Saint Cloud, and Rochester all showed positives – which perhaps offers Minnesota some reason for optimism.

Nobody can say what this means in the long term; economic growth in Minnesota’s metro regions (unfortunately not including Duluth) may or may not portend better years in 2010 and 2011. However, the national turnaround has to start somewhere; maybe that’s here.

We don’t know exactly when increases in the metropolitan GDPs will translate into significantly more jobs. Hence, we don’t know when economic growth will affect the rising level of requests that we have observed for assistance with basic needs; nor do we know when resources will return to nonprofits. I advise my nonprofit colleagues that we will not see major relief for at least five years; we will feel the negative effects of today’s recession for at least ten years. Let’s hope I’m wrong about that, but we should formulate our long-range plans with those assumptions and make sure that we can sustain as much service to the community as possible during the coming decade.

If we work together, we can and will get through it.

(If you want more details, take a look at the latest BEA numbers; also take a look at the latest Quarterly Pulse for the local area.)

Calling on the “reasonable middle” to improve our local communities (and move our nation ahead)

Two headlines appeared beside each other in last Friday’s Pioneer Press, which illustrate a major barrier to making progress on important issues facing our communities, our regions, and our nation. One stated “Pawlenty knocks Obama’s focus.” So, what else is new? The other headline proclaimed “Democrats line up behind Obama.” So, what else is new?

Real news would be: “Pawlenty compromises with Obama, for the good of Minnesotans.” Or: “Democrats use Obama’s speech as tool to collaborate with their Republican counterparts.”

Daily instances in which some politicians and other leaders state their mulish opinions, frequently embellished with misquoted, exaggerated, or twisted truths, unwilling to compromise, intent only to destroy those with opposing views – these events constitute news only to the extent that they illustrate the pervasive cancer that threatens constructive discourse in which all of us have the opportunity to contribute our points of view, then work together for the betterment of our communities.

At Wilder Research, we cherish differing opinions. No one point of view has an exclusive hold on the truth – whether that truth involves the best way to deliver therapy for children or the best policy for delivering services to older adults, or any other significant issue.

We often refer to the “reasonable middle” to identify our audience: that is, people who might be at center, right of center, or left of center - even very far in one direction - but not so far to an extreme that they can’t reach any consensus with anyone other than their own narrowly-defined group of compatriots.

Our Compass initiative, for example, www.tccompass.org, lays out facts about the trends in our region, identifies approaches to improving those trends, which other communities have tried, and invites people to work with us to address those trends. We invite those who want to work in multi-partisan situations to address social issues, improve the quality of life, deal with tough decisions related to the conditions of the vulnerable in our society, identify opportunities for increasing regional economic vitality, and any of a myriad of worthwhile endeavors.

Exciting initiatives have developed from Compass, ranging from community economic improvement efforts, to improving the system of services for the chronically mentally ill, to reducing disparities in health outcomes, to better understanding water quality. (See these on our website or Facebook page.) People from different points of view can come together to engage in collaborative action, with significant results.

Let’s all join the “reasonable middle”; let’s encourage others to do so. We can remain true to our own values, but still compromise to reach consensus, for the good of everyone.

Measuring Success Helps Us All Become Smart Consumers (and Providers)

How good is a hospital? Are you likely to get sick again? Will you have to return? How likely are you not to leave the hospital alive?

As the Pioneer Press reported, Medicare took a significant step to make data on hospital outcomes more accessible. This will benefit all of us who consume and pay for health care. It is an ethical, economically-responsible step to take.

At the Hamm Clinic, where I serve as Chair of the Board, we have tracked patient outcomes for more than a decade. So, for example, we now have a better understanding of how long it takes patients to get better, which patients seem to respond most quickly to treatment, and which types of patients don’t succeed with treatment or dropout prematurely. This evidence has many uses.

Clinicians can use the information to make better treatment decisions and to improve their work. Researchers can use the information to develop new and better treatment approaches. Eventually, consumers of health care can use the information in ways that will assist them and their families to better care for themselves.

All nonprofit organizations can learn from this. In the difficult economic times that we face, improving our effectiveness and increasing our productivity have become more important than ever. We need to work smart to produce results in the most cost-effective way and to have “multiplier effects”, whether our interest is health, the arts, education, economic development, or any other focus. Good data, including information on the outcomes of our activities, can help us to work much smarter.

Some nonprofit managers contend that we cannot, or should not, measure our outcomes. They sometimes claim that “We know what works; let’s just do it” or “We can’t measure everything we do” or “It costs too much”. But think about it: Would you really want to have a medical procedure that had not been tested? As a donor or taxpayer, wouldn’t you prefer to know that evidence exists that your hard-earned dollars will go to efforts that can succeed?

We do not need to measure everything that we do all of the time. Nonetheless, the hospitals can demonstrate how ongoing measurement of some of our work, combined with a sampling of autopsies (or, in the case of most nonprofits, occasional follow-up studies of clients or users of our services) can assist all of us to improve the effectiveness and productivity of our efforts on behalf of the people we serve.

Biased Census? Biased Bachmann? One? The Other? Or Both?

Representative Michele Bachmann says she will refuse to completely fill out her 2010 Census questionnaire and risk a $5000 fine. Why? More on that later; first, a few things every informed community member should know about the census.

The U.S. Census has great importance. Census results influence electoral boundaries. The population totals from the census determine the number of representatives each state can have.
The census numbers also help establish the amount of Federal funding that states receive for many different programs.

Understanding major community trends cannot occur without the census (conducted every 10 years) and its counterpart, the American Community Survey (conducted annually). Marketing our businesses in Minnesota, maintaining a competitive edge, ensuring that we have a healthy population – the census facilitates all of these.

In my meetings with residents throughout the state during the past 6 months, in every region including Representative Bachmann’s district, people have expressed a hunger for accurate census data and other information, to empower them to build their communities. They want good information on what’s happening in education, health, economics; they want to know how their population has changed and how it’s likely to change. The census enables people to understand their communities – how many older people live there, how many residents have college degrees, how many residents own their homes, and so on. Businesses rely on the census to understand their customers.

We should not take lightly our obligation to respond to the census. Nor should we ignore the problems that an undercount produces for states and cities. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, at the request of Congress, analyzed the consequences of the fact that the 2000 census missed counting a large number of people. Their analysis shows that funding losses due to undercounting amounted to slightly more than $4 billion.

Minnesota was lucky in 2000; its undercount came to an estimated 14,000 people. Many other states had more serious undercounts. However, Minnesota’s luck may not continue, especially if public officials send out negative messages about the census. In fact, we could lose a Congressional seat if the undercount becomes too large.

Why is Bachmann negative? Because, according to what she told The Washington Times on June 18, ACORN “will be in charge of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public... This is very concerning." On this point – that ACORN will go door-to-door – please note that Bachmann has it totally wrong. Only Census Bureau employees will collect census information. ACORN and other national organizations have signed on as “partners” with the Census Bureau to spread the word that the census needs good participation and wants to recruit staff who know local communities.

The one and only point of agreement which I share with Representative Bachmann on this issue relates to her concern that the Census Bureau’s inclusion of ACORN as one of its hundreds of partners taints an objective process in which we would like to place our trust. ACORN has definitely led some questionable initiatives which have alienated very good people who care about all members of our communities, rich and poor. Their reputation is a stumbling block regardless of their current intentions. Maybe ACORN should have been banned from partnering with the census. However, the Census Bureau has not been selective in approving partners; it’s pretty much “come one, come all” if you have connections valuable to reaching under-represented populations. ACORN does have those connections.

However, we should rise above the ACORN discussion to raise a larger issue. Important information, used for policy purposes, should be scientifically valid and politically credible to people of many different persuasions. At Wilder Research, we emphasize the use of advisory groups comprised of people from as many perspectives and political points of view as we can find. (Our Compass project enlisted 300+ members of the community, not all of whom agreed with one another, to establish credible measures of our communities’ well-being.)

To its credit, the Census Bureau recognizes the importance of enlisting a vast range of partners. The Bureau’s list grows every day. I took a look. The first page lists 100 Black Men of America, along with 7-Eleven – both excellent groups, with their own distinctive competencies to reach into communities. I went to Letter A partners. Alongside ACORN, I found: Association for University Business and Economic Research; Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs; ASPIRA Association; Asian Pacific American Medical Student Association; Association of Professors and Scholars of Iranian Heritage; Association of Public Data Users; and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. That seems like a good range, and these represent just a few of hundreds.

The lesson: Always challenge information you receive. Question its source. Understand its limitations. If you find yourself gathering or putting together information, request advice from people with vastly different points of view. Some with extreme points of view will never be satisfied, except with their own contrived data. However, most people are reasonable, and they will agree on what constitutes good information, even if they then disagree about what the information means.

Representative Bachmann does not seem to understand this, but neither do many other public officials, both liberal and conservative. On behalf of all members of our communities, from the most powerful to the most vulnerable, we need to educate public officials to use scientifically sound and politically credible information. So much depends on it.

(If you want to see the list of Census Bureau partners, visit their web site. For Compass, visit the Compass web site.)