P.S. on Dr. Fauci Hearing and Congressional Dysfunction

 I took another look at the "hearing wrap up" press release from meeting that the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held with Dr. Fauci. Very sad performance by the committee.

Given that Dr. Fauci has spent more than half a century devoted to protecting the world's population from infectious diseases, given that he has been credited with saving millions of lives, you might expect that the "Key Hearing Takeaways" listed in the wrap up would help us with questions like: How can we prevent another pandemic? What steps can we take to protect everyone throughout the globe from the next new virus that challenges us? How can we best organize our public health system to work as effectively as possible?

Not a single one of the "takeaways" related to such questions. In addition, in the "Member Highlights" section of the wrap up, not a single member said anything that was forward looking and visionary. Rather they tried to outdo one another with "gotcha" statements and "he said, she said" types of comments about the past.

We need strong, bipartisan leadership that enables us to make government work to promote the health and livelihood of all. We certainly do not have that leadership in place right now.

Dr. Fauci, Science, and Congressional Dysfunction

 

Similar to Anthony Fauci, I spent a career leading careful, deliberate, nonpartisan efforts to use science – in my case, social science – to improve the quality of life for all people in equitable ways. (By coincidence, Dr. Fauci and I attended the same high school in New York City, although his graduation preceded mine by 10 years.) So, via C-Span, I watched with great interest his appearance at the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. 

Ostensibly, the committee meeting had the worthy goal to identify steps we can take to prevent another pandemic similar to COVID19. In contrast, it was a seesaw conversation with red representatives trying to blame Dr. Fauci for one thing or another and blue representatives rising to Dr. Fauci’s defense. Few questions from committee members had anything to do with subjects that could protect the health of the American people. 

This half day event provided plenty of examples of the misunderstanding that some people have about science, and it put into relief the dysfunction of our Congress. 

Many of the representatives don’t know, or don’t want to admit, how science works, and how it can inform policy, government action, and community action. Scientific research begins with questions; activities occur to gather information to respond to those questions; scientists analyze that information; they then produce findings. Usually, the findings answer only some of the original questions, and the answers that the research provides are usually better and more complete for some questions than for others. 

Given the research findings, anyone can interpret what those findings mean, what strength they have, what limitations they have. Based on research findings, anyone can draw conclusions. If interested in using the findings to inform a decision or to guide an action, anyone can do so. 

Rarely does research on a specific question of interest provide the absolute, definite, immutable answer to that question. A specific study does the best it can at a particular time with the findings it can produce. Later research tries to address unanswered questions; it also often tests to see if the findings from earlier studies really had the strength that everyone thought and/or whether they continue to apply in a changing world. In this way, knowledge based on scientific research evolves, corrects itself, and improves over time. 

Apply that to the situation with COVID. COVID arrived in the United States as a completely novel pathogen and immediately began to kill people. We faced a severe crisis. Decisions about policies and action to stave off this killer could not draw on research because little research existed on the ways that specific virus transmitted itself and on specific means of prevention. No evidence existed on best treatments. So, very logically, public health experts made decisions based on closely related evidence, gathered new information, and revised their thinking and their recommendations about COVID as they learned more. 

Some early decisions produced positive results; some did not. All of the decisions about how to treat the virus and stop its transmission had social and economic impacts in addition to health impacts. Schools and businesses closed, or changed operations, for example – with major costs for families, individuals, and companies. All of those impacts need to be analyzed so that we understand their benefits and costs and can use that understanding when challenged by a future virus. Sadly, the activities of the committee did not move in that direction. 

Which raises the issue of the dysfunction of our U.S. Congress. A hearing such as this should contribute to our understanding of how to put science to use in preventing future national tragedies such as COVID. This committee should ask Dr. Fauci and others questions such as: What have we learned about public health measures that work and don’t work for prevention? What steps should we take if we suspect another powerful virus has begun to infect our population? How can we ensure effective, equitable care if a new epidemic occurs? How can we train and sustain the motivation of health care workers, to empower them to defeat future pandemics? 

Those questions received little consideration. The press release “wrap up” on the committee’s website contained a litany of criticisms of Dr. Fauci; it did not mention anything that could protect the future health of our population. 

Many of the Republican representatives used precious time to ask whether Dr. Fauci had used his personal email for official purposes. Each time someone raised the question, he said no. None of them had any evidence that he had done so. Regardless, does Dr. Fauci’s use of email several years ago contribute in even the slightest way to building our nation’s protection against a future pandemic? No. 

A staff person for the red side had the opportunity to ask questions of Dr. Fauci, after the elected representatives had completed their questioning. Commendably, he addressed some of the issues relevant to the protection of the public’s health. It seemed that most of the committee members had left by that time – which is too bad, since they might have learned something, and maybe by learning they could put science to good use.

Martin Luther King's Vision

 

Can we join together as a planet, to address the issues that face humanity? Martin Luther King Jr. had a vision, expressed during the two speeches he gave at the time of his Nobel Peace Prize award.

All statements below are direct quotes.*

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I believe that even amid today’s mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up.

Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.

Another indication that progress is being made was found in the recent presidential election in the United States. The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression8. The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right9. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path.

Why should there be hunger and privation in any land, in any city, at any table when man has the resources and the scientific know-how to provide all mankind with the basic necessities of life? Even deserts can be irrigated and top soil can be replaced. We cannot complain of a lack of land, for there are twenty-five million square miles of tillable land, of which we are using less than seven million. We have amazing knowledge of vitamins, nutrition, the chemistry of food, and the versatility of atoms. There is no deficit in human resources; the deficit is in human will.

So man’s proneness to engage in war is still a fact. But wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete. There may have been a time when war served as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force, but the destructive power of modern weapons eliminated even the possibility that war may serve as a negative good. If we assume that life is worth living and that man has a right to survive, then we must find an alternative to war. In a day when vehicles hurtle through outer space and guided ballistic missiles carve highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can claim victory in war. A so-called limited war will leave little more than a calamitous legacy of human suffering, political turmoil, and spiritual disillusionment.

So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. We must see that peace represents a sweeter music, a cosmic melody that is far superior to the discords of war. Somehow we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle from the negative nuclear arms race which no one can win to a positive contest to harness man’s creative genius for the purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all of the nations of the world. In short, we must shift the arms race into a “peace race”.

This is the great new problem of mankind. We have inherited a big house, a great “world house” in which we have to live together – black and white, Easterners and Westerners, Gentiles and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Moslem and Hindu, a family unduly separated in ideas, culture, and interests who, because we can never again live without each other, must learn, somehow, in this one big world, to live with each other.

This means that more and more our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. We must now give an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in our individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response which is little more than emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life.

* Quotes from:

Martin Luther King Jr. – Acceptance Speech. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2024. Mon. 15 Jan 2024. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/acceptance-speech/

Martin Luther King Jr. – Nobel Lecture. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2024. Mon. 15 Jan 2024. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/lecture

Racial Disparities, Suppression of Speech, Denial of Science – but nonetheless Hope on Independence Day

Some quotes from the Times for our times, which I noticed as I paged through The New York Times on the recent Fourth of July and the day after

From an essay by Matthew Thompson, questioning the impacts which urban economic development has had upon Black communities:

“Are we doing better than our ancestors? Are we building on their best ideas and learning from their worst mistakes? What sort of future are we preparing the next generation for?”

With that entreaty Thompson concluded a discussion that emphasized taking a comprehensive look at how changes made in the name of “progress” can often produce positive results from some, but negative results for others. He suggests learning from experience – good and bad – as we address economics, education, health care, criminal justice, and housing in order to create an optimal and equitable quality of life for all people.

From an essay by Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation, urging us to overcome the divisions in our nation:

“I believe fiercely in the promise of America. My love for this nation is unyielding and unwavering…In this new era of deconstruction, we must summon renewed fortitude, resilience and vigilance, with reverence for those who came before us and resolve for those who follow. This will require patriotic defiance, with respect for the rule of law but with fidelity to the ideals that precede it.”

Walker encourages us to change cultural values and institutional systems that don’t work optimally for all. The fundamental principles which underlie this nation’s democratic vision persist in their relevance, despite flaws and shortcomings in their application since the nation’s founding. We can fix that.

From an article by Vimal Patel, on free speech in the cyber age, in reaction to the actions of Daniel Schmidt, an activist protesting “anti-White hatred”:

“the Chicago statement (a declaration of free speech principles) has become a guide for colleges across the country that have struggled to manage campus controversies, particularly when liberal students shout down conservative speakers….The Chicago statement assumes that what takes place on campuses is ‘in good faith and that people have an interest in engaging the ideas’…but ‘the ecosystem that Daniel Schmidt is part of has no interest in a conversation’”.

Much has changed since the 1970s, when I began my research career. Certainly, extremists of all persuasions have always existed. Some of them have claimed their own sets of “facts” and have denied objective, credible evidence. However, the majority of members of audiences for research used to include diverse constituencies who would accept a study’s findings and then proceed with their interpretation.

As an analogy, if we determined that a 16 ounce glass contained 8 ounces of liquid, groups who differed in their outlooks and priorities would accept the data and move forward. Some might proclaim that the glass was half full; others might proclaim that the glass was half empty. But no significant denial arose regarding the fact that the glass held six ounces.

Today, unfortunately, some people would attempt to conceal the number of ounces. Others would look straight at the number 8 and say that it is not really 8. Those people render conversation and mutual agreement very difficult, at least in the short term.

From an essay by Anthony Fauci, regarding the complex relationship which evolved during 32 years between him and an activist who at the outset loudly and publicly proclaimed Fauci a “murderer”:

“…we reminisced like two aging warriors who recalled the battles that we fought together, how despite our initial adversarial relationship, we ultimately became partners in an important struggle and how differences of opinion and even a history of antagonism are entirely compatible with friendship and even love….I am so pleased and grateful that the last words we had the opportunity to say to each other were, ‘I love you.’”

So, on this Independence Day, I hope that as many people as possible can declare independence from rigid ways of thinking, that they can expand their perspectives, and as Thompson and Walker exhort, build a future based on respect and understanding of the past, along with energetic dedication to improve the future.

Walker also stated: “However we give voice to our patriotism, let’s step away from the extremes and from the edge, away from the sanctimony and certitude. Let’s build longer bridges, not higher walls.”

I hope that the portions of those on the left and on the right who now obdurately cling to narrow visions can refrain from demonizing their adversaries. Then, with expansion of their scope of sight, perhaps as Fauci suggests, all of us can act as partners in our very important human struggle to make this country, in fact this entire world, a just and healthy place to live.

Immigrant, Sociologist, Visionary: Aronovici

 

Science attempts to inform politics, with mixed results.

Public health expert offers recommendations and is ridiculed by a racist public official.

Research identifying inequities suffers backlash.

Do these sound like familiar recent events? They actually occurred in Saint Paul a little more than 100 years ago. Carol Aronovici, who served as the first director of Wilder Research, found himself immersed in controversies that arose because he did good social scientific work that did not align with the thinking of some people in power at the time.

In 1917, the Wilder Foundation board of directors hired Carol Aronovici, Ph.D., as the first research leader of the organization. Romanian-born Dr. Aronovici had earned his Ph.D. in Sociology at Brown University, under the supervision of Professor Lester Frank Ward, the first president of the American Sociological Association. Professor Ward stressed that science should work for the benefit of humanity – an axiom continuously underlying the quest of Wilder Research to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities.

Immediately upon taking his position, Aronovici initiated a survey of housing and health conditions, which Wilder Research considers its first study. The Saint Paul Pioneer Press reported that Aronovici told the funders of the study and other community leaders that he wanted their assurance that the findings of the research would lead to action. “It is my conviction that a housing survey which is merely intended to give the community a bad reputation and does not result in immediate, practical, and far-reaching action, is detrimental rather than beneficial to the community.”1

Based on Aronovici’s survey, which included visiting the homes of more than 22,000 people, Wilder Research issued its first research publication: “Housing Conditions in the City of Saint Paul”.2  With statistical tables, graphs, maps, and pictures, the report provided a framework for significant recommendations intended to improve the lives of Saint Paul’s residents, including: development of housing ordinances; formation of a Housing Bureau; and initiation of comprehensive inspections of hotels and lodging houses to ensure that the conditions in which people lived met basic standards of sanitation. 

The report by Aronovici exhibited wisdom more characteristic of the twenty-first century than of the twentieth. He understood the importance of managing the social and physical environments of an urban area in order to create equitable, healthy living spaces for all people, especially people of low income. He had observed city life across the United States and in other countries and had witnessed how housing design could enhance human life. 

Some of his observations seem very prescient, given what we now know about the importance of green space, the mixed impacts of the advent of automobile travel, and the advantages and disadvantages of urban growth. He urged, for example, “comprehensive community planning of constructive character” that would produce “the maximum amount of light and air” and “the economical use of land without hindrance to requirements of safety, sanitation, convenience, or permanency of investment”.

Observing inequities that produced challenges for poor people and immigrants, as well as power dynamics that favored unscrupulous landlords over tenants, Aronovici proposed bold conclusions and recommendations. He acknowledged the importance of promoting health for all of Saint Paul’s residents, but noted the special importance of attending to the needs of lower income people:

“The entire city needs a constructive plan, but the elimination of the slums and the redistricting of the city to meet the housing and industrial needs of the wage earners and poorer elements of the population, should take precedence over the construction of costly public buildings, the development of improving thoroughfares, the building of boulevards designed for the automobile tourist, the opening up of park areas in districts undeveloped and inaccessible sections of the City. These things, while desirable, should not take precedence over the immediate needs for the improvement of the living conditions of the people.” 

Based on the study, Aronovici felt that the city had failed to do as much as it could and should have done for its residents. He specifically faulted Saint Paul’s public officials for failure to enforce existing building codes, enact new health and housing codes, provide adequate water and sewer lines, and maintain an effective system of garbage collection. He identified tropes which stigmatized poor people and immigrants, and which public officials referenced in order to justify inaction by government with respect to addressing public health issues. 

For the legislative branch, the report suggested that stereotypes of the “foreigner” served as excuses which legislators used to delay passing laws that would protect the health of immigrant and poor populations. Regarding the executive branch, the report strongly criticized the Health Department for inadequate attention to public health issues, citing a lack of personnel and lack of efficiency, but also citing the unwillingness of the Health Department to bring issues forward for attention, due to dominant prejudices against the poor. The report advised that anyone in the Health Department or in any other department of the City government responsible for the neglect of public health should receive “public condemnation” and be removed from office. 

The judicial branch received disapprobation through statements in the report that reflected Aronovici’s values of equity and fairness, such as: “…the courts are frequently unwilling or unable to realize the importance of using their judicial power in the protection of the health of the people with the same sense of justice that guides them in the protection of mere property…Property can be reproduced, health cannot…” 

Many people praised the report, and it did lead to changes in health and housing policies. Within four months of the report’s publication, the Saint Paul City Council enacted a housing ordinance which Aronovici had authored. 

Not surprisingly, however, the report received a negative reaction from Saint Paul’s health officer, Dr. B.F. Simon: “I wish to go on record from the first that I have not given a great deal of time or attention to said Dr. Aronovici since taking public office because I absolutely refuse to give much of the public’s time to recommendations made by any man who is not a full-fledged American citizen.” 

Aronovici died in 1957. His obituary in The New York Times indicated that, at the University of Pennsylvania, he had taught “the first course in city planning offered in this country”. After leaving Saint Paul, he became the State Commissioner of Housing and Immigration for California. The obituary also noted: “At the New York World’s Fair of 1939-40 he was one of a group of naturalized citizens honored for contributions to ‘the welfare and progress of the United States’.”3  A profile of Aronovici in the StarTribune in 2017 characterized him as “years ahead of his time”.4 

[1] Saint Paul Pioneer Press, March 5, 1917.

[2] Aronovici, Carol, “Housing Conditions in the City of Saint Paul,” Amherst H. Wilder Charity, 1917.

[3] The New York Times, August 1, 1957.

[4] Brown, Curt, “Lifting the Lid on St. Paul’s Poverty,” StarTribune, November 19, 2017

My Wilder Thanksgiving

 

From the first of May in 1978 through the first of July in 2022, my many experiences at the Wilder Foundation offered much to appreciate. 

I’m thankful for the foresight and generosity of the Wilder Family: Amherst; Fanny; and Cornelia. They could have bequeathed their fortune to friends, but they chose instead to establish an endowment that would charitably enhance the lives of people throughout the community into perpetuity.

I’m thankful that Wilder’s Board of Directors initiated formal research activities in 1917 and that they approved continuation of research throughout my tenure as Executive Director, beginning in 1982.

I’m thankful for the idealistic, energetic, competent staff at Wilder Research. Over the past four decades they pursued research to fulfill our mission to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities. I’m thankful for all the information they have created for use by nonprofit organizations, public officials, leaders in philanthropy, and other policy makers – to support the creation of better human services and better social policies. The Wilder Research Library’s database includes several thousand public reports published by Wilder Research, dating from 1917 to 2022. Staff produced about 60 percent of those items since 2009.

I’m thankful for the many partners and colleagues I have had – within the Wilder Foundation and within other organizations and community groups. They have made it very fulfilling to work in collaboration to learn, discover, and innovate by means of social research. They have demonstrated through their thoughtful and caring endeavors how to apply research in meaningful and impactful ways.

I’m thankful that Wilder’s CEO, Armando Camacho, and the search committee that he assembled selected a new leader for Wilder Research, Heather Britt. I’m thankful that Dr. Britt brings a wealth of experience and wisdom that will guide Wilder Research well into its second century.

Much to appreciate on this wild, Wilder career journey. Now, I plan to “rewire, not retire”. It will be fun to see what new and different opportunities arise.

Happy Thanksgiving!

An Independence Day Appeal for Liberation (from Disinformation and Division)

 

Some people have never cared about the facts. Extremists on the right and the left. Fiercely partisan segments of the Democrat, Republican, and other parties. People with a vested interest in a specific cause, belief, or technology. When I began my career, it usually seemed that perhaps 20 percent of the population, at most, fell into the “don’t bother me with the truth” category. Four out of five people would accept valid information from reliable sources.

Those four out of five might dislike what they observed. They might, very appropriately, apply their values-based or political lens to interpreting the numbers. The numbers might motivate them to resolve to change the status quo, seeking to take things in a different direction. But they would accept the research and move forward. They would also often seek compromise with individuals holding different viewpoints.

Half a century after beginning my career in research, the slice of the population willing to accept the facts seems to have narrowed. And sadly, it seems that a greater proportion of people define those with different views as noxious “others” – groups not to trust and not to collaborate with on improving community well-being.

I admit that I become maddeningly frustrated with the deniers of the 2020 presidential election result. More than sixty court cases, including many presided over by Republican judges, have not found any evidence of significant fraud. Donald Trump’s attorney general, assistant attorney general, and campaign manager all said that fraud did not influence the election outcome. The temptation becomes great to become irate, berate the election deniers, and buttress the fences to avoid interacting with them.

But I also have great sympathy for the misinformed, given the homogenous cultural, social, and political silos in which most of us live, as well as the ways that some traditional media and some social media have restricted distribution of the facts and/or intensified false information.

Out of curiosity, on the evening of the most recent hearings of the January 6^th Committee, I looked at several major news websites. At about 6:15 p.m. The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and WCBS in New York all had major stories posted about the hearings. In contrast, Fox News – the most watched news channel – had absolutely nothing about the hearings. I looked up, down. I clicked various links on the site. Prominent, top-of-site stories covered the topics of Uvalde, Bill Cosby, the PGA, and the Navy’s program to teach sailors about pronouns. But no story on Fox at that particular hour revealed information from the January 6^th Committee’s hearings.

The hearings constitute important news. The hearings have information that debunks the lies about election fraud. The American public deserves to see that information. People might disagree on what the witnesses’ testimony means. They might dislike the testimony. But they deserve to learn about it.

At the other end of the political spectrum, those on the extreme left do not remain innocent of demanding unquestioning allegiance to a single worldview, even if that means covering up facts or suppressing debate about complex issues. President Obama recognized and addressed this problem in his exhortation to young people to avoid “cancel culture”. In a recent essay in The New York Times, Pamela Paul contends that the “fringe left” has resorted to “bullying, threats of violence, public shaming, and other scare tactics” when women assert their right to equality. The result, in her opinion is to “curtail discussion of women’s issues in the public sphere”.

While living in Northern Ireland, I observed the various ploys that residents would use to determine the “community” membership of someone they just met. After making that determination, they could pigeonhole that person based on learned stereotypes, decide whether to interact with or avoid that person, and in rare cases, decide whether they wanted to kill that person. During the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed similar maneuvers – making our judgements about one another based upon where we stand regarding the recent Supreme Court decisions.

Whether we should or should not form judgements that way is a separate question. I don’t intend to make a political statement. My concern is that, as we rigidly filter perceptions and judge our neighbors as friend or foe, we narrow even further the segment of the population willing to seek the truth and pay attention to the facts.

On this Independence Day, I encourage liberation – freedom to think and act differently. Take the step to have a sincere conversation with someone who holds a different point of view (maybe not while watching a parade or while eating at a picnic, but sometime during the next month or two). Do you share any common ground in your visions for the future, in your concern for humanity, in your desires for the well-being of all people? Can you appreciate the sincerity of the other person’s convictions, even if you consider their conclusions misguided? Might you and your conversation partner eventually have the ability to work from common ground to address threats to our world such as climate disasters, racism, food shortages, inequities of wealth, and others?

I hope so.

In establishing common ground, can we accept science and accept valid research? Can we start with the facts as a base, and then apply our values and opinions – rather than starting with our predispositions and only accepting information that conforms to them? Realistically, we can probably never expect that the segments of our population dedicated to extreme views will acknowledge truths that they dislike. But most of us do have the ability to maintain our values while accepting the facts.

As the civil rights visionary Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said:

“Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part…. When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.”

For the sake of science, for the sake of democracy, and for the sake of the future of the world, I hope we can all walk with the wind and do our part.

Happy Independence Day.

Guns, Guns, Guns

 

In 2019, after the murder of 23 people at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, a reporter, Laurie Roberts, wrote: “You know the drill”. First will come thoughts and prayers; then questions and calls for action. Then: 

“As night follows day, the horrified reply will be that it’s simply too soon to politicize this tragedy. And once again we will find that the appropriate time for America to at long last confront these horrifying massacres … is never.”

Notwithstanding any thoughts and prayers which might have occurred during the next three years, nothing substantial happened to prevent another tragic, mass killing. So, about 3 years, and about 500 miles from El Paso, 21 people have so far died as a result of an elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, at the hands of a shooter in possession of two semi-automatic rifles. 

Unfortunately, mass shootings (defined as 4 or more victims killed or injured) occur almost daily in the United States. Mass murders (defined as 4 or more people murdered) occur, on average, every few weeks. This year, since the 1^st of January, the United States has had 213 mass shootings and 10 mass murders. The Gun Violence Archive updates these statistics every day.

Discussion of putting an end to this sad carnage often devolves into fruitless debates over the impact of mental illness versus the availability of guns. Do these incidents stem from mental illness or gun availability? Perhaps a reasonable question, but very easy to answer: both mental illness and gun availability have significance, probably along with other factors. 

Certainly, anyone who murders defenseless, innocent children suffers from severe mental illness, acute or chronic. Moreover, killers such as the El Paso shooter (2019) and the Buffalo shooter (2022), have taken others’ lives without remorse or shame. That seems psychopathic.

Also certainly, a truism exists: If someone does not have a gun, they cannot shoot anyone. If the Dayton (2019) shooter did not have a .223-caliber high-capacity rifle with 100-round drum magazines – that enabled him to fire 41 shots in less than 30 seconds – he could not have shot anyone. If the Las Vegas (2017) shooter did not have access to a military-style weapon, along with a bump stock to effectively turn his weapon into a machine gun, he could not have shot and killed so many people.

For prevention of future gun-violence tragedies, evidence-based insights can assist us. The Violence Project, for example, has examined mass shootings since the 1960s. They have documented how shooters have typically experienced a noticeable crisis prior to their shooting. Many experienced feelings of suicidality before or during their attacks on others. The majority of shooters experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence. Shooters found validation, inspiration, and sometimes radicalization in the actions of other mass killers. And shooters had the means to carry out their plans; they could access the guns necessary for killing a lot of people in a short period of time.

If we commit to collaborative, data-informed approaches, we can use available research information to develop strategies to prevent future mass shootings. The Dean of Harvard’s School of Public Health suggests that we can take a public health approach – that “reframes the issue as a preventable disease that can be cured with the help of community members.” Similar to stopping any disease, stopping gun violence requires interrupting transmission, containing the risk, and changing community norms.

After a mass murder in 1996, the United Kingdom took a radical approach, banning access to some types of guns and strictly limiting access to other types. Since then, only one mass murder has occurred.

So far, no evidence has emerged that more guns will reduce school shootings and other mass murders. In the recent Uvalde situation, the killer warded off two, armed police officers who arrived before he barricaded himself in the school building. In the Parkland (2018) school shooting, where 17 people died, the school security officer onsite retreated outside to a place of safety, rather than pursue the killer. In the Buffalo mass shooting two weeks ago, an armed security guard could not stop the shooter, and died in the attempt to do so.

Nothing suggests that Texas Governor Abbott’s 2015 tweeted exhortation – to make Texas the number one state in gun purchases – has any likelihood of reducing the number of innocent children killed by mass shooters. In fact, based on the evidence on how killers obtain their guns, his advice will probably increase the number of children murdered.

For those of us working in the nonprofit sector and in community-based organizations, these violent events compel us to address our missions all the more strongly. Few of us can step in and prevent a specific violent act, a specific act of hate, or any other bad thing that an individual decides to inflict on others. Nonetheless, we can address root causes and underlying conditions which precipitate and/or enable such events.

Success will require that many of us work in concert, and that we take action, with thoughts and prayers only serving as the first step.

 

The Census: An Eye on the Past

 On April 1st of this year (no fooling), the National Archives released the original census records from 1950. Interesting stuff if you seek to obtain information for historical, genealogical or other purposes.

With a name and the county / city of residence, you can search for a specific person. The more unique the name, the easier the search, especially in larger cities. You can also look for specific addresses.

I searched for information about parents and grandparents. The results helped me piece together some ancestral facts that I knew in part, but did not fully understand.

Do you want to know who lived in your house (if it existed) in 1950, or even earlier? I learned that the seven occupants in 1950 of my current house included three generations. The “head of household” reported the occupation of university professor. So, I explored the professor’s background and discovered that he had written several important books about local history.

I looked as well at other residents on my city block and nearby blocks. As I read names, ages, occupations of these people, it set me wondering about their stories – how they built their lives, how they arrived where they found themselves in 1950. What shaped their experiences, and how did their lives in these places shape our present experiences? I have looked at earlier census records as well. Comparing records over time provides details of changes at a microscopic level in a neighborhood. It tells us something about the individuals who lived in the houses, and also something about social processes and structures, as they changed or as they did not change, over the decades.

Understanding the past supports our efforts to move into the future. If you take a look at census records, who can predict what fascinating little historical tidbit you might discover – which will change your understanding of the world? 

Give it a try!

https://1950census.archives.gov/

Program evaluation: Gathering good data to increase positive impacts

 

 

A community group wants to improve its food distribution program and seeks to understand how best to increase the accessibility of food that has high nutritional value and meets varied cultural standards of the community’s residents.

 

A multi-service, nonprofit agency provides assistance to people across the life span. It asks: What can we do to increase the numbers of people who find our services helpful? Why do older people seem to use us more than younger people?

 

A museum seeks to enrich the lives of children in a neighborhood whose residents do not know about the museum’s services.

 

A foundation has a mission to provide funding for housing and wants to know how to best direct the funding toward the types of housing that fit the needs and preferences of people in the area the foundation serves.

 All of these organizations want to learn whether they accomplish their intended purpose. In the simplest form, they want to know: “If we do A, does it lead to B? 

Program evaluation is a systematic process for an organization to obtain information on its activities, its impacts, and the effectiveness of its work, so that it can improve its activities and describe its accomplishments.

Gathering solid evidence about effectiveness

A useful program evaluation typically builds upon four types of information:

• Client/participant characteristics - e.g., demographics
• Service data - type and amount of services, activities, treatments, etc.
• Documentation of results or outcomes – evidence of changes that occurred or needs met among the people served
• Perceptions about services – how people feel about their experience with the organization

·       The organization might have such information available, or it may need to develop the means to acquire that information. Ideally, the organization will have, or will create, a process for obtaining information in a complete and accurate form. Having information on clients and the services they receive requires a consistent method of tabulating service use, along with a database that stores that information for retrieval. Understanding outcomes and client satisfaction requires collection of authentic information from and about the people served by a program.

That’s where program evaluation enters the picture. Techniques for gathering information enable programs who want solid evidence about their effectiveness to gather it in reliable ways.

Logic models: Identifying the path to impact

Evaluation can, and should, stretch the limits of our thinking. Many years ago, after a couple of initial, and seemingly productive, meetings with a program that wanted to initiate an evaluation, they canceled an upcoming meeting. They did not return my phone calls (before the days of email!). After about a month, their director called and said, “Paul, we’re sorry we didn’t get back to you. We had an issue with ourselves, not with you. When you asked us to outline how we work and how we produce our impact, those questions raised existential concerns for us. We realized that we really did not have a solid process for working together; we realized that we really didn’t have a system to collaborate as a team to know what to do when in order to produce the best outcomes for our clients.”

Encouraging that organization to identify their program theory of change (e.g., a logic model) led to a pivotal moment – a juncture where they suddenly had new insight and, in a relatively short period of time, developed a new way to work together. Over the years, many organizations have told Wilder Research staff that the most useful part of the evaluation process is the development of a logic model. It clarifies what programs expect to accomplish. It offers a guide that enables staff to better plan and make decisions to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of their services. It assists in communicating about impact with many different kinds of stakeholders.

Showing progress and where we need to do better

Beyond helping us to improve our work, evaluation provides much other value. Staff and volunteers can feel a sense of pride and feel increased motivation by seeing the number of people served by their organization. They can feel empowered by knowing the number of people who benefited as expected from the services they received, and the number who did not. Organizations can share such information with other organizations in their field to compare notes and jointly discuss how they might improve effectiveness. Organizations can share the information with funders, to document what the funders’ resources supported and to point toward areas of additional need.

The single biggest mistake I’ve witnessed regarding evaluation is when people look at evaluation information as if it represents the score at the end of a sporting event – assuming that it shows whether we “won” or “lost”. Viewing evaluation this way makes people fearful, and it suppresses innovation.

One of the most successful fund-raising institutions in the United States – St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital – has often published statistics on its success rates for treatment of different types of cancer. Over several decades, some success rates began extremely low – even close to zero. Did that mean “give up”? Did that mean “hide the facts”? Absolutely not. In fact, the opposite. It served to rally people around a cause, and it offered a baseline against which to judge new approaches. Acknowledging the difficulty of achieving success increased determination to find cures; it strengthened appeals for funding and for other resources to improve the health of children.

So too with other types of issues that nonprofit, community-oriented organizations face. Some social issues might seem intractable. Adapting organizational activities to fit changing needs and new populations might seem bewildering. That does not mean “game over, we lost.” It means, whatever our level of effectiveness – high, medium, or low – let’s build on that to strengthen our work and increase our impact.

Evaluation comprises part of an ongoing cycle of using information to design and deliver services, gathering more information to see how well the services achieve intended outcomes, and then using that new information to make revisions and adjustments for improvement. Evaluation creates a platform for evidence-based decision-making: We can never have total certainty that what we do will be effective, but with good data, we increase the probability that we will create positive impacts.

The development of programs and policies that benefit people involves a constant search. We seriously err if we think we know it all, or if we remain rigid in our thinking and our approaches to helping people, solving problems, and addressing issues. Through program evaluation, we ask questions, seek better paths, and make progress with humility to create a better world.

 

The Manager's Guide to Program Evaluation: 2nd Edition: Planning, Contracting, & Managing for Useful Results is now available. This revised edition is an invaluable resource with brand new real-world examples taken from recent evaluation research projects conducted by Wilder Research staff. Get your copy here from: Turner Publishing.

Our New Year 2022

 

Today’s New York Times stated: “January 2022 arrives as our ways of keeping time seem broken. Calendar pages turn, yet time feels lost.” Yes. It can feel as if time froze. Recent events can seem distant; events of a year ago can seem like they recently occurred. Pandemic time does not have the feel of “real time”.

Of course, time did not freeze. Throughout 2021, the world continued to need research, and we at Wilder Research persevered, despite many obstacles, to do social research to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities.

I never anticipated that the last of my 40 years as Executive Director of this 104 year old research institute would include navigating through a pandemic. The plague of Covid-19 forced us to balance work and personal responsibilities in unique ways, cope with sickness of ourselves and/or family members, learn how to accomplish a lot of tasks remotely, participate in meetings knowing that a child or grandchild might pop onto the screen, and overcome myriad other challenges – while nevertheless maintaining high standards of quality for our products and services.

Wilder Research staff acted in heroic ways to move our products and services out the door and into the hands of research users. Our mission maintained our motivation because community needs did not freeze in time; organizations striving to make the world a better place did not halt operations. Community leaders, decision-makers, public officials, philanthropic organizations, news media sought greater insight (which research can provide) regarding social issues, to cope with unprecedented experiences.

Whatever 2022 brings – it will not include yesteryear’s standard patterns of living and working. Amidst the “new abnormal”, we might not settle into any predictable arrangements for our lives, for at least some time. But at Wilder Research, the values we hold – such as dedication to community, faith in our colleagues, commitment to high quality research products and services – those will persist and transcend whatever the future drops upon us.

Happy New Year!

Managing Evaluation – from the Program Manager’s Point of View

 

Much interest exists in evaluating and improving programs that serve our communities. Staff in nonprofit organizations and government agencies of all types want to know which services work and which do not work, so that they can continually increase their effectiveness. Funders want to know how best to invest their resources. 

I’ve written a new book, The Manager’s Guide to Program Evaluation (2^nd edition), to help those of you who value the benefits of high quality program evaluation and have responsibility for making sure that evaluation occurs, but need help understanding how best to make it happen. This new edition provides several examples of evaluation research, based on work completed at Wilder Research. Those examples can help readers to better understand how evaluation might occur in their organizations. 

The Manager’s Guide takes a common sense approach to explaining program evaluation. All of us intuitively make decisions, based on the best information that we have, regarding activities in our daily lives. We discover the best way to travel to a destination; we assess products in order to decide which ones to purchase; and so on. Program evaluation formalizes that intuitive process. It offers overall discipline, specific rules, and reliable methods so that we can ensure the validity of whatever information we collect and the soundness of whatever judgements we make. It offers us confidence that we will move forward to increase our impacts. 

The Manager’s Guide walks readers through all the steps in the program evaluation process, providing the information needed for planning, contracting, and managing a helpful evaluation. The book takes the program manager’s point of view. It informs program managers about what they need to know as managers – not about the technical skills they would need as program evaluation specialists. We hope that readers find that slant valuable. 

Ground yourself in the evaluation essentials

One chapter covers the basics – offering definitions and key concepts important for understanding the evaluation process. That chapter describes the essential information that an evaluation must have. It also indicates other information which, though not absolutely necessary, can enable a program manager to answer more questions and get at more nuances in determining the effectiveness of their services. That chapter also describes the importance of having a program theory or logic model. 

Understand your role throughout the evaluation process

Another chapter guides readers step by step through the four phases of an evaluation: design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. For each step, the book indicates what major activities occur and the roles of the program manager and the evaluation researcher in those activities. For example, at one point in the design phase, a program manager will need to take a lead role in determining the major questions for the evaluation to answer. With knowledge of the questions to address, the researcher will take a lead role in identifying the most appropriate methods for obtaining information to respond to those questions. 

The Manager’s Guide also provides answers to practical questions. For example, how do you decide what to do on your own and what to hire an evaluation researcher to do? If hiring a program evaluator, how should someone select that person or organization? Many options exist, including working with a large firm, with an academic research center, with an independent solo practitioner, or with a smaller team or firm (for profit or nonprofit). Each of those options has its advantages and disadvantages, and the book points them out. 

Plan for the necessary resources

How much does an evaluation cost? That question often arises, and the book provides some guidance. However, spoiler alert: Asking, “How much does an evaluation cost?” resembles asking, “How much does a house cost?” The answer obviously is “it depends.” To estimate costs of program evaluation, you will need to consider what questions you must answer and develop an understanding of the methods required to respond to those questions. Knowing those things, you can reasonably predict the staff and consultant hours necessary and the associated costs. 

Make an impact!

Michael Patton has served as an inspiration, a guide, a teacher, a friend, and a mentor to many of us in the evaluation field. In reviewing the book, he offered the comment that “for managers committed to evidence-informed decision making, no better book exists.” I very much appreciate that assessment. In addition, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to have created this book to put tools into the hands of people who seek to make a difference in the world through their work – so that we can act in an equitable fashion to improve the lives of people everywhere, using sound information and making sound judgements for the betterment of humanity. 

The Manager’s Guide to Program Evaluation (2^nd edition) becomes available in January 2022. You can pre-order your copy from Turner Publishing.

The Presidential Election, Dr. Fauci, and Our Commitment to Science

 

“A presidential election in the United States may be looked upon as a time of national crisis. As the election draws near, intrigues intensify, and agitation increases and spreads. The citizens divide into several camps, each behind its candidate. The entire nation falls into a feverish state. The election becomes the daily grist of the public papers, the subject of private conversations, the aim of all activity, the object of all thought, the sole interest of the moment.”*

So wrote Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s. Not much about the election dynamics he described almost two centuries ago has changed. But much seems to have intensified during 2020, especially the “division into several camps.”

Unfortunately, one camp more than the other in the current Presidential election has chosen to act contrary to science. In many cases, the members of that camp blatantly reject strong evidence of what can protect the health of the population.

However, we should not be shortsighted. During my 40+ years of research for the public good, I have witnessed people across the political continuum reject clear, well-established facts. Some proportion of liberals, centrists, and conservatives succumb to the temptation to ignore or reject truths that don’t neatly correspond with their pre-determined assumptions or that don’t conveniently support their goals.

The natural tendency to bend reality to fit our preconceptions and biases, along with the sometimes subconscious purging of information that does not align with our worldview constitute aspects of human frailty that underlie the rationale for independent news media, nonpartisan research organizations, and other institutions and practices that can ground us in accurate representations of reality.

Mask wearing and social distancing constitute “no brainers” – actions everyone should readily accept without hesitation in order to protect both health and economic vitality. In 2007, long before controversies regarding how best to handle COVID-19, the AmericanJournal of Medicine reported strong evidence that, during the pandemic of 1918-19, “nonpharmaceutical interventions,” such as school closings, cancelation of public gatherings, quarantines, and mask wearing, reduced deaths.

Yet, politicians have perverted these sensible, evidence-based practices into partisan symbols. That’s very sad and has already had deleterious effects.

Ironically, China, the country in which the virus initially launched itself, successfully controlled COVID and restored economic activity quickly – because it placed public health measures first. Good health seems to support economic growth. At Wilder Research, one of our studies sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and reported last year, showed that metropolitan regions in the U.S. with stronger health seem to have more vibrant economic capacity and greater resilience when they encounter shocks and challenges. In short, it's not either/or. We can have good health and economic prosperity.

The politicization of established health practices has killed and will kill. That’s why Dr. Fauci, this country’s North Star during the pandemic, steadfastly refuses to become partisan. His objective is to serve the public good, regardless of the political party in power, and despite whatever the prevailing attitudes, fads, and fashions of the times might be.

On Election Day and any other day, I encourage all of us to keep an open mind in searching for the best approach to today’s issues. In voting, give preference to candidates – of any party – who base their platforms on sound, reliable information. Everyone deserves their own opinion. In fact, it is good to have a mix of opinions so that we can learn with one another and evolve over time our understanding of what our planet needs to survive and thrive. However, everyone does not deserve their own separate set of facts.

If someone says that masks do not work to prevent infection, we have a hundred years of evidence to prove that statement incorrect. The intrigues, agitation, and feverishness that de Tocqueville mentioned should not cloud our judgement, shape our thinking, and influence our votes. Science, while imperfect and always improving, can nourish our decision-making about the people, programs, and policies that our communities need.

Facts matter, because

People matter.

*From Democracy in America, translated and paraphrased from several sources.

Celebrating All Who Labor

 “Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.” (U.S. Department of Labor)

The day emerged during a transitional period for the United States economy that lasted well into the 20^th century. Rates of participation in the manufacturing sector increased, while rates of participation in the agricultural sector decreased. Safety laws, health ordinances, and other protections for workers largely did not exist at the turn of the century. Immigrants, such as my grandmother, faced harsh working conditions.

The U.S. celebrated the first federal Labor Day holiday in September of 1894, although some cities and states had established the holiday during the preceding 10 years. Pressure to improve conditions for working people motivated legislators to act to establish the holiday. Labor strikes, violence, and unrest in 1894 pushed them to enact legislation, subsequently signed by the President, with the hope that the symbolism of the holiday would prompt change.

A railroad strike in the spring of 1894 and a sympathy boycott of the railroads led by Eugene Victor Debs (I worked for radio station WEVD, named after him, but that’s another story.) precipitated a feud between federal and local officials regarding whose troops should restore order in Chicago:

“President Cleveland dispatched federal troops to the city to enforce the injunction. Illinois’ pro-labor governor, John Peter Altgeld, who had already called out state militia troops to prevent violence, was outraged, calling the government’s actions unconstitutional. With the arrival of federal troops, the Pullman strike turned bloody, with some rioters destroying hundreds of railroad cars in South Chicago on July 6, and National Guardsmen firing into a mob on July 7, killing as many as 30 people and wounding many others.” (History.com)

Does that sound eerily parallel to events we have witnessed in 2020?

History does not show that improvement in workers’ lives occurred at the hoped-for pace. Enactment of laws to protect the health and safety of workers, and everyone else, occurred slowly during the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. Minnesota passed safety legislation as early as the 1880s. However, it tended to have only modest effects because it relied on voluntary compliance. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 initiated the minimum wage. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned employment discrimination based on race, gender, and other personal characteristics.

Coincidentally, the first study published by Wilder Research, in 1917, prompted the development of municipal health and safety ordinances in cities around the U.S.

Despite legislation, advocacy, and good intentions, the benefits of employment remain unavailable to some in our communities. Racial and gender differences persist in the proportion of adults who work, wages, and corporate leadership, for example. Minnesota Compass shows how these disparities exist in Minnesota.

On this Labor Day, my wish is that we can find ways to distribute equitably the fruits of our economy to all people in the U.S.

In addition, on this day originally intended to honor people employed in the paid labor force, I suggest that we might broaden our definition of “labor” to honor all of us who contribute to our economy and our communities. We can treat the day as an opportunity to celebrate people who engage in paid employment, but also those who engage in raising children or in other forms of caregiving, in volunteer work to make our communities better, or in any other type of endeavor where they apply their energy and talents. Most of us engage in at least one, if not more, of those activities.

Let’s celebrate all who labor!

Awakening

“Awakening” – President Obama used that word several weeks ago. It seems appropriate. It also seems to have caught on among others. I certainly hope so.

Beyond a doubt, our society requires fundamental change. That change can only occur through diligent commitment and unflagging effort.

The sight of George Floyd pinned to the ground begging for air shocked and upset me. Watching the video also made me realize that reactions of shock and dismay are part of my privilege. I don’t live on a constant basis with the traumatic fear that the abuse which Floyd experienced might extend one day to one of my children or one of my brothers just because of the color of their skin.

We witness heightened attention to racism now because of the murder of George Floyd. Subsequent sentiments have come from many new places, including corporations and political leaders. But don’t confuse statements of solidarity, made in the heat of the moment, with commitments to persevere with long-term change. To paraphrase Reverend Al Sharpton at Floyd’s Houston memorial service, we need to keep up the work after the last TV truck leaves.

My resolve has intensified to strengthen the impacts of Wilder Research. As a group of about 80 people, we can’t change the world by ourselves, but we will persist and resist. We will persist in using our research talents to address noxious aspects of our society, such as systemic racism and the institutional structures that lead to disparities and inequities. We will resist -- through our sound, deliberate, nonpartisan research techniques -- those forces that have emerged to distort the truth and obfuscate the public in order to create division and perpetuate injustice.

To this point in the history of Wilder Research, we have attempted in various ways to shed light on racial disparities. Many community organizations, nonprofits, and media consult our Minnesota Compass, for example, for such information. Compass also includes an anti-racism resource guide. We have engaged in projects intended to address disparities in health, housing, and criminal justice. We have worked on initiatives that give voice to the new arrivals to our region. We try to address the long-term conditions that produce social, health, and economic inequities. 

Long-term, systemic alteration of attitudes, behavior, structure, and culture constitutes the only way that we will prevent occurrences such as what happened to George Floyd. Regardless of what we’ve done in the past, we at Wilder Research can do more. So, we will ask what we can do better, how we can align with those who have wisdom that we don’t have, and what activities of ours can produce the most meaningful anti-racist influence.

However, talk is cheap. Therefore, in closing I introduce another “A” word: Accountability. 

The Wilder Research website reflects almost everything that we do. Please return to it six months and a year from now, “after the last TV truck has left.”. Hold us accountable.

• Have we at Wilder Research intensified our efforts to address systemic racism through work that sheds light on disparities and social determinants of health, wealth and well-being?
• Have we collaborated with communities and organizations to test interventions to eradicate racial disparities?
• Have we incorporated a racial equity perspective as much as possible in our projects, even when the primary focus is not race?
• Does a substantial and meaningful proportion of our activities address racism-related issues?

If you do not feel that each of those questions merits a “yes” response, please bring that to my attention. Get in touch. 

As Martin Luther King noted, we are all “caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” As we direct our attention to the future, we should continually strive, in our professional and personal lives, to design that garment to fit everyone equitably and optimally.

Eliminating What Sets Us Apart: Some Thoughts for Martin Luther King Day

“I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other, and they don’t communicate with each other because they are separated from each other.”

So stated the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1962.

Class and race boundaries have a lot of rigidity. In combination with geographic boundaries, they separate people and foster misinformation, stereotypes, and fear.

The 1917 report from Wilder Research on health and housing in Saint Paul showed a concentration of unacceptable conditions in a central city area that we currently call the Thomas-Dale neighborhood. Seventy years later, data we analyzed for use by community groups showed that children living in roughly that same area more likely lived in poverty and had lower educational outcomes than children had in other neighborhoods. Use Minnesota Compass today to compare income levels and other characteristics across neighborhoods in Saint Paul, and what neighborhood district will you find at or near the bottom? (Hint: the same one that showed up in Wilder Research data a century earlier.)

In 1967, Dr. King noted the lack of progress for Black citizens.

“Negroes generally live in worse slums today than 20 or 25 years ago. In the North schools are more segregated today than they were in 1954 when the Supreme Court's decision on desegregation was rendered. Economically the Negro is worse off today than he was 15 and 20 years ago. And so the unemployment rate among Whites at one time was about the same as the unemployment rate among Negroes. But today the unemployment rate among Negroes is twice that of Whites. And the average income of the Negro is today 50% less than Whites.”

How much change has occurred since then? The Brookings Institution highlights research showing how race and economic disparities persist into the 21^st century and fuel educational disparities that threaten our society. Reflecting the importance of economics, which Dr. King identified, they note that poverty-based segregation and race-based segregation contribute to the educational disparities we witness today. In fact, segregation based on poverty appears statistically to account for differences that we sometimes attribute to the effects of race and racial discrimination.

What maintains these rigid boundaries that produce separation with deleterious consequences? We can easily point to outspoken racists and advocates of segregation, of course. Dr. King recognized and confronted the visible, tangible elements of racism. He also faced observable white backlash. However, overt attempts to maintain inequality only partly explain our longstanding social problem.

Another insidious, though less visible, element also explains the persistence of economic and social disparities: a form of “backlash” that occurs through complacency. People who want to do good, but seek to avoid too much disruption occurring too rapidly in the status quo, can impede progress as much as vocal opponents of change.

“I'm absolutely convinced that the forces of ill-will in our nation, the extreme rightists in our nation, have often used time much more effectively than the forces of good will. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words of the bad people and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time. Somewhere we must come to see that social progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals. And without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. And so we must help time, and we must realize that the time is always ripe to do right.”

Let’s acknowledge that we need to win a Super Bowl of real life – much more important than the mere football game that takes place a couple of weeks after today’s important holiday. We cannot let the forces of evil play the clock to win, or we will experience a lose-lose for humanity.

Using Information for Good, as We Enter a New Year and Decade

Albert Einstein wrote: “The life of the individual has value in so far as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful.”*

As we approach 2020 – one fifth of the way into the 21st century – every one of us can ask: How can we make the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful?

At Wilder Research, we use modern means of collecting, analyzing, and reporting information as powerful tools for improving lives. The past 20 years have seen the evolution and proliferation of information and communication technology, including social media, unimagined even at the end of the 20th century.

On the positive side, modern information and communication technology gives voice to all people. If any of us have a story to tell, we can tell it. We can recognize and celebrate the joys of the world. We can identify the injustices that need fixing. Without social media, for example, we would likely know far less than we do about the genocide and oppression occurring outside the borders of our country, and we would likely have less awareness of tragedies inside of the U.S.

At Wilder Research, we have exploited the benefits of information and communication technology. We can make more meaning and draw more informed insights out of data; we have a greater ability than we did 20 or so years ago to improve the effectiveness of programs, policies, and decisions that affect people.

However, the evolution of technology also has a negative side. Humans can become molecular units of analysis in big data, processed by algorithms intended to create profits for a privileged few. As consumers of what the internet transmits, if we let our guard down, false stories, reinforced by social media bots that spin thousands of perverse messages, can deceive us.

The internet and social media enable us to access directly far more information than we could through other means. However, the lack of standards for curating, assessing, and rating the validity of that information puts each of us on our own: Caveat emptor. With respect to human freedom, the internet and social media democratize our world, yet paradoxically they also offer a powerful tool for manipulation that can upend democratic processes. Sadly, we hear regularly about the ways that totalitarian-inclined leadership uses modern technology for control and constraint.

We at Wilder Research, along with others who do research, have the competence to use modern information and communication technology. In returning to Einstein’s thoughts, we should acknowledge the opportunity presented to us to add value to our own individual lives by using modern technology to aid in making the lives of individuals, families, and communities “nobler and more beautiful”.

As 2020 – a new year, a new decade – opens, let us acknowledge that our efforts to improve society and make life better for all will consume much energy, will encounter barriers, and will not always succeed. Nevertheless, let us keep our eye on the prize of lifting human spirits, building the capacity of people to better themselves, curing the individual and social illnesses and problems that produce disparities and constrict human potential, and helping to guide our society in a positive direction. The prospect of achieving even just a little bit of progress in whatever parts of this big world that we can touch – that should energize us.

Best wishes for the New Year!

*In The World as I See It, 1935.

Metrics for Healthy Communities: A tool for leaders of community health initiatives

What data exist to support and evaluate community health improvement initiatives? What limits organizations in their ability to use and cite these data? How can we readily connect downstream health outcomes to community development activities upstream?

Questions such as these motivated Wilder Research and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis to join forces in the development of "Metrics for Healthy Communities", a website for anyone who seeks to plan, evaluate, or fund community health improvement initiatives.

Metrics for Healthy Communities aims to:

• Build the evaluation savvy of its users by focusing attention on outcomes, not just outputs. 
• Help shape and advance collaborative thinking about the long-term changes that well-designed community health improvement initiatives can produce, and the steps that are required to achieve them. 
• Standardize evaluation across the field of community health improvement by promoting a common language and a common set of metrics.    

Since its initial launch in August 2015, Metrics for Healthy Communities website user data show that the desire to improve and measure the health of one’s community reaches all the way around the globe—from New York, USA to Victoria, New Zealand. The site has attracted visitors from thousands of cities in 140 countries.

Nearly 4 years later, we are pleased to announce the launch of Metrics for Healthy Communities 2.0. This newly expanded version of our Metrics website features a new user interface, more logic models, and links to the research evidence base.

Need evidence for a healthy food access program grant? Interested in how the financing of affordable housing is linked to improved health? Want to evaluate the impact of a child care center in an under-served neighborhood?

Metrics can help to answer these questions, and more!

In the beginning stages of planning a community health initiative? Visit our Get Started page to search for relevant activities and measures.

Are you a field expert looking for quick access to community health-related data sources? Search our data directory.

Wondering what in the heck is a logic model? You can learn the basics of logic models and learn how to use the site here. This site is designed to work even for folks without any formal research training.

Metrics is based on the wisdom of more than 600 practitioners who work in the fields of community economic development, housing, early childhood development, education, public health, and health care in the United States. Check out our list of site contributors -- you just might find a new cross-sector partner in your state!

So, take a look at the site. Let us know what you think!