The More Things Change…
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Amanda Clark, with Ashley Nickels and Hannah Lebovits
November 21, 2021
We began this column almost two years ago with an intent to focus on social equity, inclusion and strategies that local governments could use to foster more democratic practices. Along with the rest of the world, we were soon swept up in responding to a global pandemic, a chaotic 2020 election culminating in an attack on our government and the increasingly harmful effects of global climate change. Sometimes it is hard to believe it’s only been two years when it has felt much longer!
The major events of the last two years have done nothing but amplify the reasons why we wanted to focus on social equity and inclusion and why they are so important to public administrators. We would like to review our recommendations in that first column and reflect on what we have learned.
Our first column called for a focus on equity by advising that:
- Local governments should not discount community expertise.
- Planning exercises should start with community engagement.
- Place and language matter.
- Local communities should think about delegating (some) decisions to community members.
As we have seen mistrust, disinformation and conflict rise over the last two years regarding mask mandates, vaccination requirements and restrictions on movement, we wonder if it could have been different had there been better community engagement practices from the start. These processes, while not a panacea, would at least provide a solid basis of community knowledge from which to start. Could the backlash have been avoided had denizen concerns been considered before the emergency roll-out?
Communities and local governments that fully engage with and know their members stand a better chance of creating policy that is beneficial to most people. Feedback structures would also be in place to evaluate outcomes, whether positive or negative, that can immediately be addressed, and clearly communicated to the community. Lack of transparency and understanding of the rationale behind decisions breeds mistrust; and for some, reinforces perceptions of government intent based on historical failures. Although COVID-19 was new, there were emergency response protocols that could have been used as a starting point for addressing the pandemic. In addition, simple health measures like masks and improved sanitation were known to be effective and were used by communities around the world; yet, the federal government and local governments alike bungled early messaging about masks.
Fighting a novel virus with devastating impacts on every community would seem like an easy test of community-centered public administration. An even bigger issue to tackle are the racist systems that impede our ability to foster vibrant communities. As we see critical race theory being weaponized to fight against equity and justice, we are reminded that our current institutions are not sufficient to confront these attacks. National issues are now local as well-funded activists from a plethora of organizations are showing up at local school board meetings, town council meetings and other public venues to threaten local officials and disrupt local planning. Many of these people do not belong to the communities, but come from other places to stoke fear and chaos.
Election administration, which we spoke about in our third column, is an area where we have seen national efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of our election process filter into the local. Even when these officials take the time to explain the election process and all the safeguards in place that protect our votes, people choose not to believe their local experts. Local election officials are the target of harassment, threats and even violence. Many long-time elected officials are choosing to step down or retire because of the charged environment. The long-term impact on democracy, as we lose decades of election experience and others are not willing to put themselves or their families at risk, is worrisome to say the least.
We would like to end our column this year on a more positive note despite our concerns. We have seen communities come together in the face of these challenges. In rural communities, we have examples of innovations in getting information to community members about COVID-19. We have seen election officials in Florida issue bipartisan statements asking politicians to stop feeding disinformation to voters. It is possible to foster deeper engagement in our communities and increase empathy and equity. Communities just need the tools and the will to do it.
Authors:
Amanda D. Clark, Ph.D., is a visiting assistant teaching professor of public administration at Florida International University. Her work focuses on social movements, governance, and the U.S. policy process. @adclark_phd
Ashley E. Nickels, Ph.D., a democracy visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation and associate professor at Kent State University. Dr. Nickels is also co-PI of the Growing Democracy Project. Her work focuses on urban politics, local governance, and community using a social equity lens. @AENickelsPhD
Hannah Lebovits, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at University of Texas-Arlington. She studies the relationship between governance, spatial structures and social equity. @HannahLebovits




(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading...
The More Things Change…
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Amanda Clark, with Ashley Nickels and Hannah Lebovits
November 21, 2021
We began this column almost two years ago with an intent to focus on social equity, inclusion and strategies that local governments could use to foster more democratic practices. Along with the rest of the world, we were soon swept up in responding to a global pandemic, a chaotic 2020 election culminating in an attack on our government and the increasingly harmful effects of global climate change. Sometimes it is hard to believe it’s only been two years when it has felt much longer!
The major events of the last two years have done nothing but amplify the reasons why we wanted to focus on social equity and inclusion and why they are so important to public administrators. We would like to review our recommendations in that first column and reflect on what we have learned.
Our first column called for a focus on equity by advising that:
As we have seen mistrust, disinformation and conflict rise over the last two years regarding mask mandates, vaccination requirements and restrictions on movement, we wonder if it could have been different had there been better community engagement practices from the start. These processes, while not a panacea, would at least provide a solid basis of community knowledge from which to start. Could the backlash have been avoided had denizen concerns been considered before the emergency roll-out?
Communities and local governments that fully engage with and know their members stand a better chance of creating policy that is beneficial to most people. Feedback structures would also be in place to evaluate outcomes, whether positive or negative, that can immediately be addressed, and clearly communicated to the community. Lack of transparency and understanding of the rationale behind decisions breeds mistrust; and for some, reinforces perceptions of government intent based on historical failures. Although COVID-19 was new, there were emergency response protocols that could have been used as a starting point for addressing the pandemic. In addition, simple health measures like masks and improved sanitation were known to be effective and were used by communities around the world; yet, the federal government and local governments alike bungled early messaging about masks.
Fighting a novel virus with devastating impacts on every community would seem like an easy test of community-centered public administration. An even bigger issue to tackle are the racist systems that impede our ability to foster vibrant communities. As we see critical race theory being weaponized to fight against equity and justice, we are reminded that our current institutions are not sufficient to confront these attacks. National issues are now local as well-funded activists from a plethora of organizations are showing up at local school board meetings, town council meetings and other public venues to threaten local officials and disrupt local planning. Many of these people do not belong to the communities, but come from other places to stoke fear and chaos.
Election administration, which we spoke about in our third column, is an area where we have seen national efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of our election process filter into the local. Even when these officials take the time to explain the election process and all the safeguards in place that protect our votes, people choose not to believe their local experts. Local election officials are the target of harassment, threats and even violence. Many long-time elected officials are choosing to step down or retire because of the charged environment. The long-term impact on democracy, as we lose decades of election experience and others are not willing to put themselves or their families at risk, is worrisome to say the least.
We would like to end our column this year on a more positive note despite our concerns. We have seen communities come together in the face of these challenges. In rural communities, we have examples of innovations in getting information to community members about COVID-19. We have seen election officials in Florida issue bipartisan statements asking politicians to stop feeding disinformation to voters. It is possible to foster deeper engagement in our communities and increase empathy and equity. Communities just need the tools and the will to do it.
Authors:
Amanda D. Clark, Ph.D., is a visiting assistant teaching professor of public administration at Florida International University. Her work focuses on social movements, governance, and the U.S. policy process. @adclark_phd
Ashley E. Nickels, Ph.D., a democracy visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation and associate professor at Kent State University. Dr. Nickels is also co-PI of the Growing Democracy Project. Her work focuses on urban politics, local governance, and community using a social equity lens. @AENickelsPhD
Hannah Lebovits, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at University of Texas-Arlington. She studies the relationship between governance, spatial structures and social equity. @HannahLebovits
Follow Us!