Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Have you ever thought about how the proposed federal climate change legislation, also known as cap and trade, might affect low- and moderate-income Minnesotans?
That's what I'm working on as a Climate Change Intern at the Minnesota Budget Project.
The Minnesota Budget Project is an initiative of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. With a mission "to provide interested citizens, elected officials and community leaders with timely and accurate information so that they can become more active and effective participants in the public policy debate," the Minnesota Budget Project focuses on the impact that budget and tax issues have on low- and moderate-income Minnesotans and the organizations that serve them. Right now, one of those issues is climate change.
I always thought about environmental justice in terms of the people who are disproportionately affected by environmental damage. Whether it's landfills being located near low-income communities, or the poor air quality in certain neighborhoods, not everyone has the time, money, or privilege that allows them a clean environment. As the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative puts it - people of color, low-income, and Indigenous communities "are the first to experience the negative impacts of climate change such as heat-related illness and death, respiratory illness, infectious diseases, unaffordable rises in energy costs, and extreme natural disasters." Quite simply, if/when Minnesota starts having record-breaking heat waves in the summer, who can afford to have air conditioning and who can't?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Julia Jackson is a first-year MPP student with a focus on Public and Nonprofit Leadership and Management. She graduated from Northland College in 2004 with a degree in Environmental Science. Julia just returned to St. Paul after living in Vermont working for a small municipality for three years where she worked on grantwriting, program development and coalition building. She is currently interning at the Minnesota Budget Project looking at how federal climate change legislation could impact low- and moderate-income Minnesotans.
Glad to be back in the Twin Cities amongst family and friends, Julia's favorite place to pubTalk - debate current issues and public affairs - is with her family over dinner.
Monday, November 2, 2009
I felt compelled to write this post after listening to an interview on NPR about Ximena Hartsock's confirmation hearing for director of Washington, D.C.'s parks and recreation department. Ms. Hartsock - a highly qualified individual - was not confirmed by the city council. Why? Well, during the confirmation hearing both her race and gender were called into question as affecting her ability to do the job. The fact that this kind of discussion was allowed to happen strikes at the heart of the struggle women face in gaining positions of leadership.
In the academic leadership literature, this is often referred to as the Leadership Problem, i.e. women's unequal status in leadership positions. I visited Catalyst and the Center for American Women and Politics for some statistics on this point:
- In management, women account for over one-third of MBA classes, but are only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs and hold only 15.7% of Fortune 500 Corporate Officer Positions
- In law, women are about half of new entrants into the field, but only 18.7% of law firm partners
- Over half of college graduates are women, but less than 25% are full professors and 20% are college presidents
- In the U.S. women are the majority of the electorate, but only hold 17 of 100 (17%) U.S. Senate seats and 73 of 435 (16.8%) U.S. House of Representatives seats
This problem isn't new and it doesn't seem to be going away. So why aren't we taking to the streets and shouting from the rooftops to change this?
I've recently been spending my evenings reading from the book, Women & Leadership (edited by Barbara Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode), and it offers up some pretty interesting reasons as to why.
First, we focus too much on thinking that this is strictly about women making different choices than men. Women's choices are not made in a vacuum; they are not sheltered from broader cultural constraints. If we focus only on women's preferences, then we understate the subtle, often unconscious biases that both shape and limit women's leadership opportunities.
At the risk of sounding too much like I'm outlining my doctoral dissertation, I would like to provide the reasons Kellerman & Rhode give for the Leadership Problem:
- There are gender biases in leadership opportunities. Gender stereotypes put a woman in a bind over appearing too feminine or not feminine enough.
- Women are still seen as the primary caregivers of the young and old. While most men support gender equality in the home, there is still a lack in restructuring one's work to promote gender equality.
- Inflexibility in workplace structures also affects an individual's ability to structure their lives to promote gender equality.
- At a societal level, we value caretaking as an individual rather than a social responsibility.
If we continue to let this Leadership Problem persist, then we are compromising our nation's fundamental principles of equal opportunity and social justice. The payoffs to achieving women's equality in leadership positions are too high to ignore. Women have distinct perspectives to contribute - and I don't mean to say that there is a single "woman's point of view" or leadership style - au contraire - people bring to decision making roles their life experiences, not simply their gender. But to leave out the diversity of women's leadership is to leave out an enormous pool of talent.
So, if you've read this far, I thank you and I invite you to join me on my soapbox. I want to see the next generation - my daughter's generation - put this Leadership Problem to rest.
Monday, October 26, 2009
As the third snow storm of the season hit Minnesota last week (three snows before Halloween!), I found myself contemplating a warm getaway. And due to the ever-growing voluntourism industry, there are now more travel options than ever. But is this boom in voluntourism a good thing?
Voluntourism combines travel with voluntary work through trips (oftentimes international) that usually last about a week or two. Instead of heading to a resort, a voluntourism trip sends people to Guatemala to build a house or to South Africa to teach English. While the specific objectives of these programs vary, an overarching goal is to cultivate global citizenship and cross-cultural understanding - noble goals indeed. Yet for some reason, the exploding popularity of these trips leaves me a little uneasy; this despite the fact that I have not only attended similar trips, but spent a couple years leading a variation of them.
My discomfort stems from concerns about the structure and impact of these programs:
• Informed Structures and Models: I often wonder how these organizations are structured. Specifically, are local people and local organizations involved in the decision-making processes of the voluntourism program, either as staff or board members? Are needs assessments done beforehand in conjunction with local people, and do the services provided align with what the community sees as a pressing need?
• Mutually Beneficial: Research on voluntourism often focuses on the affects it has on tourists - but what about the impact on the host communities? If the goal is to educate and enlighten people about global issues, at what expense does this newfound enlightenment come? What type of international development/community development skills are needed in creating programs that empower and work with host communities, ensuring that they too benefit from these programs? What program evaluation methods effectively gauge whether a program is mutually beneficial?
Beyond these structural questions, my most pressing concern with voluntourism is more philosophical in nature: Should volunteerism and tourism be melded together in the first place? Can voluntourism be a form of "poverty tourism" that objectifies people who live in abject poverty, even glamorizing unjust situations? Do these programs allow tourists to recognize the dignity, expertise and resiliency of the people they aim to serve? Moreover, is this a subtle form of cultural imperialism - whether intended or not?
These questions have broader implications for national and even locally-based alternative break programs offered at many high schools, universities, and religious groups. We owe it to the many people involved or touched by these trips to find the answers.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Becky Burand is a first-year MPP student interested in nonprofit management and social policy. She graduated in 2006 from Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington. Upon graduation, Becky spent two years as an AmeriCorps*VISTA member working at a refugee resettlement agency. She is currently the Basic Needs Coordinator at the nearby Brian Coyle Community Center.
Becky's favorite place to pubTalk - debate current issues and public affairs - is on the deck with a glass of wine.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Last week I attended the NASPAA - National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration - conference in Washington DC. Below follows a summary of my reflections from the conference.
First off, last night's gathering of Humphrey Alums hosted by Congressman Rick Larsen (D-WA) was attended by a number of my former students. It was a great joy to see some of our grads doing so well. After Dean Atwood's delightful introduction of Humphrey student, now Congressman, we caught up on the latest news from the Hill. Next we heard from Jodi Sandfort about some of her innovative work in using case teaching. After the event MPA grad Matt Dufresne and I went off to Bullfeathers down the road from the Cannon Building. There we were soon joined by another former student, Nancy Leppink, now Deputy Administrator for US Dept. of Labor Wage and Hour Division and Matt's boss. Some great scoop on the challenges facing the new administration and the trials of transition. What a joy to see former students doing so well.
Before the NASPAA conference started this morning I met up with a young man who once served with me at USDA Rural Development. Jim now runs the national rural water programs for USDA - I was proud to have recommended him for this post. One thing Jim shared with me that was most touching: while at USDA as State Director I instituted a leadership development program for our Rural Development state employees (modeled after some of the leadership course work I taught at the Humphrey in the mid 90s). Jim took that model to the national office and is bringing in federal employees from across the country. While in Minnesota, both he and I had observed that federal employees often do not see themselves as leaders. But he is finding a long waiting list of prospects that compete for this leadership training program that has its roots at the Humphrey.
That leads me to what happened next. I left my breakfast meeting with Jim and attended the morning NAPAA keynote by John Berry, Director of Office of Personnel Management. He talked about the important role schools of public affairs play in preparing federal employees for public service. He acknowledges the flood of young people trying to become a part of the Obama Administration and the fact that there is little room for them. Berry is pursuing a way for lateral term appointments, especially for mid career public affairs trained candidates. However, that effort is stymied by federal employment rules. He said there is a great need for leadership development within the federal ranks. That brings me back to what Jim has done within USDA. Jim took it upon himself to be creative with his own budget and has made that training happen.
After Berry spoke, Greg Lindsey, Margaret Chutich and I divided up the sessions we would cover on behalf of the Institute and our curiosities. My interest in our new masters in development practice took me to a session on sustainable development: building on classical theories. One presenter, John Bartle of Nebraska, kept referring to the words of our first Dean Harland Cleveland. Our schools need to prepare students to "get it all together" as they imagine themselves as implementers of sustainable development. I felt good to be a part of a school on the cutting edge of public affairs.
The session on on-line learning had Jodi Sandfort and me on the edge of our chairs. As we imagine launching MPA core curriculum to on-line/hybrid offerings, we heard about some pedagogy that works and does not work. Clearly we need a number of faculty members and support staff committed to becoming a "community of inquiry" together with the prospective students seeking the MPA in this new format. Kaye Husbands Feeling, Matt Henry, Rita Resendez and I have started a course in using on-line techniques that may become the nucleus of that community. We have much to learn from other practitioners like Kathy Fennelly. I now know something about Wimba and netiquette.
My last session was on the use of media by nonprofits - or more so the lack of effective use of media. As board chair at DARTS, I can say I am once again proud of being part of a nonprofit that does media right!
Next up - multiple sessions on executive education: NASPAA-speak for mid career public affairs programs.
Friday, October 16, 2009
This week I attended the 25th Annual Conference on Policy Analysis, a gathering designed for economic and policy analysts, government administrators, and representatives from the business and nonprofit communities engaged in public policy. Mirroring today's environment, the conference was titled, "Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste," where keynote Chris Farrell redubbed it, "I Hope we never let a serious crisis go to waste." State and local government leaders and policymakers offered their perspectives on a range of topics. Jay Kiedrowski moderated a panel -- Chris Farrell, Julian Schuster, Tom Hanson, and Terry Speiker -- on key issues pertinent to government officials and general citizenry. Among those highlighted include the changing paradigm of healthcare, financial regulatory issues, economic (in)security, and unemployment, and investment in education. Lori Sturdevant led the second panel and asked discussants -- Steven Bosacker, Jim Mulder, and Cal Ludeman -- to respond to the possibility of increasing efficiency of government. In this section panelists claimed solutions in addressing inter-governmental redundancy, outcome measurement, investment in employees, systemization of innovation, and extensive collaboration. All offered thorough and thoughtful arguments, clear points of view, and even told a couple of jokes. Great conference by my standards.
So why do I feel like we're caught in a tennis game of contradictory solutions to government reform? I know I'm not the only one (a fellow colleague mentioned this issue at the conference providing me the idea of this blog post). Save. Spend. Save. Spend.
Save. Reduce redundancy between overlapping government services. Spend. Scale innovation at all government levels. Save. Downsize and restructure departments. Spend. Invest in research-based measurement indices. Save. Mandate staff furloughs. Spend. Invest in young public sector leaders. Save, spend, save, spend. I might be getting a case of whiplash here.
Certainly I understand that times of economic uncertainty call for strategic solutions that will incorporate methods of both cutting costs and investing wisely. But I don't understand what form redesign, realignment, or restructuring will take. Or what kind of trade-offs will be necessary to truly solve our current challenges. Talking about the issues and potential solutions is a start. Maybe we just need to keep serving the ball and we'll figure it out after the first couple of sets. PubTalkers, what do you think?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Marc Pitman, author of Ask Without Fear! and founder of FundraisingCoach.com has dedicated much of his career to helping organizations raise funds more effectively. Early in October Pitman headed a panel introducing several nonprofits to social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. He attempted to illustrate how these websites can garner support and potentially even increase donations. While Pitman expressed that he understood some of the downsides of using social networking sites in this way - mainly that they are exactly that: social - he offered several reasons as to why it might be beneficial to employ some of these tools:
- Our society is highly mobile and interconnected: Social media can encourage new donors to support your cause without forcing you to increase your travel budget.
- Large social media numbers equal credibility: To the average Twitter or Facebook user, sizeable support via groups, fans, or Tweet followers highlights your nonprofit and could encourage donors.
- People are already using these sites: The support is out there, and there are large pools of resources that are currently untapped.
I can see why Pitman feels these online tools could be an asset to an organization - they help build relationships. But as a social media user myself I find a couple of flaws in his argument. Facebook, for example, offers hundreds of thousands of groups and fan pages that you can become a part of, and people do! But clicking that "Become a Fan" button doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to donate my time, energy, or income to that cause. Similarly, virtually every time I sign onto Facebook, I have a couple of "group invites" waiting for me. Sometimes I'll skim over the page to see if it's interesting, but more often than not I just delete the notification.
I think a more important point is that an organization has to think about who actually uses Facebook, Twitter, and those other similar sites: high school kids, college students, mom and dad. People are drawn to these networking sites because they're fun, easy to use, and a great way to stay connected. I think the amount of people surfing the sites to find nonprofits to donate to is rather small.
Don't get me wrong, I see why Pitman and others feel that these tools could be useful. As I write this, there are 32 million Facebook users of the "Causes Application". It lets their users know about nonprofits and other organizations dedicated to a myriad of causes. That's a lot of people waiting to read up on your organization.
I would love to hear people's thoughts. What do you all think about using social networking sites to garner support?
Monday, October 12, 2009
If you've been traveling lately on I-35W between Minneapolis and Lakeville, you've probably noticed some major changes - and possibly an easier commute! The I-35W corridor has received a makeover courtesy of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Urban Partnership Agreement Program. This program was created in 2006 to fund pilot projects in regions around the country that would use innovative technological solutions to address traffic congestion. The program's vision was to bring together highway development and transit development to create new answers to the old problem of too many cars on the road at rush hour.
We here at the Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center have a particular interest in this congestion reduction project. Not because we're particularly knowledgeable about transportation infrastructure and highway development - we'll leave that to the engineers and planners. Our interest really stems from the fascinating partnerships that developed to get this work done. Even though it may have seemed like it's been forever that I-35W has been torn up and under construction, this project did an incredible amount of work in an unbelievably short amount of time. This feat was made possible because of the collaboration that occurred across agencies, jurisdictions, and sectors.
We've been following this project from the beginning to create a longitudinal case study documenting the project from the proposal development stage to its deployment. We've written two research reports (here and here) on our initial observations and findings - great reading for your next bus ride (or if you're stuck in traffic!).
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Last week I attended a conference of the international Public Management Research Association (PMRA). The meeting drew together researchers from over 30 countries to talk about research related to public and nonprofit management. Much focused on governance of public networks, where public, nonprofit, and private organizations work on complex problems.
My talk was entitled, Defining and Tracking Effectiveness: Implementing Performance Management through Human Service Networks. It examined attempts by two networks of human service organizations in Minnesota to proactively develop a performance management system in light of the heightened accountability environment. It will be a book chapter in my current book project...stay tuned!
Click here to access the conference papers.
Jodi Sandfort
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs or the University of Minnesota. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota or the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
