Social equity leadership conference

¶ … Social equity is a key issue of public administration and forms the basic theme of the 2013 "Social Equity Leadership Conference," in June. This white paper discusses the key goals of the conference based on the conference issue for social equity as global engagement and local responsibility. These are the issue facing social equity among domestic and global public leaders in public and private agencies in the education, immigration, transportation, environmental, policing and corrections sectors. A review of theories on public administration identifies that public leadership networking, collaboration, and cooperation with leaders and agencies is necessary. This is associated with public leadership practices like public policy development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, social equity, and public advocacy.

Introduction

Conference Theme:

Globally Engaged, Locally Responsible: New Challenges for Social Equity

Emerging Issues in Social Equity and Leadership Covered in the Conference:

1. Education

2. Policing and corrections

3. At risk communities, which includes immigrants, the elderly housing and the aging

4. Transportation

5. Environmental protection

1.3 Background of the Social Equity Leadership Conference

The inclusion of social equity into public administration has been an uphill task for public administrators. The challenge many cite is the achievement of productive, effective, and economical governments, with social equity. The social equity conference is a concept of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) held annually. NAPA is an authority in PA and has assisted in defining social equity for public administration. NAPA defines social equity as, "the fair, just, and equitable management of institutions that directly or indirectly serve the public, the fair and equitable distribution of public services, implementation of public policy, and commitment to promotion of justice, fairness, and equity" (National Academy of Public Administration, n.d.). This white paper defines and describes the definition of social equity as it applies to the themes of the conference. This also includes the description and identification of relationships that exist between theories that support the themes of the conference.

1.4 Conference Selection Rationale

Though social equity was introduced into public administration (PA) in the 1960s and recognized as the fourth pillar of PA, it still does not have a place in traditional PA values of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. The challenge among administrators across all sectors of the nation has been the elevation and the creation of an equal playing field for social equity. The need to address social equity as a theme in the conference is from the vital role it plays in leadership. This is in the form of social equity's ability to create an awareness and concern among administrators, leading them to follow laws, but to question laws and change them. This is a key concept, which the conference seeks to build among public administrators and leaders from key sectors.

To create social equity, previous NAPA commissions have defined social equity, and proposed the evaluation of social equity in PA in four dimensions. These are access, procedural fairness, outcomes, and quality, and the conditions consistent in each dimension. The conference presents an opportune moment for key public administrators, scholars, and leaders to discuss approaches of increasing social equity. This is necessary given the need to sharpen the language public administrator's use. Moreover, the conference is necessary given the need to address failures in providing due process in sectors of the economy including education, law enforcement and corrections, and transportation. In addition, it addresses current issues of fairness in due processes in dealing with persons from at risks communities like immigrants and elderly. There is mounting evidence that leaders in today's society are facing a changing population that calls for the equitable distribution of public resources. The global connection has created a village in which, individuals call for more accountability, equity, and responsibility especially in environmental protection.

1.5 Professional Networking Plan

1.5.1 Networking Goals

The following networking goals are identified as essential in meeting the theme of the conference:

1. Explore and find solutions for diversity and social equity issues like race, disability, ethnicity, and sexual identity, which are affecting the education system, policymaking, and communities.

2. Build an equitable and multicultural curriculum for the current education system to handle a world increasingly diverse.

3. Create global awareness on the importance of creating leadership development, as a tool to build and sustain equity for at risk communities through education and policy change,

4. Create and encourage commitment to social equity, procedural fairness, and justice for all in the society, to allow access to quality global resources like transportation, natural resources, and education.

5. Create a need for administrators to develop leadership development, as a way to develop policies and practices to protect and preserve a safe and clean environment for all,

6. Create a community of leaders motivated to change current practices, policies, and social ideologies to promote social equity, fairness, and lead communities to living responsibly.

The goals are a motivator for the conference to draw practitioners and experts from major public sectors, to participate in share best practices, social equity issues, and develop strategies. These approaches will bring the knowledge of social justice and disparities to the forefront of policymaking and public administration. This is because the goals will assist in drawing input from professionals from public and private organizations to the field of public administration. In addition, they will lead public and private leaders to develop social equity benchmarks and indicators. These indicators will lead the next generation of public administration in reporting on social equity in every public and private sector (Deniz & Wakin, 2007). This is necessary given that nations are seeking to reinforce social equity in leadership as a pillar of public administration. The goals will also create understanding on public policy matters and increase participation in public administration activities.

Moreover, the conference provides a platform for experts to educate public administrators on key competency areas of social equity and local responsibility. This is because public administrators will come to awareness on the importance of social equity, by the creation of an equal public system that fairly distributes public resources (Deniz & Wakin, 2007). Moreover, it creates knowledge that social equity as a relevant concept to the field of public administration. Therefore, the conference will lead administrators to the realization that justice, equality, and fairness in all areas of the society are a central issue of effective and efficient public administration. This implies that these concepts are applicable to sectors like administration, environment, transportation, and education that are resources utilized by whole communities. The need for addressing fairness and equality in these sectors arises from the fact that communities are increasingly diverse from different knowledge sets, race, ethnicities, sexualities, and religions (Deniz & Wakin, 2007). Therefore, the goals of the conference are a reminder to leaders that public administration is an obligation to addressing social issues of justice, fairness, and equality.

2.0 Theories Supporting Conference Themes

2.1 Analysis of "Globally Engaged, Locally Responsible as Challenges of Social Equity" to Public Administration

The main theme of the conference, "globally engaged, locally responsible: New challenges for social equity," implies current problems leaders face in equitable administration. Evidently, public policy and public administration are bound by state, yet the state is configured by globalization (Stone, 2008). This is in the global private-public partnerships and transnational executive networks, created by liberalization and globalization, and which create new types of authority. These new forms of authority or leadership are manifested in regional and global policy processes, which coexist along national-state policy practices. This situation is presenting challenges to the public administrator that has to make administrative decisions in a setting with global influence (Stone, 2008). The global connectivity implies public administration is changing, as local leaders are accountable for their citizens as well as the global community. This implies today's leader has a global and a local responsibility.

Today's leader is facing administrative challenges emerging from the blurring of the public and commercial domains in the global era. This convergence of domains is not limited to the marketplace, but spans through various sectors including and not limited to education, transportation, environment, health, science, and research (Stone, 2008). Globalization is creating a growing global public space, where the public sphere is dynamic, fluid, and interconnected. This interconnection is in the close association with culture, society, markets, and politics (Stone, 2008). Therefore, the public administrator's decisions and experiences are shaped by the interactions of actors and multiple or plural institutions and publics.

Leaders are no longer faced with the challenge of managing and being responsible at the local and global scene, but are faced with the challenge of incorporating local responsibility in management (Candler & Dumont, 2010). There is a change in governance in public management and administration practice and theory, where renewed effort is driven to democratizing administration (Candler & Dumont, 2010). In this effort, the trend is to find new avenues for citizen engagement directly into administrative agency's work, especially at the local level. Current public administration is facing with the task of reframing democracy, to allow citizens to take a greater part and a direct share of the tasks of governing (Candler & Dumont, 2010). In addition, public administration has the duty of burdening the responsibility of creating and maintaining a commonwealth. However, in practice the relationship between citizenry and administrators is complex, making matters of government operation, citizen engagement, and design in administration complex (Candler & Dumont, 2010). This is the result of a global phenomenon, which has led to the creation of the concept of direct citizenry engagement. The need for local responsibility is a challenge for the administrator to create citizenry engagement for some administrative functions, like security. However, these remains a challenge for leaders as national integrated systems of administration are in the way of future governance.

2.2 Analysis of Theories of the Conference

2.2.1 Public Administration Leadership

Leadership in public administration entails the "exercise of authority, formally or informally, in coordinating and directing the work of others. Public administration is more than being a public employee, for it is stewardship in all sectors and dimensions. A public administrator that is a steward is a leader that is aware they are entrusted with valuable resources, especially of the people they are leading. They nurture these resources for investment and growth to achieve development (Norma, 2009). Public administration is founded on existing theories and models, which are put into practice. Therefore, a public administrator that is a leader will put into practice the theory of stewardship for the good of the whole society.

This basic concept exists because public administration is identified as a political institution, which is a means to reach the collective end by exerting formative influence. To achieve this, the public administrator leaders, identifies, creates, and refines collective purposes. They are also actively involved in shaping the preferences of citizens and restructuring the diverse array of relationships among citizen's private and public realms (Norma, 2009). However, the relationship between the public administrator and the citizen continually evolves influencing the leadership approach.

The public administrator is called upon to uphold the characteristics of an ethical leader by creating accountability and trust in the organization culture. Leadership calls for the application of personal ethics and the need for upholding ethical standards in today's competitive world. These leaders must be aware of the effects this leadership approach has on the long-term success of the organization and society (Kimbrough, 2009). The administrator's ethical behavior impact the effectiveness of leadership in the organization. This is because the administrator is very important and has a powerful influence over the culture of the organization, and consequently the building of trust and credibility. This is because effective leadership also referred to, as ethical leadership by Cooper, is the moral compass by which directs the organization and its staff. Administrative ethics is pre-disposition to act in certain ways, which have the meaning of character. An Ethical climate and accountability are linked because, "ethics is primarily concerned with responsibility -- personal and organizational -- for making decisions according to an accepted (or defensible) moral code for distinguishing right from wrong. Accountability, on the other hand, involves the responsibility to answer to a higher authority" (Laratta, 2011). The challenge to administration is seen in achieving true leadership, or the ability to choose without influence of external social forces, while maintaining awareness of inherent motivations.

The public administrator is also called to upholding responsibility in their duties and capacities as leaders. The duty of the administrator is to realize that, there is a need to order values and establish priorities by negotiating with themselves, the situation, and others (Rusaw, 2009). Therefore, the administrator has the responsibility of trading their interests for those of the organization (Riccucci, 2009). Administrative responsibility is objective or subjective, where objective are duties by external sources, which include politicians, society, superiors, special interest groups and the organization as extensions of cultural beliefs and values. This is associated to the political ethical role of the administrator, as they meet the duties set up by their organizations to meet organizational goals, missions, vision, and policies (Riccucci, 2009). It also represents an administrator's duties as defined by their superiors. Societal expectations of an administrator represent their citizenry ethical role, which require an administrator to act in the best interest of the society by the established the legal system (Riccucci, 2009). This is also under the influence of social and cultural norms, which make the administrator accountable.

Subjective responsibilities are the inner senses like personal beliefs, feelings and attitudes, which are the products of cognitive, behavioral, and affective elements driven by environment, family, or society. These determine the position an administrator takes on actions or decisions made (Rusaw, 2009). These often conflict with the political or citizenry ethical roles, as personal interest, feelings, beliefs, and culture may drive an administrator to act contrary to set duties. Therefore, given that the administrator is under the influence of external and internal dynamics, they have the role of meeting their administrative responsibility during conflicts. It is during these pensive situations, that an effective administrator evaluates their decisions as legal, ethical, or balanced prior to deciding. Public leadership entails the controlling and limitation of risk taking, accountability, rules, checks, and balances, in applying principles of fairness, justice, and equity.

2.2.2 Social Equity and Public Administration

An ever-increasing global connectivity and a world population living in urban areas, creates an important social and equity justice challenge to public administrators and governments. Questions facing leaders today are the use of land, transportation, education, environment dimensions, health, and social justice (Mercier, 2009). These are becoming a more social equity and justice issue for public administrators, as the grapple with creating sustainable urban transportation, environmental programs, and education systems (Mercier, 2009). Moreover, the global interconnection of states is in the close association with culture, society, markets, and politics. Creating challenges for social equity efforts in public administration as they seek to create global engagement of practices and policies. Beyond this, the public administrator is facing the challenge of applying local responsibility and citizenry participation in administration. This review finds the solution to these challenges lie with the theories of public administration and the interconnectedness of theories.

A main theme of public administration is the attainment of social equity. Social equity in public administration has its roots in the 1960s, at the height of racial and class inequality and injustices (Frederickson, 2010). Social equity is described by its initial elements of justice, fairness, and equality. Public administrators at first applied social equity by emphasizing on gender, and race in employment, service delivery, and democratic participation. Over time, the public administrator has come to acknowledge that this is not possible, as practices have resulted in injustice and unfairness, leading to the inclusion of ethics (Frederickson, 2010). This led to the concept of social equity as a pillar of public administration. As a pillar, it led to the "ethical and equitable treatment of citizens by administrators" as a main concern for public agencies (Frederickson, 2010). This was driven by changes in the society, as citizens called the reinvention of civil rights and government movement. Over time, social equity has evolved to encompass many diverse issues associated with justice, fairness, and equality in public administration.

It is this evolution from encompassing race and gender equality, which drives the theme for the 2013 leadership conference, as leaders discuss new dimensions to social equity. Social equity is currently encompassing issues like use of land, transportation, education, environment dimensions, health, and social justice (Frederickson, 2010). Other emerging social issues facing public administration in the distribution of fairness, justice, and equality are economic issues, especially following the global economic crisis. Public administrators are grappling with the equitable distribution of resources especially in a society where real earnings are rapidly declining. The public administrator has to expand their social equity policies to encompass issues like financial illiteracy, pension policy, declining earnings, housing obsession, and other financial challenges (Deniz & Wakin, 2007). It is for this reason the social equity theme for the 2013 conference is a key theory for discussion for public and private leaders.

2.2.3 Public Administration and Networking

Public administrators work in a networked setup, where the success of programs requires collaboration and coordination with various parties, over whom the leader exercises little formal control. Public administration network is defined by Young & Denize (2008) as, "a pattern of two or more units, in which not all major components are encompassed within a single hierarchical array." The leaders and parties are in bureaucracies connected with organizations outside the line of formal authority. This creates a complex arrangement of relationships, which are motivated by policy makers through intergovernmental links, interagency ties, and mandate private-public partnerships (Young & Denize, 2008). Leadership networks also emerge from self-organized and negotiated initiatives of participants. Administrators choose to network to leverage their capacity for action through joining units that have common pursuits as theirs in the implementation of success (Laurence & Kenneth, 2006). They also seek networks to pool resources and political strength from administrations that have the power to make a program a success.

For these reasons, public administrative networks take up different sizes, structures, compositions, and complexities. They tend to range from simple relationships between contractor and agency to complex lattices of multiple interconnected service providers, case-management bureaus (Laurence & Kenneth, 2006). These networks exists as "for-profit, public, and non-profit organizations or parts of organizations" within sectors not limited to education, transportation, environment, immigration, and health (Young & Denize, 2008). This relationship forms one of the themes of the 2013 social equity leadership conference. As the conference realizes a need for public administrators to discuss issues pertaining to PA networks created in key sectors of education, transportation, environment, immigration, policing, and corrections.

These complicated institutional arrangements are in need of greater leadership and managerial attention and skills since administering programs links operations with others. These links also tap into the resources of other organizations in a broader network, encourage collaborative and productive partnerships, and limit potential hostile forces (Young & Denize, 2008). Moreover, the technical and political demands on administrators encourage them to solidify, develop, and use ties with other leaders in their sector. For this reason, public administration networking is the partnership between school districts, school boards, correctional superintendents, environmental protection agencies, and local business leaders among others.

The need for public administrators' networks is evident in an area like policing and corrections, where there is a need to address approaches to prevent crime. This follows studies that show increasing the number of police and jailing people does not prevent crime (Norma, 2009). In addition, prolonging the jail time for repeat offenders does not reduce the rate of crimes, but increases the costs of running correctional facilities. This is also reflected in the juvenile sector that indicates that the rate of crime by youth is increasing despite tougher sentencing (Norma, 2009). These issues have solutions in interactions between criminal academics, practitioners like law enforcement, and correctional officers. Therefore, supporting the theme for a call for public administrator network.

2.2.4 Collaboration and Public Administration

Collaboration is a key theory in public administration but quite different from public administrative networking. Collaboration is part of a continuum of networking involving cooperation, coordination (Buss & Morse, 2008). From the definition of collaboration there are six main characteristics identified as:

1. A strategy rather than a limited tactic,

2. Uses strong ties among leadership participants,

3. Involves groups from different sectors like private, public, and third sectors,

4. Involves members of a group committed to long-term activity,

5. Has a formal pattern of managing and running processes and documentation,

6. Inclined towards transparency and encourages contribution and involvement of citizens and public groups.

Unlike cooperation and coordination, collaboration is a wider and extensive stage of cooperation with far-reaching, strategic, and integrative significance. Public administration that is collaborative entails actions that involve strong links between members in a specific and complex purpose, and for a long-term basis (Young & Denize, 2008). In public organizations, collaboration calls for ideologies, which are successful by gaining support from leading public officials, senior decision makers, and experience managers in agencies (Buss & Morse, 2008). Theorists advocate collaboration requires mutual derived interests and shared goals, which are self-directed and egocentric, and in coherence to gather collective power (Young & Denize, 2008). In this collaborative effort, public agencies and leaders can create stability, effectiveness, sustainability, fairness, and justice. Collaboration occurs in societies where liberal environment, justice, and equity exist (Buss & Morse, 2008). This implies that the theory of public administration collaboration is in correlation to the theme of equity, justice, and liberty.

The leadership conference advocates for collaboration in public administration for it breeds commitment of leaders and participants. Collaboration also yields improved grants-man ship, policy advocacy, and effective countermeasures against opponents, increased coordination of expertise and resources (Young & Denize, 2008). For collaboration to occur, certain difficulties need to be overcome by public leaders. These are like the meeting of minds, which is the most challenging, s it calls for willingness for honesty and cooperation (Lundin, 2007). The meeting of minds is a challenge for public administration from the differences in opinions from various parties, the large number of players, and diversity of interests and issues (Buss & Morse, 2008). However, through the social equity leadership conference, public leaders have a chance to build collaboration and cooperation between public agencies.

The collaborative efforts became a key theme in public leadership in 2007, following the American Society of Public Administration (Didehvar & Danaeefard, 2010). There has been increased call for public administration to abandon the traditional command-and-control approach and adopt a more, networking approach under collaborate-and-connect (Buss & Morse, 2008). This has led to a focus on networks and collaboration among interconnected agencies rather than the hierarchy approach.

2.2.5 Public Administration and Public Advocacy Methodologies

Advocacy is the support of persons, ideas, groups, or needs, using motivational and persuasive strategies to influence decisions and attitudes. Public advocates take action and speak out to effect changes in the larger community for everyone's benefit (Brian & Adam, 2010). Advocates take action of social and political problems or issues, and ensure the fair treatment, justice, and equitable treatment for the marginalized and at risk persons (London, 2010). Advocacy in public administration implies an administrator taking up a leadership role. In this role, they are proactive, energetic, and create public pressure for a cause. They are also proactive in supporting causes like voicing agreements for policies that improve lives or contributing money for community programs (London, 2010). In the larger social and political realm, public advocates address issues related to working conditions, natural environment, human rights, and consumer protection. The public administrator becomes a public advocate when they take community advocacy activities that urge others to join social, political, and policy efforts (Brian & Adam, 2010). A common theme with public advocacy is the creation of a network of formal and informal institutions, support groups, clubs, and non-profit organizations to solicit support and voice their cause (London, 2010). Public administrators who are advocacy are leaders, lobbyists, whistle blowers, politicians, or negotiator.

Advocacy methods used in public administration are direct communication or lobbying and campaigning. Direct communication or lobbying entails the influencing of decision makers through direct and private communications (World Health Organization, 2008). Lobbying particularly requires persuasion of the decision maker with personal meetings. Public administrators prefer this method since it is cost-effective and very powerful in gathering support for causes. On the other hand, campaigning is the public speaking over an issue with the aim of creating a response from the larger public and using various techniques to achieve this. These techniques involve chain letters or e-mails, newsletters, public events, advertising campaigns, and celebrity endorsements. Advocacy methods depend on the target audience, resources available, socioeconomic, and cultural context, and message to be conveyed. Advocacy methods also include position papers and briefing notes, presentation of professional conferences, healthcare events, and public gatherings (World Health Organization, 2008). This also entails press releases, dramatic emotional appeals, media interviews, and press conferences.

2.2.6 Advocacy and Policy Development

Advocacy is used to influence outcomes like public policy development and resource allocation in economic, social, and political systems and institutions. Advocacy is a high priority theme used by public and private leaders, including NGOs and donors to make changes to policies and institutional reforms, and to implement policies (Nelson & Dorsey, 2007). Advocacy methods entail the direct policy influence are used in policy development and change (Brian & Adam, 2010). They are successful in changing policy makers' decisions since they use political advantage, institutional relations, and network to pressurize changes.

The method used in policy development depended on the model that describes the process and issue being addressed by the policy. Policy development uses models like the outside-initiative model, to gather public support to bring issues to the forefront of system agenda (Nelson & Dorsey, 2007). The inside-initiative model of policy development involves initiative coming from the government and its systems to institutional agenda without involving the public. Advocacy and policy development in this initiative is more behind the scenes as institutions and experts give the government information needed to move the agenda and mobilize support. Grass-root organizations, professional, and media advocacy methods are used to show the importance of an issue and its effect on the public, the urgency, legitimacy, and power of the group with the issue (Nelson & Dorsey, 2007). The mobilization model for policy development entails the development of policy proposals by and within the government and its systems, and then support for passing and implementing the policy is sought from the public. In this model, insiders in the government use community and media forums to persuade and inform the public of the importance of the issue (Brian & Adam, 2010). This is used to mobilize broad-scale support for the policy proposal.

In each model, policy development begins with issue awareness, issue recognition, resolution, realignment, and dormancy (Nelson & Dorsey, 2007). For an issue to be recognized by policy makers, groups, individuals, private and public leaders discuss the potential issues and problems. They define the issue broadly, its social impact, long-term implications on interest group characteristics.