Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

DISASTER DIVERSITY by Victoria Hewett

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

I have only recently begun my career in emergency management. However, my experience over the last two years has shown how important it is to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion when planning for disasters. There are many communities that are simply overlooked or not properly planned for. Many of these underserved communities are in areas that are prone to flooding or other incidents. There are many things to consider when planning for the whole community and paying attention to these underserved areas needs to be a top priority.

In preparation for a potential disaster, such as a hurricane, it is important to realize which communities need help and address how to help them. For example, if a county establishes a sandbag location, they need to make sure it is accessible to everyone. Make sure a location is put either directly in the community or a reasonable distance. It is important to consider those who may not have transportation. Also, it is unrealistic to expect people to carry multiple, heavy sandbags on a bus.

After the disaster has occurred, assistance will most likely be a must in these areas. When people have been struck by a disaster and have potentially lost everything, where can they turn? Who do they trust? An important factor to consider is having people they can relate to. Do they look similar? Speak the same language? These factors make people comfortable and feel as though they can relate to those providing assistance.

Individual assistance isn’t enough to make people whole again after a disaster. When their homes are severely damaged or destroyed, they may not have enough money to put towards getting their homes repaired or to buy a new one. Assistance programs are just that, assistance. These programs are not designed to fully cover loss. Other options such as potential local financial assistance or donations from volunteer groups could bridge the gap a little more.

While this doesn’t address everything, I wanted to highlight some of the different things I’ve come across over the past two years. Planning for disasters must include the entire community. Have people from different backgrounds and ways of life at the planning table. We cannot think of everything by ourselves. Diversity is important in all aspects of life, but it is life saving when it comes to planning for a disaster. This is important to me because I grew up in these underserved communities. While I did not have it nearly as bad as others, I know the basics of what to plan for after a disaster has occurred as I experienced it firsthand.

Posted in UncategorizedLeave a Comment on DISASTER DIVERSITY by Victoria Hewett

IN TRUTH, THERE IS HOPE HERE by Erin Valentine Bussey

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

When I tell people I’m from Baltimore, the immediate follow-up question is almost always, “Is it really like The Wire?” Well, yes. Some of it is. We’re a majority African-American city where 20% of citizens live in poverty. One in 10 Baltimoreans suffers from addiction. There are few job opportunities, and the booming drug trade is a fast and reliable source of cash. Violence is the leading cause of death for young adults.

We reached a historic milestone this week in Baltimore. We’ve had 100 homicides in the first 107 days of 2022. There have been 201 non-fatal shootings. We’re now on track to record more than 300 homicides for the eighth straight year. We’ve got the second-highest murder rate in the country at 58 per 100,000.

Yes, it’s bad. We know it’s bad. And it’s very easy to normalize that level of violence as just a number and give in to hopelessness, especially when we’re being told over and over that we are hopeless. Donald Trump has called Baltimore a “disgusting, rat, and rodent-infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.”

In February, in a segment on the failure of democracy in the US, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson called the city “one of the worst places in the western hemisphere” and “a little bit of Haiti in the mid-Atlantic” that had gone from a “once beautiful city into a slum.”  He blamed Baltimore’s murder rate on Democrats’ progressive policing policies, saying, “In Baltimore, pretty much everyone in charge is black, yet it’s a matter of religious faith that the main thing holding the city back is white racism.” At the bottom of the screen, a chyron read, “Hellscape 40 Miles from the Nation’s Capital.”

He directed his comments at White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. “You claim to care so deeply about African Americans…and yet here is one of the biggest black-majority cities in the United States. Tens of thousands of black people who live in Baltimore are in misery because their kids keep getting murdered.”

Reinforcing a narrative of fear about a majority-black city in peril from poverty and violence to push a political agenda is almost as harmful to Baltimore as the poverty and violence itself. The more we hear Baltimore referred to as a “slum,” the less hope we Baltimoreans have that things may ever change. Giving in to that mentality means that we have much less energy to create a dialog on more productive solutions, including Tucker Carlson’s suggestion to resume prosecuting low-level drug crimes.

In truth, there is hope here. Baltimore’s community-based movements are making an impact. The Safe Streets program puts volunteers on the streets to diffuse potentially violent disputes. Safe Streets says that in 2021 it mediated 935 conflicts that had the potential to become violent. Others still hope. City hospitals have united in the “Violence Intervention Program.” When a victim of violent crime is admitted to the hospital, they are paired with a caseworker who develops an action plan to create a strong support system designed to reduce the risk of violent re-offenses. At the University of Maryland Medical Center, at-risk youth spend a day in the Shock Trauma Center, where almost a quarter of all patients treated are victims of violence.

We know it’s bad. We know how it looks. People are fleeing the city in droves; our population has shrunk from nearly 1 million in the 1970s to only 580,000 in 2020. T. Rowe Price, Target, Barnes & Noble, and Holiday Inn have recently packed up and left downtown due to the city’s rising crime. You watched us destroy our own communities during the Freddie Gray riots in 2015.

We undoubtedly have some serious issues to address in Baltimore, including violence, blight, a failing education system, and corrupt police and politicians. We can’t hide it. But the last thing we need is for political outsiders to hold us up as a race-baiting pawn against the opposite party. We know you want us to fail, but we’re not going to be your punching bag. The truth is that we are still here, and we still have hope.

Posted in Destinations, Issue 18Leave a Comment on IN TRUTH, THERE IS HOPE HERE by Erin Valentine Bussey

POLLUTING SCIENCE WITH POLITICS AND CZARS by William Scoggins Jr.

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

There are numerous global tragedies and fallouts from the Covid-19 pandemic. The most tragic pertaining to science and technology is the perception that science is not to be trusted. Public confidence in science has trended downward and that can be plainly attributed to its direct linkage to politicians and the media, as well as science figures who have taken this time to pursue their own agendas.

Another real-world example of the dangers of polluting science with partisan politics is the original Build Back Better plan. Build Back Better was a part of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and subsequently endorsed by the United Nations, long before being tied to a political agenda and presidential election. In a nonpartisan world, this version of Build Back Better should yield 100% support from our political leaders. The basic concept surrounds rebuilding communities and properties with the most recent and robust specifications after a disaster. This practice is essential to building resilient communities, especially with an ever-changing climate and natural disasters causing so much damage in terms of lives lost and economic burden.

Build Back Better should have been introduced in a bipartisan fashion and focused on its intended core philosophy and passed through our government. Instead, a profusion of unrelated programs was lumped into the bill. The bill also focused on unjustified and costly demolition and rebuild processes, in lieu of the original build back better if a disaster damages or destroys the property. It is this type of political malpractice that turns great science and technology policy that would benefit our nation as whole into failed bills that would be detrimental to our health, wellbeing, and solvency as a country. Once the trust is lost, it is almost impossible to get it back…   

To rebuild the trust between the national science and technology community and our citizen’s, there is an immediate need to break the perceived collusion between science and technology representatives and politicians and the media. Science and technology should be a stand-alone federal department/division and completely bipartisan politically. To further function as a separate entity, the science and technology department should have a public relations spokesperson who communicates its activities directly from the scientific leaders and their perspectives without bias.

The leader of the science and technology federal department should be reputable within the scientific community and not a position that is subject to the volatility of administration changes and political agendas. The head of this division should be someone who confirms or rejects the scientific validity of an administration’s agenda through real science and research and not someone who is hand-picked, and goes through the political appointment process, only to be a partisan science czar.

We live in a time where our confidence in politicians and the media are at continuously historic lows. The national and global population has started to associate and view the science and technology field and its spokespeople in a comparable way. It is time to separate science and technology from political and mainstream media agendas.

 

Posted in Issue 18Leave a Comment on POLLUTING SCIENCE WITH POLITICS AND CZARS by William Scoggins Jr.

TOP TEN FOR SOUTH CAROLINA by Monica Culbreath

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

Even though Domestic Violence has been a topic getting traction in South Carolina since Governor Nikki Haley declared October as Domestic Violence Awareness month, the incidence is not getting much lower. Looking over the most recent numbers in South Carolina, it is disheartening to learn we are still ranked among the top worst states for Domestic Violence in which women are killed by men. Even though the numbers are at their lowest since the ranking system was formed, South Carolina is still one of the top ten. This is such a terribly expensive badge for us to wear. It is not readily known how costly Domestic Violence is to the state as most still see it as a family problem. Domestic Violence is very costly to the state: costly mentally, physically, and economically to experience, support the victims, and punish the perpetrators of Domestic Violence.  Here are some impediments that keep South Carolina among the top states with this deadly issue.  

Most citizens of South Carolina are not conscious of the extremely high rates of Domestic Violence which take place in this state. This indifference has serious implications as problems cannot be addressed if one is oblivious to them. There is just such a lack of resources available for the victims and survivors of Domestic Violence.  For the entire state that has about 5 million people, there is only one organization (SCCDVSA) which acts as an umbrella for 13 organizations available to combat Domestic Violence. The low number of existing supports translates to lack of services for the many victims living in the state. Without adequate funding many survivors are unaware of the limited resources which are available. One of the easiest solutions to address our Domestic Violence problem is to bring attention to the problem. Knowing the high financial toll absorbed by the state would encourage solutions developing plans to prevent domestic violence. 

Domestic Violence in South Carolina is a complex problem calling for many solutions as each situation is different. For one adult providing housing removes them from experiencing Domestic Violence while for another extensive therapy and education is needed to successfully escape.  It is essential for us to address the obstacles keeping South Carolinians at the top of such a deadly list as it is costing the state more than $350 million dollars annually based on a study from Dr. Joey Von Hessen. This is not acceptable; this cost is too high. Lives are being lost and children are becoming orphans. Modifying proven solutions in other states is another step to aid South Carolina in effectively finding answers. Hopefully, in the next twenty years, South Carolina will be ranked in the bottom states in incidents of domestic violence instead of the top. 

Posted in Issue 18, South CarolinaLeave a Comment on TOP TEN FOR SOUTH CAROLINA by Monica Culbreath

INDIA – A UNIQUE STUDY SUBJECT by Sharan Ravishankar

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

I want to talk about a research study that was conducted in 2019 by Placek and Ravishankar on political attitudes potentially influencing a person’s satisfaction with the government in India. This topic is fascinating because India has gone through something unique since the 1990s, specifically, economic liberalization of foreign markets that brought into the country multiple social media platforms, like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

Using the 2018 Pew Research Center data set, the authors of the study regarded social media as an independent variable and satisfaction with the country, economic situation, and democracy, as well as confidence in the current prime minister Narendra Modi, as dependent variables. A linear regression analysis revealed that social media had significant relationships with country satisfaction and confidence in Modi. Conversely, satisfaction with democracy and economic situation did not relate to the independent variable. Interestingly, the general consensus is that social media creates more division within a given country; however, the opposite can be confirmed here: country satisfaction and confidence in leadership correlate well on social media.

One of the reasons the other variables were not statistically significant is that India, like many Asian countries, still uses “old” media, meaning newspapers, television, and other traditional ways of gathering news. This “old” media continues to sway people’s political attitudes in these Asian countries. India is still a developing country in many ways; yet, it is becoming a global leader and is open to having different mediums influence local political attitudes. It is not the same country that gained independence in 1947. With the current trends saying India will take over China when it comes to population and seeing rapid growth of social media, it will be interesting to see how all of that will affect political attitudes in the future studies. Political scientists may want to research India more than it has already been studied!

Posted in International, Issue 18Leave a Comment on INDIA – A UNIQUE STUDY SUBJECT by Sharan Ravishankar

IS SOMETHING COMING DOWN THE CONSERVATION PIKE? by Jenifer Bunty

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

President Biden and his team are rounding out their first 100 days in office. From the first-day priority of revoking a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, the President has been building his team and laying the groundwork for a science-centered, climate-focused environmental agenda. Within a week of his inauguration, President Biden signed Executive Order No. 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. This order places an economic imperative on developing climate solutions and places climate change at the “center of United States foreign policy and national security.” The Executive Order was an ideological win for environmentalists and indicates that over the next 4 years, Federal land management decisions will revolve around climate conscious goals for conservation, forest restoration, and carbon sequestration.

President Biden has assembled an outstanding leadership team for the land management agencies and scientific offices to begin work on some big environmental goals. They seem to have solidified support from the larger scientific community. Still, over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed an uneasiness among the researchers and land managers that I work with. There is a sense that something is coming down the pike, but we don’t know what. Maybe it’s a bit of paranoia remaining from the previous administration that abruptly pulled support from climate scientists, conservation projects, and natural resource operations. My gut feeling is that these concerns are not without base though. Placing priorities on conservation could do a lot over the next four years, but conservation goals gain complexity as they are handed from leadership to practitioners on the ground.

Posted in Environment, Issue 17Leave a Comment on IS SOMETHING COMING DOWN THE CONSERVATION PIKE? by Jenifer Bunty

HAVE HAIR, WILL DISCRIMINATE by Bianca Crawley

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

The natural hair discrimination laws for people of color have been spreading throughout the world since the beginning of the 16th century Trans-Atlantic slave route.  In the United States, natural hair has been deemed as unprofessional, untamed, dreadful, or in need of being “relaxed.” The Tignon Act of the late 18th century was enacted by the Spanish Governor of Louisiana Esteban Rodríguez Miró, requiring women of color, and especially creole women, to wear a tignon headscarf to cover their hair. Many considered the elaborate hairstyles to be a threat to the status quo, bringing excessive attention to the women, and hence the law was meant to police their hair and ensure that it was covered up.

Looking back at social movements, such as the Black Power Movement during the 1960s and 1970s, where men and women of color were often seen wearing their hair in its natural state, hair was viewed as a symbol of power.  Within the last decade, the rise of the natural hair movement has attained so much attention that laws have begun to be passed around the country to stop discrimination based on natural hair.

The C.R.O.W.N. (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) Act, was created in 2019 through a collaboration between Dove personal care brand and the CROWN Coalition to protect people from discrimination based on race-specific hairstyles.  This includes all hair textures and protective styles which include styles such as braids, locs, afros, and twists within workplace and in public school settings. According to Dove, “California was the first state to sign the C.R.O.W.N. Act into law on July 3, 2019. With support from the CROWN Coalition, the bill is now law in 6 other states (CO, MD, NY, NJ, VA, WA).”

The C.R.O.W.N. Act Coalition carries on the constant pursuit to support legislative efforts that aim to end hair discrimination throughout the United States.  Today, the C.R.O.W.N. Act has surpassed over 189,000 petition signatures. To continue to see growth within the diffusion of natural hair laws, it is essential for us to understand the history of natural hair within the Black community, in order to continue to see growth and diversity within both school and workplace settings.

Posted in Equity and Access, Issue 17Leave a Comment on HAVE HAIR, WILL DISCRIMINATE by Bianca Crawley

CONNECTED WE STAND, DIGITALLY DIVIDED WE FALL by Mark Hammond

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

As we enter what we all hope are the final phases of the COVID-19 global pandemic, public administrators are presented with countless opportunities to reflect on how government has responded to unprecedented challenges.  While much of the national conversation is focused on large scale federal programs, the response to the pandemic has permeated every agency at every level of government.  Our constituents have focused their attention on our public health and economic recovery programs, but internally we have been forced to take on challenges in personnel management, budgets, information technology, and maintenance of physical facilities.  Leadership in public administration has never been more critical to the success of government programs than it has over the past year.  We now have an ethical obligation to make honest assessments of where we succeeded, where we failed, and how we can be better prepared for the next unpredictable crisis.

The pandemic has also provided opportunities for us to find new ways to serve the public by implementing programs that equitably present the most value to the greatest number of people.  As we transitioned to a virtual existence with online public education, telework, and staying connected with friends and family through our computer screens, access to broadband internet connectivity quickly became less about convenience and more of a critical necessity.  We can also reasonably predict that our world will remain more virtual than it was before COVID-19 as many employers realize the cost savings and other benefits of having a workforce that is at least partially remote.  Inequities in access to reliable broadband internet service that are the result of either inadequate infrastructure or socioeconomic conditions that make access unaffordable create another system of haves and have nots, or more accurately, the connected and the unable to connect.

The digital divide perpetuates geographic and economic inequities that are the barriers to individual prosperity.  Multiple studies conducted by the Pew Research Center over the past two years found more than twenty-one million Americans without access to broadband internet service with rural areas disproportionately affected by gaps in connectivity infrastructure.  Twenty-seven percent of rural populations, forty percent of rural schools and sixty percent of healthcare centers in rural areas lack sufficient broadband access.  Those same studies found that forty percent of low-income children relied on free public wi-fi access to complete schoolwork during the pandemic as compared to just six percent of their classmates in higher income families.  If public administrators are seeking a way to provide opportunities to those citizens who need them the most, addressing the digital divide is a proverbial silver bullet.  By making broadband accessible and equitable, government can bring new opportunities to the communities that have historically fallen behind in education, employment, and healthcare.

The real challenge to broadband accessibility is that it is a private, for-profit industry.  Simple economics stand in the way of infrastructure build outs in rural areas with a small customer base, because they are not profitable for the private sector.  Similarly, the costs associated with internet service prices many low-income families out of the market.  Government investment in public-private partnerships that bridge the digital divide are more than just assistance to the end users who will become connected.  It is a gateway to address some of the most fundamental challenges facing policy makers.  At a time when internet connectivity is widely recognized as a critical resource, public administrators must finally seize the opportunity to bring the internet to those who have been left behind.

Posted in Equity and Access, Issue 17Leave a Comment on CONNECTED WE STAND, DIGITALLY DIVIDED WE FALL by Mark Hammond

BIDEN’S BALANCING ACT by Toni Baraka

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

President Joe Biden has inherited a tense, fractured, and broken America. Issues are highly politicized, polarization is at an all-time high, and his own party is struggling with growing pains as it tries to reconcile its identity being wedged between progressive ideals and moderate ones. During his campaign, it seemed as though he couldn’t quite catch a grasp on whether he wanted to be a progressive candidate or a moderate candidate. Because of that, he decided which one to be: both.

Though frustrating to some, President Biden has stuck to what made him a popular candidate in the first place while embracing the newer ideals of the progressive movement that is unfolding within the Democratic party. The only issue is this: how long can he cater to both sides before they want him to give them more? How long can he balance this metaphorical tightrope?

The progressives and more moderate Democrats often find themselves agreeing on the same principles when it comes to issues that affect the American people, but never the action plan for it. One of these issues is climate change. When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey introduced the Green New Deal (an all-encompassing climate change plan) in 2019, it was met with applause from their supporters, dismissal from their critics, and skepticism from the public. The Green New Deal focused on creating greener jobs, greener infrastructure, and initiating a complete overhaul of unsustainable infrastructure and transportation practices. Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the plan by insinuating that it was a “dream,” while then-candidate Joe Biden attempted to distance himself from it during debates with Former President Donald Trump. This signaled a divide within the Democratic party that was becoming more pronounced with each passing day.

When President Biden’s climate plan was released, it was eerily resembling the Green New Deal. It focused on greener infrastructure, green jobs, and greener transportation. Additionally, it also focused on funding training for people who could get into the “green” industry of work, along with funding schools to rebuild with more sustainable materials. President Biden’s plan is a comprehensive climate change plan…only it isn’t called a climate change plan. President Biden has made this into an infrastructure plan with climate change initiatives sewn into the threading of it. President Biden is aware of this divide in his party. Because of this, he knows that he can’t pick one side over the other and “throw in the towel.” Instead, President Biden is continuing to play both fields, appease both factions as much as he can, and continue walking the tightrope that he’s on when it comes to appeasing both sides of his party. While others might criticize him for continuing to walk this tightrope, he seems to be okay with staying on it a bit longer. All we can do is see how well he can continue to balance on it.

Posted in Environment, Issue 17Leave a Comment on BIDEN’S BALANCING ACT by Toni Baraka

WE THE SCIENTISTS, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING… by Megan Pitz

Posted on by Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

In recent years, the US has experienced a growing distrust of science and scientists, primarily influenced by prominent public figures and widespread miscommunication of science. As a scientist, witnessing this decline in trust is profoundly disheartening yet not altogether surprising; scientific research today is written and published in a way that makes it widely inaccessible to the public, either through journal subscription costs or field-specific jargon. Barriers to entry such as these prevent non-scientists from knowledgeably participating in major scientific discussions, most notably including climate change and vaccinations.

Arguably the most problematic aspect of science inaccessibility is the public’s reliance on political or famous figures to communicate significant scientific developments. Most politicians are not scientists and are therefore likely to spread either unintentional misinformation or even intentional disinformation when communicating science. One obvious solution to this problem is to recruit scientists to share their work with broad audiences. However, a few issues accompany this apparent solution: first, because public communication is not highlighted in many research-focused degree programs, communicating science to non-scientists does not come easily for many academic researchers. Furthermore, research career incentives place little emphasis on learning to convey science to such audiences. Additionally, even when scientists attempt to connect to the public, they can be thwarted simply by a lack of attention.

For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci and other scientists spoke to the nation about the science behind public health and safety measures to prevent disease spread. But, epidemiologists spent years leading up to the current pandemic warning of just such an outbreak. Ideally, communication between the public and the scientific community could have garnered support

Alternatively, suppose scientific research was made publicly available and written so the average person can understand the research methods and results. In such a scenario, the general population may be more involved, scientifically knowledgeable, and trusting of the scientific community. This could lead to greater participation in vaccination, public and political support for climate change initiatives, and better funding for critical research.

Ultimately, science is a public good that is currently not available to much of the public. While solving this problem will require systemic change, there are small things we as scientists can begin doing today. Engaging with the community and learning science communication are essential steps to making science more accessible. Including abstracts written for broad audiences and posting jargon-free research summaries in free or open access sources allows invaluable, direct public access to the scientific community. Link your publications along with an accessible description on social media and other public spaces to engage those who may not usually be exposed to science. As scientists begin to incorporate science communication into their jobs, the public will become more knowledgeable, interested, and trusting. Creating this partnership between scientists and the public is essential for a science-friendly future.

Posted in Issue 16, Science and Technology PolicyLeave a Comment on WE THE SCIENTISTS, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING… by Megan Pitz