1 Memorandum To: From: Date: Re:
TBD Jetmir Troshani Date goes here Social Equity
Outline The paper is broken down as follows: a. b. c. d. e. f.
Introduction Procedural fairness Distributional equity Process equity Outcome disparities Conclusion
Introduction Social equity has come to be known as a responsible way of planning finances and offering services to individuals, institutions and businesses, as a crucial tool in public administration. In its application, social equity requires that all individuals be treated in an equal and fair manner and be subjected to equal opportunities regarding access to livelihood, education and resources. Social equity seeks to achieve this through reviewing of policies and programs under the fields of procedural fairness, access/distributional equity, quality/process equity and outcomes disparities. Shafritz and Russell (2003, p.434) defines social equity as “fairness in the delivery of public services; it is egalitarianism in action-the principle that each citizen, regardless of economic resources or personal traits, deserves and has a right to be given equal treatment by the political system.� Social equity in public administration emphasizes on four main areas. First it seeks to emphasize that public administrators
2
should aim at equal treatment of the citizens regardless of need(s). Secondly, it is the duty of the public administrators to offer quality services to the citizens. Thirdly, the evaluation process for the public administrators should be based upon their ability to enhance fairness, justice and equity in their line of work. Fourth, successful social equity is measured in a criterion which is divided into areas namely: procedural fairness, distributional/access equity, process/quality equity and outcome disparities (Svara, and Brunet, 2003). Procedural fairness takes into account the following of the procedural rights (due process) when handling public issues, handling of all the individuals and groups while following the right procedure (equal protection), and taking into account the eligibility of individuals while carrying out public administration duties (equal rights). Procedural fairness is applied when seeking to determine the levels of fairness among public administrators in areas such as hiring, promotion and in awarding contracts. Procedural fairness guarantees that the right bureaucracy is followed in carrying out those tasks. In an example where procedural fairness is not followed, Blacks and Hispanics motorists are three times more likely to be physically searched during a traffic stop compared to whites. The type of force used is clearly motivated by he individuals race and ethnicity (Brunet, 2006). Access/distributional equity encompasses reviewing the policies, services and practices currently in use to give assurance of equal access, determine the level of access to services to ensure they get to the targeted intervention and to ensure that the available resources are channeled to yield the fair results. In an example citing the scenario in the US prisons, inmates do not have access to quality treatment compared
3
to the free citizens and in addition they are not entitled to vocational programs as is the case outside prison confines. Quality/process equity applies the criteria of reviewing the degree of consistency in the quality of the services being delivered to the citizens. This calls for a trend of offering of consistently quality services to individuals regardless of the criterion used in distribution. A perfect example for disparities in application of this criterion is in the courts where all citizens are supposed to have equal access to quality defense counsel but the minorities end up with public defenders that are less likely to win a case against private counsel and the result is that the minorities receive harsher sentences (Svara, 2006). Finally, equity in outcome disparities examines the policies and programs in a bid to establish whether they impact the same on all the individuals and groups served. They seek to find out the reason behind disparities that may be prevalent resulting from policies and programs that actually meet all the input criteria. In an example seeking to bring out how this criterion is overlooked, Brunet (2006) notes that Blacks and Hispanics male offenders who are unemployed are more likely to be sentenced to jail than whites. The policies here are clearly disproportionately impacted with the basis being the demographic variables of the individuals. In conclusion, social equity is particularly important to the public administrators due to the implications such measures have in their line of work. It is important to note that social equity indicators are heavily dependent on existing data sources which by the way are not too hard to implement. It is important for public administrators to note that some factors that cause disparity in social equity are sometimes beyond their
4
control and that at this point it is necessary to invite others to help move beyond the initial point. Social equity defines the purpose represented by the public administration and shows its importance as a vital tool in management values. Considering the current situation in the US public administration sector, I feel that despite the prevalence in awareness of the importance of incorporating social equity in public offices, inequality is continually evident in various sectors like the criminal courts, the police department, the employment sector and access to education. These disparities in treatment of the publics are mainly based on race (unfair treatment of Blacks and minority tribes) and gender (unequal access to opportunities amongst women). To correct these disparities, I feel the government should come up with policies seeking to pressurize all public administration offices to institute plans and regulations which integrate equity solutions. The government should also provide safe forums that seek to address the challenges in social equity in a bid to involve every one in developing the best measures. To sum up the debate, social equity is the pillar which supports public administration.
5 Reference List Brunet, J. (2006). Measuring Social Equity Performance in the Criminal Justice System: 5th Annual Social Equity Leadership Conference National Academy of Public Administration, 1(1). Retrieval date November 4, 2009, from http://www.napawash.org/_.../Criminal_Justice_System_Performance_JimBrunet .ppt Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E. W. and Barrick, C. (2003) Introducing Public Administration. (3rd Ed) London: Longman, Inc. Svara, J. and Brunet, J. (2003). Filling in the Skeletal Pillar: Addressing Social Equity in Introductory Courses in Public Administration, 3. Retrieval date November 4, 2009, from http://www.napawash.org/SEPEquityRosenbloom.pdf Svara, J. (2006). The Ethics Primer for Public Administrators in Government and Nonprofit Organizations. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers,