Citation
Social equity and public transit

Material Information

Title:
Social equity and public transit a comparative analysis of persisting economic outcomes and accountability indicators
Uncontrolled:
Comparative analysis of persisting economic outcomes and accountability indicators
Creator:
Larson, Samantha June ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (206 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Public administration ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Planning -- United States ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Social aspects -- United States ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
This dissertation is interested in social equity in the context of public transportation. Social equity is the commitment to fairness in policy formation, service delivery, implementation, and management of public institutions. Despite 50 years of scholarship, it remains an understudied pillar of public administration. A key methodological barrier to its advancement has been the lack of quantitative tools, indicators, and benchmarks for measuring progress in the pursuit of social equity. This study overcomes this inadequacy by examining two research questions: 1) To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? and 2) How do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? The first question tests two competing propositions that suggest increased access to public transit is associated with both increased economic opportunity and residential income segregation. It assesses how one form of social equity can have inequitable effects. Longitudinal data from the Neighborhood Change Database (1970-2010) is used in this quantitative stage. Next, the second question explores what principles guide administrators to address transit equity given its persistence. Content analysis of four diverse metropolitan cases determine what transit equity measures have been incorporated. Key informant interviews with transit administrators responsible for equity and measurement are the primary method of data collection. A mixed-method, social justice research design thus provides qualitative and quantitative results. Findings are compared to determine recommendations valuable to stakeholders and policymakers deciding on issues related to social equity and segregation in their communities. Scholarly implications include advancing the application of social equity indicators and developing an analytical approach to assess fairness in neighborhoods over time through the Persistent Pathways Framework, which contributes to the “unfinished business” of measuring social equity in the discipline.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Colorado Denver
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Samanatha June Larson.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
999349361 ( OCLC )
ocn999349361

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
SOCIAL EQUITY AND PUBLIC TRANSIT:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERSISTING ECONOMIC OUTCOMES AND
ACCOUNTABILITY INDICATORS by
SAMANTHA JUNE LARSON B.A., University of North Dakota, 2005 M.S., North Dakota State University, 2011
A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Affairs
2017


This dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Samantha June Larson has been approved for the Public Affairs Program by
Todd Ely, Chair Mary Ellen Guy, Advisor Malcolm Goggin Susan Gooden
Date: May 13, 2017
n


Larson, Samantha June (Ph.D., Public Affairs Program)
Social Equity and Public Transit: A Comparative Analysis of Persisting Economic Outcomes
and Accountability Indicators
Dissertation directed by Professor Mary Ellen Guy
ABSTRACT
This dissertation is interested in social equity in the context of public transportation. Social equity is the commitment to fairness in policy formation, service delivery, implementation, and management of public institutions. Despite 50 years of scholarship, it remains an understudied pillar of public administration. A key methodological barrier to its advancement has been the lack of quantitative tools, indicators, and benchmarks for measuring progress in the pursuit of social equity. This study overcomes this inadequacy by examining two research questions: 1) To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? and 2) How do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? The first question tests two competing propositions that suggest increased access to public transit is associated with both increased economic opportunity and residential income segregation. It assesses how one form of social equity can have inequitable effects. Longitudinal data from the Neighborhood Change Database (1970-2010) is used in this quantitative stage. Next, the second question explores what principles guide administrators to address transit equity given its persistence. Content analysis of four diverse metropolitan cases determine what transit equity measures have been incorporated. Key informant interviews with transit administrators responsible for equity and measurement are the primary method of data collection. A mixed-method, social justice research design thus provides qualitative and
n


quantitative results. Findings are compared to determine recommendations valuable to stakeholders and policymakers deciding on issues related to social equity and segregation in their communities. Scholarly implications include advancing the application of social equity indicators and developing an analytical approach to assess fairness in neighborhoods over time through the Persistent Pathways Framework, which contributes to the unfinished business of measuring social equity in the discipline.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Mary Ellen Guy
m


This work is dedicated to my parents, Mary Kay and Larry Larson, for their unconditional love and support. Your example has always inspired me to care about people over profit. Thank you for setting me on such a meaningful life path.
u


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express the deepest gratitude to my dissertation advisor, Dr. Mary Ellen Guy. Her wisdom and encouragement to explore my interests empowered me at each stage of this dissertation research project. Without her guidance and support, this work would not have been possible.
Next, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Todd Ely and Dr. Malcolm Goggin, whose work demonstrated to me the importance of a well-developed research design. In addition, a sincere thank you to Professor Susan Gooden, who introduced me to the social equity literature. Your mentorship and expertise on this subject has been a true inspiration. Thank you for setting me up to embark on a meaningful agenda and career for the betterment of public administration scholarship and our democracy.
I would also like to acknowledge those that made this study possible through their participation in accordance with COMIRB 16-1266.1 am indebted to the knowledge and experiences that all practitioners took the time to share for the advancement of more equitable public transit systems and neighborhood outcomes.
Finally, I would like to note my appreciation to the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. The financial support that was provided throughout my doctoral program has afforded me with many opportunities to gain valuable skills and develop my craft as I pursued this final degree.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................1
The State of Social Equity Research..........................................1
Methodological Barriers......................................................3
Advancement Strategies.......................................................5
Scope and Context............................................................6
Study Goals and Research Questions...........................................7
II. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................10
Distinguishing between Equality and Equity in Public Transit................11
Constructing Transit Equity Questions.......................................14
Assessing the Existence of Transit Inequity.................................17
Explaining Why Social Inequity Persists.....................................24
Administrative Explanations...............................................27
Economic Explanations.....................................................33
Describing How to Achieve Accountability for Transit Equity.................37
Transportation Performance Measurement Tools..............................39
Ten Principles Investigated...............................................41
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY..........................................46
Mixed Methods Research Design...............................................46
Stage 1: Quantitative Assessment of Factors Impacting Persistence...........48
Logic of Case Selection...................................................48
Unit of Analysis..........................................................58
ii


Data Source....................................................................58
Operationalization of Key Variables............................................59
Analytic Strategy..............................................................67
Validity Threats...............................................................68
Stage 2: Qualitative Study of Principles for Achieving Accountability.............69
Data Sources...................................................................71
Data Collection and Analysis...................................................71
Triangulation..................................................................76
Mixed Methods Analytic Approach...................................................78
IV. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS...........................................................80
Descriptive Statistics............................................................81
Model 1: Transit Access and Economic Opportunity..................................83
High Access Results............................................................84
Low Access Results.............................................................85
Model 2: Transit Access and Income Segregation....................................87
High Access Results............................................................88
Low Access Results.............................................................88
Interpretation of Outcomes........................................................89
Persistent Pathways Framework.....................................................91
Summary..........................................................................95
V. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS..........................................................97
Content Analysis..................................................................98
Manifest Findings..............................................................98
iii


Directed Findings...........................................................101
Interview Analysis............................................................104
Denver......................................................................107
Minneapolis.................................................................Ill
Birmingham..................................................................117
Orlando.....................................................................123
Summary.......................................................................128
VI. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION.....................................................133
Comparative Analysis of Persistence and Accountability........................135
Equitable..................................................................1366
Partially Equitable.........................................................138
Equal.......................................................................141
Partially Inequitable.......................................................144
Inequitable.................................................................147
Theoretical Contributions.....................................................149
Public Administration.......................................................149
Urban Economics.............................................................151
Practical Contributions.......................................................153
Contextual Measurement.....................................................1533
Normalizing Equity.........................................................1544
Community Partnerships.....................................................1544
Civic Engagement...........................................................1555
Study Limitations............................................................1555
iv


Future Research
1588
REFERENCES...................................................................1611
APPENDIX
A: Denver Segregation and Inequality Trends..............................1877
B: Minneapolis Segregation and Inequality Trends..........................1888
C: Birmingham Segregation and Inequality Trends......................... 18989
D: Orlando Segregation and Inequality Trends..............................1900
E: Interaction Term Calculation...........................................1911
F: Interview Contacts.....................................................1922
v


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
2.1. Social Equity Measures in Top Public Administration Journals...................20
2.2. Transportation Equity Tools and Measures.......................................40
3.1. Case Study Characteristics......................................................50
3.2. 10 Principles and Related Interview Questions..................................74
4.1. High Access Descriptive Statistics..............................................82
4.2. Low Access Descriptive Statistics.............................................. 83
4.3 Inequality Regression Results: 1970-2010........................................ 84
4.4. Segregation Regression Results: 1970-2010...................................... 87
4.5. PPF Pathway and Outcome by Case................................................94
5.1. Manifest Content Analysis Word Cloud Data......................................99
5.2. Interview Analysis Findings Degree of Support................................106
5.3. Interview Analysis Summary.....................................................129
6.1. Comparative Analysis...........................................................136
vi


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
2.1: Black/Nonblack Segregation 1890-2010.........................................22
2.2: Income Segregation in American MSAs by Race: 1970-2010.......................24
2.3: American Theil Index and Gini Coefficient: 1920-2013.........................32
3.1: Social Justice Research Design...............................................47
3.2: Diverse Case Study Design....................................................49
3.3: Explanatory Diagram..........................................................60
4.1. Case Summary of Results......................................................90
4.2. Persistent Pathways Framework................................................92
5.1. Manifest Content Analysis Word Cloud Data....................................99
5.2. Directed Content Analysis Findings..........................................102
vii


LIST OF EQUATIONS
EQUATION
3.1: Index of Dissimilarity..............................................62
3.2: Model 1.............................................................67
3.3: Model 2.............................................................67
viii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ASPA American Society for Public Administration
BJCTA Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CEI Cost Effectiveness Index
CoCs Communities of Color
Coef. Coefficient
DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments
EEO Equal Employment Opportunity
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HHI Herfmdahl-Hirschman Index
HUD Housing and Urban Development
JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MTC Metropolitan Transit Commission
NAPA National Academy of Public Administration
Nbhd. Neighborhood
NCDB Neighborhood Change Database
NPA New Public Administration
NPM New Public Management
PAR Public Administration Review
RPCGB Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham
RSE Robust Standard Error
RTD Regional Transportation District
TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
TCAB Transit Citizens Advisory Board
TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
WCs White Communities
WH White Neighborhoods


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Public administration scholarship suggests that access to transportation is considered a necessary and significant factor in ensuring fair economic opportunities to the urban poor (see, for example, Stoll, Holzer, & Ihlanfeldt, 2000; Wellman, 2015). In contrast, economists posit that access to transportation is associated with increased residential segregation, which leads to adverse social outcomes (see, for example, Cutler, Glaeser, & Vigdor, 2008). These competing claims inspire key questions: To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? What performance measures are used to assess progress? How are transit agencies held accountable for achieving social equity? Answering these questions contributes to knowledge about social equity measures and performance measurement. Findings are also important for transit stakeholders and policymakers as they decide on issues related to economic opportunity and segregation in their local communities.
The State of Social Equity Research
Social equity can be defined as the active commitment to fairness, justice, and equality in the formulation of public policy, distribution of public services, implementation of public policy, and management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract (Johnson & Svara, 2011, p. 282). The study of social equity was established at the first Minnowbrook Conference near Syracuse University in 1968. Scholars gathered to discuss unjust government action erupting across the United States. When citizen-led efforts gained traction, scholars joined the movement to address injustice. The concept has diffused into public administration and policy theories since that foundational convening.
1


Equity scholars have since examined the status of women and minorities in the public sector, building theories of representative bureaucracy (Rosenbloom, 1983; Rehfuss, 1986; Lewis, 1988). Perry & Wise (1990) conceptualized social equity as a normative motive of public sector professionals. Schneider & Ingram (1993) argued that powerful, positively viewed target groups justify their receipt of public services by emphasizing efficiency and minimizing equity-based rationales. Brewer & Selden (2000) included the administrative values of efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness in their organizational performance typology. Such applications demonstrate how social equity factors in to all stages of the policy process.
Social equity has also been presented as one of the pillars of public administration (Frederickson, 1980; 1990). Svara & Brunet (2005) support this claim by outlining the qualities that constitute a pillar. Frederickson (2010) argues that it must be balanced with the pillars of efficiency and economy. Gooden & Portillo (2011) advocate for adding new bricks and/or options of new building materials to the pillar of social equity research (p. i67). This commitment has brought social equity from a special conference topic to a normative touchstone for the field (Guy & McCandless, 2012, p. S12).
But social equity remains undervalued and understudied despite five decades of attention. This is evident in reviews of Public Administration Review (PAR), one of the premier journals in the field. PAR published just 54 equity-based articles from 1940-1969, but almost 800 articles have appeared since 1969 (Guy & McCandless, 2012). A more granular look at publication records by decade provides a more compelling picture. Social equity research grew from 3.6% of PAR in the 1960s to 6.3% in the 1970s, but it fell back to just 3.1% in the 1980s. Raadschelders & Lee (2011) found that the efficiency-driven New Public Management (NPM) movement has dominated the study and practice of public
2


administration ever since to the detriment of equity research. While there has been an upsurge since the 1990s, less than 5% of all PAR articles have focused on social equity in the past 75 years (Gooden, 2015a). In comparison, the top three topics that have dominated PAR articles include public management (17%), policy (13%), and organizational studies (10%) (Raadschelders & Lee, 2011). Empirical publications on social equity have also been deemed inadequate (Pitts, 2011). PAR does not represent the entirety of administrative scholarship, but takes the pulse of the most pressing topics over time.
These publication trends show that social equity research has battled against competing emphases. This suggests three key points. Social equity is an important area to study, it is gaining attention as a pillar of the field, and the subject commands further investigation. This study addresses such a need. I must first acknowledge the methodological barriers that have prohibited further development of social equity research.
Methodological Barriers
Several barriers have prevented the growth of social equity research. The opposing value of efficiency has overshadowed equity in scholarship for decades. Efficiency can be operationalized using a much simpler formula. Efficiency is achieved when the most output results from the least input. Foundational scholars used this formula to establish a robust literature on organizational workflow and productivity (Taylor, 1914; Fayol, 1916). Retrospective studies of Progressive Era performance measurement find that many contemporary principles were established during that time, such as managing for results, government productivity, generalizable assessment across communities, and accountability (Williams, 2003). Examining the roots of public administration illustrates the adoption of scientific and bureaucratic principles of municipal research firms, while citizen-centered
3


approaches to public service fell within the realm of social work and other social sciences (Stivers, 2002).
Emphasis on efficient public service delivery competed with equitable outcomes ever since. The New Public Management movement in the 1980s especially contributed to this priority. Efficiency research grew in the 1990s, and performance measurement became an imperative (Behn, 1989, 1993, 1995). Efficient government was deemed a direct competitor of equitable outcomes. Scholars like Levine (1979) described an efficiency-equity tradeoff when cutback management takes place. Selden, Brewer, & Brudney (1999) found the same based on their study of practitioners; they constructed a continuum of administrator values with managerial efficiency on one end and social equity on the other based on interviews. Stone (1997) argued that such a tradeoff is part of the distributional paradox inherent of all public policies.
Definitional clarity has been another challenge. A concept must be well defined to study, and social equity is historically ill defined. Some might say that the only consensus is that scholars lack agreement on its meaning (Frederickson, 2005). Critics have pushed for a more operational meaning of social equity that is measurable (Rosenbloom, 2005).1
Unclear definitions have resulted in operationalization challenges. Rutledge (2002) contended that advancing social equity would require better measures. In a keynote address to the American Society of Public Administration (ASPA), he argued: the profession still
11 utilize the definition of social equity as adopted by the National Academy of Public Administrations (NAPA) Standing Panel on Social Equity. NAPA is comprised of a group of close to 800 peer-elected fellows. Election is one of the highest honors for those engaged in the study or practice of public administration. The fellows are responsible for establishing the organization's policies and priorities and serving as advisers on panels, convened for each study, which issue the findings and recommendations.
4


does not have good answers or acceptable strategies for policy implementation. A maj or weakness has been our failure as a profession to develop the quantitative tools, indicators, and benchmarks to define objectives and measure progress in pursuit of social equity (Rutledge, 2002, p. 391). He called this the unfinished business of the discipline.
What is easiest to measure gets measured. Few have empirically examined social equity because measurement is perplexing (Pitts, 2011). Normative measures must move beyond the traditional input-output model (Yang & Holzer, 2006). They must address the complexity of governance as it relates to democratic values (Moynihan et al., 2011). This is a challenging task.
Many barriers to social equity research have prevented its advancement. Values of efficiency and effectiveness have overshadowed equity for decades. The difficulty in defining and measuring equity complicated such studies. Further attempts were made to create an operational definition and framework to assess equity, but few performance measurement tools exist. Those in operation are not well understood in the field to date.
Advancement Strategies
The examination and validation of measures is necessary for advancement of social equity measurement (Rutledge, 2002; Johnson & Svara, 2011; Gooden & Portillo, 2011). NAPAs Standing Panel on Social Equity developed a framework by which social equity can be measured. It consists of four categories. Procedural fairness includes the examination of problems concerning groups of people in procedural rights, treatment, and how eligibility is determined within policies and programs. Access includes a review of the distribution of services across groups. It concerns who benefits from policies and programs. Quality considers the degree to which existing services are consistently provided and to whom. It
5


also encompasses which services and benefits are processed for groups and individuals. Outcomes concerns social disparities between groups based on race, income, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and other minority traits (Johnson & Svara, 2011).
Gooden (2015b) elaborates that scholars must move beyond measuring how much social inequity exists. She suggests a research agenda that utilizes access, quality, procedural fairness, and outcome measures to explain why inequities persist and to describe how to hold agencies accountable for advancing social equity with performance measurement systems. These two objectives make up the primary goals of this study.
Scope and Context
Public transportation is a useful context for exploring measures within the NAPA social equity framework. Municipal transit administrators have considerable familiarity with the concept of social equity (Wellman, 2015). They have also been required to submit equity analyses to receive federal funding since the passage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More than five decades of mandated measurement has led local transportation departments to have some of the most well developed performance measures systems (Poister, 2005) that have been used to improve performance (Poister, Pasha, & Edwards,
2013). Nonetheless, the relationship between social equity and public transportation performance measurement has received scant attention.
Prior research has focused on first-tier cities that are largest in population and gross domestic product (GDP), such as Chicago (Kain, 1968), New York (Kantrowitz, 1969), and Los Angeles (Logan, Zhang, & Alba, 2002). This study adds further understanding at a moderate metropolitan scope, examining Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MS As) with populations of 5 million or less.
6


To provide a more disaggregated analysis, four diverse cases (King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994) are further examined at the neighborhood-level in this study. The Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, Minneapolis-St. Paul-Broomfield, Birmingham-Hoover, and Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford MSAs were selected because they are moderately sized and vary on two key variables of interest: access to work by public transit and income segregation. Although each MSA includes multiple secondary cities and suburban areas, the remainder of this study refers to each by the largest city in population: Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. Each was selected to represent an MSA that has high access and high segregation (Denver), high access and low segregation (Minneapolis), low access and high segregation (Birmingham), or low access and low segregation (Orlando).2
Study Goals and Research Questions
The first goal of this study is to explain why inequities related to income inequality and income segregation persist in the context of local public transportation services. The operational measure of access to public transit is utilized for this objective. It can provide empirical evidence of the complicating effects of increased access to a public service meant to provide greater physical, and thus social, mobility. Public administration scholars contend that increased access to public services is a sign of social equity (Lucy, Gilbert, & Birkhead, 1977; Garcia-Zamor, 2009; Johnson & Svara, 2011). Some argue that increased access to work by public transit leads to greater economic opportunities (Stoll et al., 2000; Wellman, 2015).
Alternative economic literature suggests that the expansion of public transit is positively associated with higher residential segregation over time (Cutler et al., 2008;
2 Additional characteristics of interest are discussed in Chapter III.
7


Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012). Spatial mismatch theory (Kain, 1968) provides further evidence that increases in racial segregation correlates with longer commute times to work for low-income and minority citizens. Such studies utilize segregation measures that have also been proposed as indicators of social equity in public administration (Wang & Mastracci, 2014).
These administrative and economic explanations compete. Does access to work by public transit increase or decrease economic opportunity? If an increase, then it may be an indicator of social equity. Does access to work by public transit associate with segregation trends? If yes, it may also be an indicator of the reinforcement of social inequity. In other words, can one determinant of social equity also correlate with social inequity? The first research question examines this tension by asking:
RQ1: To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated
with the persistence of social inequity over time?
The second goal of this study is to describe how public transportation agencies are held accountable for advancing social equity. Understanding accountability requires the examination of performance assessment through measurement systems. There has been little attempt to bridge social equity and performance measurement literature in the public management domain. Research has chiefly examined how to improve organizational efficiency (Gore, 1993; Hatry, 1978; 2014) or effectiveness (Cohen, 1993; Rainey & Steinbrauer, 1999).
More recent studies have compared the extent to which equity is incorporated into performance measurement. Brewer & Selden (2000) found that federal managers ranked performance on social equity below efficiency, productivity, return on investment, and quality of work. Jennings (2005) discovered that 10 federal agencies failed to even consider how social equity impacts their mission. Internal equity has not been achieved in
8


examinations of the status of women and minorities in federal positions (Riccucci, 2009). Studies linking indicators to policing performance have also found an inadequate focus on equity compared to the other two values (Coulter, 1980; Brunet, 2005; Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008; Charbonneau et al., 2009).
This indicates that social equity measures are insufficiently understood in performance measurement scholarship and practice alike. Further examination is necessary. This study also contributes to this body of literature by examining what leads transit administrators to assess social equity, what performance measurement tools they use, and how their actions translate into fairness for the people they serve. This leads to the second research question:
RQ2: How do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social
equity?
This chapter introduces the importance and state of social equity research in public administration today. Publications trends illustrate that there has been minimal growth in the study of fairness in access, quality, procedural fairness, and social outcomes in the past 75 years (Raadschelders & Lee, 2011; Gooden, 2015a). Several barriers to the advancement of social equity in scholarship and practice are identified. Inadequate indicators and performance measures (Rutledge, 2002) are the primary problem addressed in this dissertation. The social equity literature has evolved to a position in which questions of persistence and accountability are most pressing. The next chapter reviews the evolution of this scholarship and explains how this study contributes to those two areas in the context of public transportation initiatives.
9


CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the evolutionary development of social equity research established by Gooden (2015b). It is structured into her five chronological periods to illustrate what is known, and what is yet to be known, when examining the lacuna between social equity and performance measurement literature in the context of public transportation. As previously stated, examining this area can contribute to the need for more comprehensive benchmarks (Rutledge, 2002) and improved understanding of how administrators use assessment tools to capture performance information (Pitts, 2011; Gooden & Portillo, 2011).
The first three sections discuss the state of scholarship based on the questions that were being addressed, as follows: 1) Understanding the context of equality (Pre-1960): This section provides an overview of the context for equality within the American administrative system. It notes little scholarly response to inequities prior to 1960. 2) Acknowledging inequality and constructing social equity questions (1960s-1980s): This section discusses the development of academic approaches to social equity beginning with the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968. 3) Assessing the existence of social inequity (1980s-1990s): This section reviews scholarship that identifies how much inequity exists over the past 50 years.
The final sections review two key questions that remain open for discovery today. Gooden (2015b) proposes that scholars have been working to understand why social inequities persist (1990s-2000s). This relates to the first research question of this study. The development of scholarly social equity measures is discussed in this section, and the definition and measurement of transit equity and segregation is provided. The key theories
10


that explain the nature and extent to which factors impact economic opportunity and segregation are described and testable propositions are presented.
Gooden (2015b) notes that the most recent period of scholarship examines how to achieve accountability for social equity (2010s and beyond). This connects to the second question of this dissertation. This chapter closes by discussing Goodens (2014) 10 principles for overcoming barriers to assess social equity in practice.
Distinguishing between Equality and Equity in Public Transit Foundational scholarship focused on understanding what equality meant in the context of public administration. The Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). We left out most whom were not white, Protestant, property-owning men. Citizens of a different race, class, and gender have been struggling for fair and equal treatment under the law since the Constitution first outlined how individual liberties would be protected and for whom. Literature in the first half of the 20th Century aimed to understand this phenomenon in a nation that claimed to be a democracy (Follett, 1918; Schumacher, 1932; Waldo, 1952).
The problematic nature of equality is evident in several passenger rail segregation cases that immediately followed the Civil War (Lemmon, 1953) and the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Homer Plessy was a man of mixed race who was arrested for sitting in the white car of the East Louisiana Railroad. The court ruled that it was within constitutional bounds to provide separate railcar accommodations for white and black passengers if both cars were of equal quality. The ruling legally required separate
11


accommodations in public facilities. It established separate but equal doctrine i.e. Jim Crow laws that sanctioned segregation of public restrooms, schools, housing, and transit.
The enforcement of transit segregation over the next several decades illustrated the injustice inherent in separate but equal policies. Palmore (1997) retrospectively notes that interstate travel made accessibility a major challenge for African Americans in thel880-1890s because states adopted different legal requirements for separation. A black passenger could board an integrated train in Chicago, sit down in her seat, and then be forced to another car or train -once she crossed the Tennessee state line. A white passenger could board the same train while enjoying the privilege of staying in the same seat for her entire trip. Transit segregation may have been founded on the grounds of providing equal quality of railcars, but it made equal accessibility, and thus mobility, impossible.
The implications of unequal mobility disproportionately challenged black Americans of all ages across the United States for decades to come. Consider Brown v. Board of Education, the ruling that dismantled school segregation. A mobility issue motivated the case. Oliver Brown was frustrated because his eight-year-old daughter, Linda, had to walk through a busy rail yard to board a bus, which took her 21 blocks to the school that all black children were forced to attend. A white school was just 5 blocks from the Browns home (Wishon, 2004). With the help of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Oliver fought school board policies that mandated unequal access and extra burden on his daughter in her journey to school. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, which decided that segregation in public education denied children equal educational opportunity in 1954. The ruling recognized how disproportionate spatial mobility resulted in unfair social consequences for people of color.
12


Brown v. Board of Education formally connected the dots between spatial mobility and social mobility. The U.S. government acknowledged an unfair advantage in education and other economic opportunities due to inequitable access. But public administration scholars scarcely examined such phenomena despite the endurance of discrimination and the mounting disproportionate outcomes. The discipline remained silent on the issue throughout the 1950s. Some examinations of the implementation of segregation began to recognize the adverse outcomes, such public housing projects in Chicago (Long, 1957). Others conducted extreme case studies, such as Chutes (1958) examination of Honolulu because, which did not exhibit racial segregation patterns. Thus, some scholars began to ask why sorting existed in some cities and not others. They began to explore how decision-making impacted social outcomes.
Yet, the literature rarely recognizes the impact of judicial decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and how they affect public administrators. There was no nod to Rosa Parks when she refused to give her seat to a white man, inspiring a mass protest of public transit segregation known as the Montgomery Bus Boycotts. Scholars of the time paid no attention to the Supreme Court ruling in Browder v. Gayle, which deemed that laws requiring segregation on public buses unconstitutional in 1956. Only recently have scholars discussed the importance of such decision upon policy implementation and public administration today (Henderson, 2004).
From Homer Plessy on the train to Rosa Parks on the bus, scholars struggled to understand how the concept of equality fit into democratic ideals for 60 consecutive years. They began to recognize the historical, structural, economic, political, geographic, and cultural dimensions of injustice toward the end of this period of social struggle (Gooden,
13


2015b). Including such factors brought forth a different conception of fairness and justice, or social equity.
Protests erupted to speak out against government institutions that failed to fulfill their oath. Equality marches for African Americans led to policy change on a larger national level. Grassroots efforts led to evaluation of and enactment of new policies began to address inequality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that outlawed discrimination within the realm of voting, education, and employment. The segregation of public accommodations was also ruled unconstitutional, and federal agencies were charged with instituting practices to reduce disparities in public service delivery. Discussions of equity thus came to the forefront of scholarly discourse toward the end of the Civil Rights Movement.
Constructing Transit Equity Questions
The next era of scholarship drew from democratic philosophies to construct social equity questions. Waldo (1948) inspired a new generation of research when he challenged scientific management scholars with the question: Efficiency for whom? And 20 years later, he initiated the first Minnowbrook Conference in 1968. Waldo was one of few participants over the age of 35. The strategy was to involve only young, innovative scholars that were coming of age in an era of unrest. Waldo thus inspired the next generation of scholarship to examine the inherent tension between achieving democratic ends through bureaucratic means. When questions started being posed through the lens of social equity, the New Public Administration (NPA) movement was born.
Around the same time, Rawls (1971) A Theory of Justice put forth an argument that society must be founded on fair distribution of goods. He specifically proposed two
14


principles: .the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society (p. 13). As previously discussed, this conception of social justice as fairness differentiates between equality and equity. Moving forward, the NPA literature began to build on Rawls classic. A newfound emphasis was placed on developing a modern theory of government that effectively equalizes the distribution of public services amongst citizens from racial, ethnic, class, and other minority backgrounds that are disadvantaged due to generations of historical oppression.
Scholarship began to acknowledge that public administrators seldom considered the unfair treatment of women and minorities when designating program beneficiaries (Frederickson, 2005). The civic discourse that took place at Minnowbrook led to a symposium called Social Equity and Public Administration that was published by Public Administration Review (PAR) in 1974 (Frederickson, 1990). The issue recognized the importance of applying a normative lens to the study of public administration. Scholars realized they must consider the historical, political, social, geographic, and structural components that affect opportunities of different target groups to varying degrees. They recognized that not everyone begins life with the same opportunities, at the same starting point.
Social equity research consequently investigated the distribution of government services to determine which groups were considered versus those whose voices were left unheard (Chitwood, 1974). It also examined the degree to which public administrators were committed to advancing social equity (Hart, 1974) and whether women and minorities were
15


treated fairly within public personnel systems (McGregor, 1974; Cayer & Sigelman, 1980). The discussion began to transition from asking how to make equal opportunities available to realizing the more appropriate question concerned who ought to get what (Campbell,
1976). Fairness became a more appropriate priority based on the times.
The NPA movement thus set a renewed course in scholarship by identifying a set of values that were overshadowed by scientific management, efficiency, and public sector productivity. Frederickson (1976) argued that NPA had a rich history that was founded in the aggregation of new knowledge in social sciences and the focusing of those sciences on public problems (p. 150). Its emergence was made possible through a shift in the values of efficiency to humanism, responsiveness, participation, administrative responsibility, decentralization, democracy, and social equity.
As theoretical attention to social equity was gaining merit, public transportation services were first becoming recognized as an administrative question (Poister, 1975). Scholars approached it as a complex policy problem. Poister (1982) found that newly developed transit accommodations for elderly and the disabled were not efficient, effective, and did not respond to real needs of those populations. He called on others to determine if such issues pertained to the domain of transportation, civil rights, or both. Subsequent scholarship has examined the performance of public transit in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and equity (Poister, 1997).
Thus, renewed values, philosophies, and objectives for public administration scholarship also led to a more comprehensive approach to research questions. The occurrence of Minnowbrook II (in 1988) maintained an eye toward the status of social equity research (Guy, 1989). Minnowbrook III (in 2008) offered a revised set of social equity questions that
16


developed on site and were shared throughout the field (OLeary & Kim, 2010; Gooden & Portillo, 2011; Nabatchi, Goerdel, & Peffer, 2011).
Assessing the Existence of Transit Inequity
Acknowledging underserved populations, and thus the presence of inequity in public service delivery, was a vital first step. The next phase of scholarship aimed to understand how much inequity exists. A handful of policy and public administration scholars developed distinctive tools for measuring equity (Coulter, 1980; Blanchard, 1986). Still, most continue measuring social equity by drawing from five metrics that have been validated over decades of application. Wang & Mastracci (2014) describe five such measures, including the Blau Index, Gini Coefficient, Index of Dissimilarity, Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, and the Theil Statistic. Each has a well-established history in urban economics and regional studies research and deserves individual explanation.
The Blau Index measures variation in categorical data. It is used to determine the level of diversity present among a group of individuals (Pitts, 2005). Administrative researchers have applied it to assess workforce diversity in the public sector (Lewis, 1994; Pitts, 2005; Choi & Rainey, 2010), on public and nonprofit boards (Grissom, 2009; Gazley, Chang, & Bingham, 2010), and amid citizens active in educational policy implementation (Resh & Pitts, 2013).
The Gini Coefficient was developed to measure how distribution of income among households deviates from a perfectly equal distribution (The World Bank, 2015). It assesses how evenly the total earnings are distributed across residents within a shared geographic location. If earnings are concentrated within a small group of individuals (e.g. the top 1%), the Gini Coefficient is high, indicating an unfair distribution of wealth held in the hands of
17


the few. Scholars have utilized this measure to determine external equity outcomes, such as how evenly school district spending is distributed (Johnston & Duncombe, 1998; Moser & Rubenstein, 2002). The measure has also been used as a proxy to gauge internal equity in representative bureaucracy research (Meier & Nigro, 1976; Riccucci & Saidel, 1997).
The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) measures the probability that two randomly selected individuals will be from different categorical groups (e.g. white and black). It ranges from 0-1 and has typically been used to measure racial and ethnic diversity. If it were applied in a metropolitan region, a higher value would indicate more diversity within neighborhoods. Public administration scholars have utilized the HHI as an indicator of external social equity in healthcare outcomes (Martin & Smith, 2005; Provan, Huang, & Milward, 2009) and social services (Graddy & Chen, 2006; Brewer & Walker, 2010). Other scholars have manipulated the measure to evaluate attention diversity or recognition of dissimilar topics on policy agendas (May, Sapotichne, & Workman, 2006; Boydstun, Bevan, & Thomas, 2014).
The Theil Statistic has traditionally measured economic inequality, evaluating discrepancies between the distribution of income and the population in different income level groups (Conceiqao & Ferreira, 2000). Massey & Denton (1988) has also utilized it to assess racial diversity. Some public administration applications use the Theil Statistic to capture internal wage equity within STEM programs (Cozzens et al., 2005) and the external distribution of knowledge production across various policy fields in Brazil (Chiarina et al.,
2014). Some have noted the potential of the Theil Statistic to measure equity in the field but not utilized it in an actual empirical investigation (Pototski, 1999; Choi, 2009).
The Index of Dissimilarity was developed to measure residential segregation.
Consider the example of a city with 500 white residents and 500 black residents. Imagine that
18


all white residents live on one side of a street running through the center of the city (Neighborhood A), and all black residents live on the other side of that street (Neighborhood B). The Index of Dissimilarity indicates the proportion of residents that would have to move to another neighborhood for white and black residents to be evenly distributed, or integrated. In this imaginary case, the Index of Dissimilarity would equal 100%.
Dissimilarity has also been applied to measure employee discrimination based on race, sex, and age (Hopkins, 1980). Scholars have more recently used it to assess occupational segregation, or to determine where glass walls exist between men and women working in the bureaucratic state (Kerr, Miller, & Reid, 2002; Sneed, 2007). Some have also used it to examine the extent to which nonprofit public services are evenly delivered across communities (Feiock& Jang, 2009).
I conducted a systematic literature review to determine the extent to which scholars have either discussed or applied these five measures. Search terms included: Blau, Gini, Herfindahl, Dissimilarity, Duncan, Theil, index, equity, and measure. The terms were used both in isolation, and in combination with one another to screen the relevant scholarship. The top 10 journals in public policy and administration were included based on Google Scholar Metrics.3 These publication rankings were last updated in June of 2014. All journals were searched from their inception to the most present issues available in February of 2015.
A total of 184 articles were identified, reviewed, and categorized. Table 2.1 provides the results of this review. The journals are listed in their order of impact in the field. The
3 The h-index of a publication is the largest number h such that at least h articles in that publication were cited at least h times each. For example, a publication with five articles cited by, respectively, 17, 9, 6, 3, and 2, has the h-index of 3. The h-core of a publication is a set of top cited h articles from the publication. These are the articles that the h-index is based on as described at https://scholar.google.eom/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html#metrics.
19


most impactful Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory has published the most articles that have applied these measures (2.9% of all articles). Still, only 0.7% of all articles published in the top 10 journals over time have utilized such measures.
Note that the results of this table include a review of the five measures and their use as it relates to equity concerns. These five measures have been used to evaluate other phenomena in public administration, such as revenue diversity. Other applications outside the bounds of social equity were not included in this review or in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Social Equity Measures in Top Public Administration Journals
Journal Blau Gini HHI Theil Dissimilarity Total % of All Journal Articles
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4 1 17 2 4 28 2.9
Public Administration Review 6 11 4 3 11 35 .8
Public Administration 2 3 4 1 0 10 .2
Policy Studies Journal 1 8 10 0 4 23 .6
Governance 0 5 0 0 0 5 .4
Science and Public Policy 0 5 5 2 0 12 .3
The American Review of Public Administration 1 4 1 0 5 11 .6
International Review of Administrative Sciences 1 7 1 0 0 9 .4
Social Policy & Administration 0 45 0 0 0 45 .3
Public Management Review 0 3 3 0 0 6 .6
Total Articles 15 92 45 8 24 184 .7
% of Measures Used 8 50 25 4 13 100
Wang & Mastracci (2014) propose that the Theil Statistic and Blau Index are the most useful tools for administration scholars. They offer multiple-group comparisons. Those two are also the most underutilized. Conversely, 50% of these articles utilized the Gini
20


Coefficient, making it the most applied measure. Social Policy & Administration published the most articles utilizing the Gini. Its most common use has been to measure income inequality in Europe (Calero, 2002; Greve, 2004; Lund, 2008) and Asia (Wong, 1995; Croissant, 2004). Few public administration studies have applied the Gini in the U.S. context.
The Herfindahl Index was the second most utilized. Most articles that applied it were published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory and the Policy Studies Journal. The Index of Dissimilarity came in third overall, but it tied with the Gini Index as the most widely utilized measure in studies in the Public Administration Review. Although the Dissimilarity Index was developed to measure residential segregation, no studies examine spatial segregation in the field to date based on the journals reviewed. Most articles use Dissimilarity to examine internal equity measures like occupational segregation.
This review suggests two potential findings of note. First, the public administration literature may lack application of social equity performance measures. The systematic review found 184 articles that have utilized these five measures. Yet, that is less than 1% of all articles published in the leading policy and administration journals. As a point of comparison, searching Public Administration Review for the term measure in combination with the four Es results in the following number of articles: Efficiency (1,180 results), Effectiveness (1,234 results), Economy (1,024 results), and Equity (503 results). This review offers some support for the argument that social equity measurement remains the unfinished business of the discipline (Rutledge, 2002).
Second, none of these measures were utilized or discussed in the context of public transportation. Because mobility is a vital component of social equity, this is an important area to explore further with such measures. Two of these quantitative measures are of
21


specific interest when assessing the existence of spatial mobility and social mobility over time: the Index of Dissimilarity and the Theil Statistic.
The Index of Dissimilarity evaluates the extent of spatial segregation in neighborhoods. Glaeser & Vigdor (2012) found that residential racial segregation rose throughout the 20th century due to a variety of federal policy mandates. The growth of racial segregation in the U.S. after Plessy v. Ferguson required segregated public transportation, education, housing, etc. Regulations disproved of mortgage loans in mixed-race neighborhoods. Public housing service providers had discretion to restrict integration. Glaeser & Vigdor (2012) provide an illustrative chart of this growth, comparing black and nonblack Americans (See Figure 2.1).
1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Year
Figure 2.1: Black/Nonblack Segregation 1890-2010 (Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012)
22


The gray line represents dissimilarity in America from 1890-2010. In 1970, a Dissimilarity measure of almost .8 meant that 80% of residents would have to move for American cities to have an even distribution of black and nonblack residents.4 The enduring segregation policies and inability to move to better neighborhoods barred black citizens from the same social and economic opportunities enjoyed by whites (Massey, Condran, & Denton, 1987). Yet, after the policy interventions provided by the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, racial segregation has steadily declined to the extent that Glaeser & Vigdor (2012) proclaimed the year 2000 the end of the segregated century.
Alternatively, American cities have experienced steady growth of residential segregation based on income for decades. Utilizing the Theil Statistic, Bischoff & Reardon (2013) found less than 10% of American families lived in a very affluent or very poor neighborhood in 1970. By 2009, 15% of families lived in one extreme or the other. The trend is more pronounced for black families compared to white.
Recall that the Theil Statistic is a traditional measure of income inequality. Wang & Mastracci (2014) argued that it was a useful measure for because it provides a more disaggregated view. Figure 2.2 uses the Theil to illustrate the growing income gap by household since 1970. It illustrates that inequities still disproportionately affect people of color. In addition, rising inequality is also more connected to income today. Just as policies and programs led to changes in racial segregation in public and private life it is logical to deduce that income segregation outputs are partially affected by administrative inputs.
4 The black line in Figure 2.1 represents Isolation over time. It measures how isolated black people are from nonblack people. A measure of .6 suggests that 60% of people that a black person interacts with are also black.
23


0.5
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
^Income Segregation (All Races)-----White Income Segregation
----Black Income Segregation --------Income Inequality (All Races)
Figure 2.2: Income Segregation in American MSAs by Race: 1970-2010
Note: This chart was constructed with data from the following sources:
Bischoff & Reardon, 2013; Galbraith & Hale, 2014; U.S. Census, 2014.
The question that remains for public administration scholarship is why. Why does segregation seemingly continue to rise for some communities of color but fall for others, despite policy interventions like Title VI? Why is economic opportunity falling, despite decisions to improve access? And why is income inequality rising more sharply for people of color, despite anti-discrimination policies? In other words, why does inequity persist despite decades of scholarship and policy intervention?
Explaining Why Social Inequity Persists Greater empirical attention is needed to explain why social inequity persists. Scholars and practitioners have attempted to advance social equity by promoting it as a pillar of public administration alongside efficiency, economy, and effectiveness (Frederickson, 1990; Norman-Major, 2011). Some have promoted social equity in Masters of Public
24


Administration programs with the thought that revised curriculum would advance public servants emphasis on social equity in their actual work (Rice, 2004; Svara & Brunet, 2004; Rosenbloom, 2005). Others have developed a unified definition as previously noted. Still, nearly 50 years since the emergence of NPA, the sharpened focus on social equity has not resulted in equitable public service delivery for all.
Discrimination has persisted well beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Injustice is evident in events like Hurricane Katrina (Stivers, 2007). While all levels of government failed to provide the proper services to primarily black residents after the levies broke, it is important to note that mobility played a major role in the disaster days before Katrina hit land. Many residents that did not evacuate from New Orleans were low-income, elderly, African American, caregivers, and did not own a car (Henrici, Helmuth, & Braun, 2010). The evacuation order was set for those that could leave with their own vehicle. This was an unfair expectation since the primary role of government is to protect its people from direct harm. Analysis conducted years after Katrina found that local governments across the U.S. still inadequately consider socially vulnerable groups in their emergency operations plans (Gooden, Jones, Martin, & Boyd, 2009). Inequitable access to physical mobility and the lack of programmatic change is but one reason why inequitable outcomes persist.
Scholars must now focus on explanation. Gooden (2015b) proposes four measurement criteria that are useful to move from assessing how much inequity exists to explaining why. She promotes the conceptual framework of access, quality, procedural fairness, and outcome equity as developed by the Social Equity Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). These categories are capable of conceptualizing reasons for the lack of advancement.
25


Access encompasses the degree to which services and benefits are available and to whom they are distributed. It is sometimes referred to as distributional equity. In the context of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) services, Gooden (2006) developed specific questions for agencies to evaluate this type of inequity. Using residual differences analysis, she suggests examining if there are racial differences in what type of employment is promoted to clients and who receives what type of education and training. In the context of public transportation, Smirnova & Wellman (2016) proposed a few measures to assess inequitable mobility and accessibility, such as: distance to bus stops, length of journey from origin to destination, and trip information access.
Quality considers if existing services are consistently provided and to whom. It also encompasses which benefits are provided to individuals. Brunet (2005) provided indicators that can be used to assess quality in the criminal justice system. For instance, one can measure if defendants are given access to legal advisors in a timely manner and if they have repeat contact with the same advisor. Another indicator of quality treatment can be determined by comparing the inmate educational needs assessment to hours completed of related vocational programs. Sharp (1986) also assessed quality by measuring whether citizens can demand excellence in public services and engage in their delivery.
Procedural fairness includes the examination of problems concerning groups of people in procedural rights, treatment in a procedural sense, and how eligibility is determined within policies and programs. Hug (2011) notes various examples of related measures that exist in healthcare, such as which racial groups receive referrals to specialists. He found that 25% more Latino children and 60% more Latino adults experienced challenges in getting referrals for needed specialty care. Other studies have examined questions like whether
26


citizen perceptions of procedural fairness impact satisfaction with local government decisionmaking (Herian, Hamm, Tomkins, & Zillig, 2012) and procedural fairness within public sector regulatory agencies (Regens & Rycroft, 1986).
Outcomes concern disparities amongst population groups based on minority status such as race, income, gender, socioeconomic status, and many more determinants. Measures indicate whether differences exist at an aggregated level upon the completion of a public program or service. Education provides a well-documented example. Stiefel, Schwartz, & Gould Ellen (2007) note that black and Hispanic students typically score from three-quarters to one standard deviation lower than white students on academic performance tests. Such disparities based on race, class, and gender are commonly referred to as the achievement gap (Haycock, 2001; Rothstein, 2004; Reardon, 2011).
A growing number of scholars are promoting social equity measurement based on these four criteria (Wooldridge & Gooden, 2009; Gooden & Portillo, 2011; Norman-Major, 2011). But social equity is just beginning to be explored in these terms. This study utilizes this framework to examine the extent to which access to public transportation impacts the persistence of inequitable social outcomes like income inequality and income segregation. Administrative Explanations
Providing populations with access to transit is vital to securing opportunities in urban life. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s propelled the dismantling segregated policies. Citizens without the means to purchase their own vehicles have depended on public transit since the rise of large urban cities. The distribution of public buses and rails across a metropolitan area thus determines who benefits from education, workforce development,
27


healthcare, and other forms of public assistance. And metropolitan areas have experienced dramatic changes in transit over the last century to accommodate for this public need.
Various policy developments have altered the built environment, transforming the way that people move throughout urban areas. In 1888, the first streetcar systems were introduced on American city streets. Slater (1997) notes that the first half of the 20th Century then saw a rapid expansion and reliance on streetcar lines in major urban areas in concert with rapid urbanization, better worker wages, and low fares. However, ridership soon began to shift. The automobile industry exploded in the Progressive Era, with mass-produced vehicles becoming more and more available throughout the 1920s. Modern motorbuses were also released. Thus, while streetcars provided 100% of transit in 1914, just 4% of transportation took place on the rails by 1937.
The Great Depression had a major impact on transportation infrastructure. There was little ability to finance the maintenance and expansion of rails in large cities in the 1930s. In cities like Chicago, most streetcars were eliminated by the 1950s (Barrett, 2001). The post WWII housing developments also triggered a mass exodus to new suburban areas beyond urban centers. Railways were replaced by roadways that enabled automobiles to move freely and abundantly from the suburbs to the inner city. It changed the way cities were maintained, built, and developed for decades to come.
The automotive takeover led to a major need for more sophisticated roadways, which resulted in multiple transit policy developments. After President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law, an unprecedented expansion of highway infrastructure emerged across the country. It was the largest American public works project
28


to date (Weingroff, 1996). It also set off a surge of federal policies to address the growing transit issues that local governments were increasingly struggling to address.
Although car ownership was increasing, there was still a need for alternative methods of transportation. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 set aside construction funding for public and private rail projects and established the Federal Transit Administration. The National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 provided additional federal support for rail expansion to cover operating costs. President Ronald Reagan later signed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which set aside funding to better maintain and repair highway and public transit system infrastructure.
In the 1990s, another shift occurred with the advent of sustainable development practices. Public transit became a means to reduce carbon emissions, improve economic development opportunities, and enhance the quality of life in major cities. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 called for an increase in alternative fuels and more energy efficient practices. In 1998, President Clinton signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which focused on enhancing economic vitality, environmental protection, public safety, better connectivity, historical preservation, efficient operations, and accessibility.
Since 2000, a more local policy movement has caught on at the state and local level as well. The State of California passed the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, which called on metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) throughout the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through transportation and land use planning initiatives (Air Resources Board, 2016). Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), characterized by dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods established around rail systems became a popular method across the political spectrum for achieving such targets (Carlton, 2007). The
29


Great Recession also impacted transit, forcing many to travel by bus and rail that had never done so before. A great proportion of people realized the benefits and convenience and stayed with alternative transportation even when they could afford to drive (Vock, 2014).
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) boasted record ridership 58 years after the Federal Aid Highway Act (Vock, 2014). Miller (2016) reported a record 10.8 billion trips took place on public transit networks across the United States in 2014. Furthermore, the increasing use of public transit has grown more than travel by automobile, despite population growth, since 2000 (American Public Transportation Association, 2014).
The growth in transit has led to more recent study on the development of transit performance measures that address mobility, quality of life, economic development, environmental enhancement, and community development outcomes (Poister, 2005). Further studies have found that such performance measures have in fact been used and increased effectiveness in small and medium-sized transit agencies in the U.S. (Poister et al., 2013). But transit policy remains inequitable for minorities and the urban poor in many cases as evidenced in literature on transit dependent citizens.
When bus and rail lines are developed to provide more convenient access to higher income communities (Garrett & Taylor, 1999), inequity persists. When commute times to social service agencies are shorter from white neighborhoods than primarily Hispanic and black communities (Dorch et al., 2010), inequity persists. When individuals must purchase their own vehicles to travel to educational, employment, and other health-care related opportunities (Lutz, 2014), inequity persists.
Scholars have more recently begun to examine how public servants ensure equitable access to transportation. They stress the influence that government can have on outputs and
30


outcomes. For instance, Wellman (2015) notes: Few public administrators wield as much power over the life chances and outcomes of poor populations as transit administrators; their selections between policy alternatives determine which jobs transit dependents can access and when, how much they must pay for transit, how long they must spend en route to destinations, and which locations will be inaccessible except by foot (p. 123). Accessibility to public transportation is a building block of more equitable social outcomes.
Increased access is thus conceptualized as a positive element that signifies social equity (Johnson & Svara, 2011). It represents a form of external social equity (Brewer & Selden, 2000). The public administration perspective therefore suggests that access to public transportation represents advancement of social equity by ensuring more fair services for all. Increased access and physical mobility should thus lead to more opportunities that offer social mobility and higher earning potential.
Yet, the distribution of wealth has also dramatically shifted in the last century. For example, Saez & Zucman (2016) utilized income tax data to determine the total household wealth possessed by the top 0.1% of families in from 1913-2012. They found a leveling off after World War II through the 1970s. Since then, wealth inequality has steadily increased across households, approaching levels akin to those immediately preceding the Great Depression. Similar trends are apparent in income inequality measures (See Figure 2.3).
In the 20th Century, inequality first peaked around 1930. At that time, the Gini was .5, meaning 50% of the population held a majority of all income in the U.S., while the other 50% accumulated little to none (Babones, 2012). This was followed by a more even distribution of wealth across the American population beginning in 1940. Since 1980, both measures have increased. As of 2000, the Gini was .63, meaning a majority of wealth was
31


held by 63% of the U.S. population. The Theil values should be interpreted in comparison across years, which shows how they follow the same general trend. Potential reasons for a greater share of income in the hands of fewer Americans have been proposed, including middle-class wage stagnation, declining wages for low-income workers, and tax policies that favor wealth accumulation by a small proportion of citizens (Mishel, Gould, & Bivens,
2015).
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013
Theil Index Gini Coefficient
Figure 2.3: American Theil Index and Gini Coefficient: 1920-2013
Note: This chart was constructed with data from Frank (2016).
This study therefore examines the extent to which increased access is associated with economic opportunity (operationalized as income inequality). The normative ideal behind the administrative literature suggests that opportunity should increase as access increases.
32


Income inequality in neighborhoods should thus fall over time. This administrative explanation is therefore tested through the following proposition:
Proposition 1: As access to work by public transportation increases, economic
opportunity increases over time.
Testing this proposition can offer a greater understanding of the relationship between transportation equity and economic opportunity through a public administration lens. It offers understanding of the extent to which income inequality changes at the neighborhood level depending on transit access over time. This can provide generalizable insight into one reason why inequity may persist over time based on the decisions of transit administrators. Economic Explanations
Extant economic theory contends with the normative proposition of administrative scholarship. When white flight manifested after World War II, many low-skill jobs followed the development of suburban shopping malls and restaurants. Those employment opportunities were therefore no longer located in urban centers where most low-income residents remained. Kain (1968) later recognized a pattern at the peak of segregation in which low-income, black workers lived in segregated neighborhoods that were in distant proximity from potential work. He theorized that residents were inadequately connected to jobs due to inefficient public transportation routes and schedules. He found support for this hypothesis in Detroit and Chicago. The correlation between the location of low-income and minority households and remote employment opportunities became known amongst economists as spatial mismatch theory.
Various scholars have examined this relationship since the 1960s, offering evidence of spatial mismatch (Kain, 1992; Stoll et al., 2000), findings that dispute spatial mismatch (Jencks & Mayer, 1989; Holzer, 1991), and strategies to curb spatial mismatch through
33


transit and other policies (Wilson, 1987; Blumenberg & Manville, 2004). Access to transit -including the cost of fares, commute times, and learning costs (Moynihan, Herd, & Harvey, 2014) of acquiring information about jobs that are far from where individuals live have contributed to spatial mismatch for decades (Gobillon, Selod, & Zenou, 2007).
This is evident in the degree to which income segregation continues to rise across the United States in general (Bischoff & Reardon, 2013). Therefore, policy recommendations have called for an expansion of public transportation to low-income and minority neighborhoods (Holzer, 1991; Sanchez, 1999). Equitable transit development has long been deterred despite such attention. Early public transit systems focused on serving more suburban communities, including white-collar workers who traveled to work in urban centers. Although the rise of the automobile allowed suburbanites more independent travel, public transit systems have also led local government actors to prioritize profitability over public need (Farmer, 2011; Zuk et al., 2015).
Diminishing fiscal health of cities has pressured planning departments to develop rail projects that promote business and tourism. For example, Farmer (2011) notes that the Chicago Loop development exemplifies a system that has prioritized access for people seeking major destinations like Millennium Park, Michigan Avenue shopping, and the Chicago Bulls United Center while pushing low-income housing out of the city center and into the periphery. Alkadry, Blessett, & Patterson (2015) noted a similar effect based on housing and transportation policies that favored businesses and white residents in the small city of Overtown, FL, an African American neighborhood near Downtown Miami.
Incorporating a temporal view of the impact that access has on the urban landscape thus adds another dimension. There has historically been a positive association between the
34


expansion of public transportation systems and the growth of residential segregation of minority and low-income populations over time. As public transit usage increases, residential segregation increases in large metropolitan areas (Cutler, Glaeser, & Vigdor, 1997; Cutler, Glaeser, & Vigdor, 2008). This is important because segregation is significantly related to other dimensions of economic opportunity over the life course.
For instance, Grady (2006) found that African American segregation in New York City is positively associated with low infant birth weight. Others have found that those born at a low birth weight have lower education attainment and earn less in their adult life (Conley & Bennett, 2000; Behrman & Rosenzweig, 2004). Relatedly, Williams & Collins (2001) found health disparities in racially segregated neighborhoods due to less access to education and employment. Where people live affects their economic and social wellbeing.
Similar results have been illustrated in economically segregated neighborhoods. Adults aged 30 and older living in concentrated poverty areas in the 30 largest cities have an elevated mortality risk, even after controlling for income (Waitzman & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, in the Moving to Opportunity program, in which residents moved from high poverty neighborhoods to lower poverty neighborhoods, showed improvements in long-term physical health, mental health, and subjective wellbeing. Notably, outcomes were worse when accounting for higher levels of rather than racial segregation (Ludwig, et al., 2012).
These administrative and economic explanations reveal a seeming paradox. Public administration scholars contend that increased access to public transportation is a sign of social equity. Economic scholars contend that expansion of public transportation systems significantly relates to the rise of residential segregation, which creates barriers to jobs, education, healthcare, and other public services. Such outcomes are a sign of social inequity.
35


This is a critical tension that has not been examined by scholars on either side of the aisle. This dissertation seeks to understand this tension by examining the second proposition:
Proposition 2: As access to work by public transportation increases, residential
income segregation increases over time.
Testing this proposition enhances understanding of the relationship between social equity and segregation from the standpoint of public administration. It determines if and how the outcome is related to the expansion of access to transportation, which is conceptualized as a measure of social equity. This provides a generalizable view of one reason why inequity persists over time. Does one means of promoting social equity (through increased access to public transit) result in increased segregation? If so, one form of social equity may cause additional inequity issues to emerge.
In sum, American metropolitan regions have experienced a general upward trend in public transit use, income inequality, and income segregation since the 1970s. National data provides evidence of these patterns. However, this is not true of all MSAs. More can be discerned by examining different cities and neighborhoods within those cities. For instance, Seattle, New York, and San Antonio experienced more than a 15% increase in transit access and use between 2006 and 2012. However, Cleveland experienced approximately 30% reduction in the same period.
Fry & Taylor (2012) identified the Residential Income Segregation Index (RISI) between 1980-2010 in the 30 largest American metropolitan areas. They ranged from a reduction of -1 (in Minneapolis and Orlando) to an increase of 29 (e.g. Houston). In other words, several metropolitan areas have maintained an outlier status, exhibiting declines. It is thus important to further examine how some city-level administrators have achieved more equitable outcomes, while others have struggled to achieve positive neighborhood change.
36


Describing How to Achieve Accountability for Transit Equity
While questions of persistence examine why inequity remains, investigating how equity can be advanced falls into the arena of accountability research. Goodens (2015) final question asks: How is accountability for social equity achieved? (p. 221). Accountability can be defined as the means by which public agencies and their workers manage the diverse expectations generated within and outside the organization (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987, p. 228). Public servants are responsible for assessing, monitoring, and verifying that they treat all citizens with fairness, justice, and equality. Accountability is thus a key driver of social equity scholarship today.
Studies exploring the relationship between social equity and accountability emphasize negative consequences of managing for results. Data from the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) provides an opportunity to explore this association. Jennings (2005) reviewed federal department performance measures required by the GPRA, finding that only 6.1% of results within the systems considered social equity. Wichowsky & Moynihan (2006) evaluated the federal level Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and found that it fails to consider equity aspects of performance. Such studies illustrate that federal tools provide little understanding of how accountability can be achieved.
Local level examinations provide similar results. Yang (2007) found that 21% of public administrators perceive performance measures to improve equity-based outcomes, while 79% report using measures to increase the efficiency of their agencies. Warner (2010) contends that this imbalance cannot maintain. She suggests that the future of local government will move from public-private partnerships to models that balance accountability, efficiency, and equity.
37


Other local government research has looked at the extent to which social equity indicators are relied upon in the context of policing (Coulter, 1980; Lovrich, Steel, & Hood, 1986; Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008; Brunet, 2005). Many have looked at single statistics like arrest rates. Reid (2015) argues that single indicators are inadequate and encourages more comprehensive analytical tools that can be compared across jurisdictions. Multidimensional perspectives offer greater insight of what must be accounted for in individual departments.
Furthermore, few cases illustrate how public agencies use performance measurement tools to achieve accountability for social equity within specific contexts. The primary source of knowledge on this topic has been drawn from evaluation of the processes undertaken in individual cities like Seattle, WA. Gooden (2014) interviewed city employees to discuss the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) that was established in 2004. Her in-depth case study provides a background on the program development, objectives, how the RSJI was implemented across every city department and involved training all city employees, the acknowledgement of institutional racism, examples of department work plans to achieve greater racial equity, and results that illustrate the impact this intervention has had both internal to the City of Seattle departments and externally upon residents.
Other case studies have described best practices for advancing social equity through sustainability initiatives. Svara, Watt, & Takai (2014) conducted case studies tied to inclusive citizen engagement, providing equal access to public services, and strategically designing more livable neighborhoods. Their findings suggest that the long-term sustainability of populations requires better access to services like housing, jobs, and public transportation. Gooden (2015b) notes that further case study research is needed to understand what specific
38


indicators and tools are most useful and how they are used to evaluate administrative actions and progress. The logic for case selection at each level of analysis is next described through the discussion of various measurement tools.
Transportation Performance Measurement Tools
Expansion of public transit systems has become prominent across major cities. There are several justifications for such development. It has been linked to increases in community connectivity (Mathur & Srinivasan, 2009), better air quality (Emison, 2006), reduction in congestion (Albalate & Bel, 2009) and a driver of economic performance (Hall, 2007). Metropolitan areas have utilized these findings as justification for the expansion of public transit in their respective jurisdictions.
Jurisdictions have also developed contextual measures to assess performance as it relates to transportation equity. Departments have been required to conduct analyses under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as previously discussed. Wellman (2015) found that transit administrators often refer to Title VI in discussions of social equity, and interviews with such actors found that the nations urban, poor transit dependents largely have an ally in their transit agency administrators allies who understand, discuss, and seek social justice in transportation and mobility (p. 141). The emphasis placed on social equity is evident in the types of goals and measures that cities use to assess transportation performance.
Table 2.2 lists several transit-oriented tools and performance measures that have been developed at the local, state, and federal levels. Cities like Denver, Portland, and Atlanta have instituted a regional equity atlas tool that focuses on access to resources and opportunities. These tools offer mapping capabilities at the neighborhood level. Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Transit
39


Administration (FTA) have also produced performance measures that focus on transit accessibility. Each is designed for decision-makers, planners, and other government personnel charged with transportation policy and program development and implementation.
Table 2.2. Transportation Equity Tools and Measures
Agency Tool Description
Atlanta Regional Commission Equitable Target Area (ETA) Index Used as input for project prioritization and evaluation, monitoring resource allocation, and assisting in decision-making (Source: www. atlantar egional. com/transportation/commun ity-engagement/social-equity)
Denver Regional Council of Governments and MileHigh Connects Regional Equity Atlas Provides users with the ability to create maps that depict the major origins and destinations in relation to the current and future transit network. Emphasizes access to opportunity and improving connections for the most economically disadvantaged. (Source: www. denverregi onalequity atl as. org)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures Describes 12 performance measures that can be used in decision-making, from transit accessibility to bicycle and pedestrian level of service. Presents possible metrics, summarizes analytical methods and data sources, and illustrates its use by one or more transportation agencies (Source: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/guide-sustainable- transportation-performance-measures)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Accessibility Indicators of Social Equity Accessibility is used as a measurement tool to assess the link between social equity and the built environment. It accounts for both land-use patterns and a transportation system (Source: www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Report_No._0 066.pdf)
Portland Metro Region Equity Atlas 2.0 Mapping Tool Evaluates how well different neighborhoods and populations can access the resources and opportunities necessary for meeting their basic needs and advancing health and wellbeing (Source: https://clfuture.org/equity-atlas)
40


Gooden (2014) proposes that a feeling of nervousness associated with measuring disparities is one of the key reasons that practitioners often fail to assess the level of racial equity in their services. She argues that public administrators have a responsibility to address inequities. The first step is to acknowledge them. The existence of performance tools and measures in Table 2.2 suggest some entities are taking a step toward that acknowledgement. But the act of measurement does not guarantee that the information collected will be used in any meaningful way (Moynihan, 2008; Moynihan & Pandey, 2010).
Examining how transit administrators come to the point of using these tools can provide more robust insight into how accountability is achieved. The tools have the power to provide data that may be useful to decision-makers, public administrators, program managers, community groups, and beyond. Information can be utilized in planning efforts because measures are in context. Gooden (2014) proposes 10 fundamental principles that can guide administrators in addressing social inequity, and the extent to which these exist in the practitioner-based transit equity measurement arena is the next phase of this investigation. Ten Principles Investigated
The second stage of this study examines a part of the process of achieving accountability by exploring Goodens (2014) 10 principles for conquering nervousness. I examine the extent to which each principle is embodied by transit agencies in their performance measurement operations. The following list outlines each principle and discusses how it is connected to the broader transportation equity literature.
1. Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government. This principle asserts that organizations must consider, examine, promote, distribute, and evaluate relevant minority groups in public service
41


delivery. Previous interviews with transit administrators suggest they are aware of the concept of social equity (Wellman, 2015). This study explores whether administrators charged with transit equity feel such a responsibility.
2. The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be minimized, but rather offers instructive guidance. This principle stresses that administrators must admit the historical legacies of discrimination in policies and practices to identify where change is needed. Previous quantitative scholarship has provided empirical evidence of the impact inequitable transit policy has had on minority and low-income populations over generations (Garrett & Taylor, 1999). This study determines if transit administrators also learn from the past to inform future planning efforts in the four MSAs.
3. Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination ofpolitical, moral, legal, and/or economic triggers. Equity-based initiatives are often motivated by factors that emerge beyond the organization. I have repeatedly mentioned Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated city transit departments to conduct social equity analyses. This is one example of a legal trigger. Interviews with transit administrators enhance understanding of other political, moral, and economic triggers for measuring equity in their respective regions.
4. Senior leadership is a critically important factor in realizing sustained progress. If those holding positions of power and authority value the advancement of equity, it leads to a culture in which organizational members can overcome the barrier of nervousness as well. Leadership and culture have a
42


significant impact on organizational performance (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Brewer & Selden, 2000; Brewer, 2005). While the degree to which leadership impacts the assessment of equity in the context of transportation has been less explored, it is examined in this study.
5. At the individual level, public servants must recognize and eliminate behaviors that impede equity progress. Individual administrators vary in their propensity to discuss racism, sexism, and other forms of inequity in conversations, public dialogue, and formal meetings. This behavioral component of overcoming nervousness can impact the advancement of equity within a larger organization. Related literature has examined how individual-level determinants have consequences for organizational performance (Kim 2005; Caillier, 2011) and decisions to address wrongdoing (Lavena, 2014). Interviews provide further understanding of how individual public servants can impede or improve social equity outcomes.
6. At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluate their socialization boundaries and extend them to accommodate a wider range of equity work. Organizations must expand the boundaries of public service work to reduce fear of participating in equity-focused activities that induce feelings of nervousness. Every agency requires, permits, discourages, or prohibits specific actions of its employees. Cultural paradigms have been found to guide the response of public sector workers to program results, personal experience, and performance information (Mahler, 1997; Moynihan, 2005; Moynihan, 2008). Such boundaries are explored in the case of transit performance.
43


7. There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a race-conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solutions. Gooden (2014) notes that workplace discussion about institutional racism are an early indicator of progress because it can facilitate direct racial-equity impact analysis of public sector policies and practices and the provision of public services (p. 200). She argues that the challenge of imperfect policy and administrative actions should not deter attempts for more equitable government. Interviews with transit administrators determine the degree to which solutions for overcoming inequity directly address the systemic policies, practices, and structures that obstruct advancement.
8. Equity needs to operate in a context of accountability. Establishing benchmarks and initiating routine evaluation of procedural fairness, access, quality, and outcomes is a necessity for assessing performance and maintaining transparency. As performance measurement systems have grown (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005), transit departments have some of the most well developed metrics (Poister, 2005) that have been deemed useful in improving organizational effectiveness (Poister et al., 2013). The move toward more transparent assessment provides a rich context for exploring this principle in transit.
9. If legal barriers to discrimination have been largely eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline equity work. When discriminatory policies and programs have been changed to mandate fairness, individual public servants will have greater
44


discretion to address inequities above and beyond what is required. Discretionary authority impacts the extent of public service that citizens receive (Lipsky, 2010) and whether service is just (Kelly, 1994). This study examines innovative actions taken by administrators when and if nervousness is overcome and equity is assessed.
10. Significant racial equity progress in government can be achieved. Gooden (2014) proposes that progress is possible based on her case studies of local, state, and federal agencies. This study builds on her proposition by examining these principles as they relate to social equity across four MSAs. Exploring these principles within public transportation can offer a more context-specific understanding of how to hold agencies accountable to advance social equity. Moreover, examining how transit administrators assess social equity data also contributes to the public management literature. Hatry (2014) notes that performance measurement can be made more relevant by embracing social equity analysis tools, noting Outcome data disaggregated by demographic characteristics can be an important tool for examining who gets served and outcome equity (p. 41). Case studies have the power to illustrate the importance and opportunities to learn by disaggregating outcome data. The ability to achieve these results is next presented in the research design and methodological approach.


CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the mixed-methods social justice design (Creswell, 2013) that is used to explore the propositions and principles presented in Chapter II. The quantitative and qualitative research is conducted in two stages. This chapter describes the data sources, collection techniques, analytic strategies, and validity checks for each stage. It also discusses how the mixed-methods analysis compares results to gain a further understanding of social equity persistence and accountability in Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando.
Mixed Methods Research Design
The two research questions are investigated with mixed methods. The design entails a combination of data sources, procedures, concepts, and techniques. Despite these elemental differences, the design is based on one philosophy of science: the critical-ideological paradigm. Ponterotto, Mathew, & Raughley (2013) explain that this worldview assumes that reality is shaped by underlying social and political forces. Phenomena are embedded in historical power imbalances that reproduce subjugated groups. This approach establishes ... a dialectical stance with respect to the researcher-participant relationship that serves to empower the participants and stimulate transformation of oppressive conditions to more equitable ones (p. 44). In other words, this study aims to provide voice to the people bound by the historical reality of transit inequity and aid in the discovery of methods that can empower historically disadvantaged groups that may suffer from the reinforcement of inequitable outcomes over time.
Mixed methods are appropriate for this study based on CreswelTs (2013) key challenges. First, this research project allows for explanation of statistical results by talking
46


to people (i.e. administrators) that are responsible for achieving equitable results. Second, comparing the quantitative examination of the relationship between access and economic outcomes and qualitative findings of accountability strategies is justified. It determines the extent to which the two analyses match. Thus, the rationale for mixed methods is to confirm quantitative measures of transit equity with the qualitative experiences of administrators liable for advancing access.
Promotes Social Justice
Figure 3.1: Social Justice Research Design (Adapted from Creswell, 2013)
47


Creswells (2013) social justice research design framework guides this study. The epistemology upholds a transformative worldview (Creswell, 2014), aiming to improve the status of historically underrepresented groups. It is appropriate to address these two questions because it examines how qualitative data can further understanding of the quantitative results to explore inequalities. Figure 3.1 represents the explanatory sequential design. Each stage is conducted separately, as outlined below, and results are compared in a final phase.
Stage 1: Quantitative Assessment of Factors Impacting Persistence Stage 1 is variance-based and examines how the factor of access to transportation relates to the increase or decrease of two equity outcomes: economic opportunity and income segregation. It addresses the first research question: To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? Quantitative methods are needed to explain this relationship in the metropolitan cases. The logic of case selection, data source, collection, and analysis techniques are thus provided. Logic of Case Selection
This study examines four moderately sized MSAs that differ on key variables of interest: access to work by transit and residential income segregation. This is outlined in Figure 3.2. Access was determined using the Accessibility Observatorys (2015) metropolitan rankings of Access to Jobs by Public Transit. The list measures accessibility by the average time it takes commuters to get to work. It ranks the 46 largest MSAs in the United States. These rankings are considered the most detailed evaluation to date of access to jobs by transit (Accessibility Observatory, 2015). Denver and Minneapolis have high access because they are in the top 30% (ranked 1-14). Birmingham and Orlando have low access because they are in the bottom 30% (ranked 32-46).
48


Residential Income Segregation
Above Average Below Average
High Denver, CO Accessibility Ranking: 9 Segregation Index: 55 Minneapolis, MN Accessibility Ranking: 13 Segregation Index: 28
Low Birmingham, AT. Accessibility Ranking: 46 Segregation Index: 58 Orlando, FL Accessibility Ranking: 42 Segregation Index: 22
Figure 3.2: Diverse Case Study Design
In addition, the cases were selected based on income segregation. The Residential Income Segregation Index (RISI) was used to determine this point of selection. The RISI is a valid and reliable measure developed by the Pew Research Center and used in other metropolitan analyses (Fry & Taylor, 2012). The measure determines the diversity of income across neighborhoods. It assesses the extent to which low-income households are located near high-income households based on median income. The RISI ranges from 0-100. Fry & Taylor (2012) reported that the average RISI of large metropolitan areas is 46. Cases were selected based on whether their most recent index was above or below that average.
The cases were also reviewed based on their demographic variation. The goal was to select four diverse cases (King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994) to provide a more representative range of results. The most recent U.S. Census data from the 2014 American Community Survey was utilized to determine this variation. This is indicated in Table 3.1 (Census Reporter, 2014). In addition, the cases were selected to achieve the second goal of describing how transit administrators are held accountable for advancing social equity. This required further investigation of the historical, political, economic, and social trends to determine
appropriate selection. The four MS As are individually described, including current equity initiatives and performance tools in use, to further justify their selection for this study.
49


Table 3.1. Case Study Characteristics
MSA Characteristics National Average Denver CO Minneapolis MN Birmingham AL Orlando FL
Population (2010) NA 2,543,482 3,495,176 1,316,568 2,321,418
Access to Work by Transit 23 9 High 13 High 46 Low 42 Low
Residential Income Segregation 46 55 High 28 Low 58 High 22 Low
% White (Not Hispanic or Latino) 63% 65% 77% 66% 50%
% Black or African American 13% 5% 8% 27% 15%
% Hispanic or Latino 17% 23% 6% 4% 28%
% Living Below Poverty 15% 11% 10% 18% 17%
Median Household Income $51, 939 $66,870 $69,111 $45,745 $48,270
% 25+ with Bachelors or higher 34% 41% 40% 26% 29%
Denver. CO
Denver has commuter rail, light rail, and bus system services. The region has experienced substantial growth in transit projects since 1970. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) responded to rapid suburbanization by partnering with the City and County of Denver to expand transportation options for decades. Denver most recently invested $5.3 billion into expanding public transit over the past 10 years (Proctor, 2014). Thus, public transit ridership increased by nearly 15% between 2006-2012 (Anbinder, 2015). Denver now ranks 9th in terms of access to work by public transit (Accessibility Observatory, 2015).
Denver has also experienced variation in income inequality and income segregation over time. At the city level, income inequality can be assessed by examining the 95/20 ratio which divides the income earned by the top 5% with that of the bottom 20%. The
50


higher the ratio, the greater the income gap between the rich and the poor (Treuhaft, 2015). Between 2007-2014, the 95/20 ratio grew in Denver (Holmes & Berube, 2016). Concerning income segregation, the RISI also grew by 21 between 1980-2010 (Fry & Taylor, 2012). The City of Denver now has the fifth highest level of residential income segregation with a score of 55, which is nine points higher than the national average.
Income inequality and segregation look different when examining the trends across Denver neighborhoods, however. Appendix A demonstrates how the longitudinal trends vary when measured at the city level as compared to the neighborhood level. One chart displays the Dissimilarity element and the Theil element for one neighborhood in Denver.5 In this neighborhood, segregation has remained at consistent levels, while inequality has decreased. The difference in city-level trends provides room to explore the extent to which public transit access changes are associated with economic changes at the community-level.
RTD also offers insight into how public transportation agencies are held accountable for achieving social equity. It has fulfilled the Title VI requirements of conducting social equity analyses to receive federal funding. The agency has several transportation performance measures that are used to assess progress, and it has been recognized for instituting best practices for upholding transportation equity in the Denver Metropolitan Region (Florida Department of Transportation, 2014). It has gained national attention, and other transportation agencies have been advised to utilize GIS mapping tools first applied in Denver in their equity analyses (Regional Transportation District, 2015).
5 Individual neighborhoods were selected to illustrate variation for each MSA. This is shown in all case descriptions in this section. Selection was not random. The first neighborhood that was listed in order (by georeference number) is provided in chart form for Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando.
51


The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is also collaborating on an initiative with a local nonprofit called Mile High Connects. It is described as a broad partnership of organizations from the private, public and nonprofit sectors that are committed to increasing access to housing choices, good jobs, quality schools and essential services via public transit (Mile High Connects, 2016). Recent reports indicate that some residents benefit from transit programs (Ely & Teske, 2014) while those that could benefit the most have inequitable access (Williams, 2014). The Denver Regional Equity Atlas is a performance measurement tool used to assess the needs and impacts of this initiative. Such activity provides grounds for rich interview prospects.
Minneapolis. MN
Minneapolis has commuter rail, light rail, and bus system services. Like Denver, the MSA has also experienced public transit development projects since the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) was established in 1967. Public bus service and shelter expansion was the primary focus for the first several decades of the MTC. Rail expansion was debated throughout the 1970s 1990s. Development occurred at a slow pace; the first rail line started serving the public in 2004. Minneapolis now ranks 13th out of the largest 46 cities in terms of accessibility to jobs by public transit (Accessibility Observatory, 2015).
Income inequality is also on the rise in the region. The Gini Coefficient grew slightly between 2007-2012, from .43 to .44 (Maciag, 2014). The 95/20 ratio also grew between 2007-2014, and Minneapolis became one of the top 10 most unequal cities in 2013 (Holmes & Berube, 2016). Minneapolis offers opposite segregation patterns than Denver, however. The RISI was 28 in 2010 (Fry & Taylor, 2010), 18 points below the national average. Furthermore, a decrease in segregation has only occurred in two of the 30 largest U.S. Cities:
52


Minneapolis and Orlando. All other cities have experienced growth in residential income segregation since 1980. The index decreased by 1 point since 1980, when it scored 29.
Minneapolis offers the opposite segregation patterns. It has a low degree of resident income segregation. The RISI was 28 in 2010 (Fry & Taylor, 2010), 18 points below the national average. Furthermore, a decrease in segregation has only occurred in two of the 30 largest U.S. Cities: Minneapolis and Orlando. All other cities have experienced growth since 1980. The index decreased by 1 point since 1980, when it scored 29.
Income inequality and segregation also differ across neighborhoods. Appendix B demonstrates how the longitudinal trends differ at the city and neighborhood levels. One chart displays the Dissimilarity element and the Theil element for one neighborhood in Minneapolis. In this neighborhood, segregation has jumped, while inequality has decreased. The difference in city-level trends provides room to explore the extent to which public transit access changes are associated with economic changes at the community-level.
Minneapolis also utilizes various measurement tools. Title VI Service Equity Analyses are one form of measurement (Harper, 2013). The Federal Transit Administrations Cost Effective Index (CEI) has also been applied in planning efforts. The CEI measures the total cost of the transit system divided by the benefits to users.
Recent reports suggest measures are used to improve transit performance.
Szczepanski (2011) reported that the CEI was insufficient for Minneapolis to receive federal funding. A campaign called Stops for Us emerged in response to the inequitable development. Per the District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul and Minneapolis website (n.d.), the initiative resulted in: 3 LRT Stations, a significant change in Federal policy regarding use of the CEI, a stronger community, a more equitable public transportation
53


system, and a national model for working together to build it right. The group thus overcame barriers and instituted processes to hold administrators accountable for the benefit of low-income and minority populations in the Minneapolis MSA.
The Metropolitan Council (2014) released a recent study of note: Choice, Place, and Opportunity: An equity assessment of the Twin Cities Region. The document reviews disparities in public services by minority status. It assesses opportunity amongst groups based on public transportation and offers public policies and responses that are necessary to alleviate poverty. These activities and tools offer rich understanding of the most recent policy and planning stages to date.
Birmingham. AL
Birmingham currently has a bus system that services the MSA. However, the region has a long public transit history beginning with the Birmingham Street Railway Company in 1884. Ridership increased until the mid-1920s, but like many American cities, drastically dropped thereafter. As transit needs began to surge throughout the 1960s, the Alabama State Legislature adopted legislation to develop public transit authorities across the state. The Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) was created in 1972. A marketing campaign in 1985 later led to adoption of the name MAX for all BJTCA transit. Rapid expansion of services began in the early 2000s, and the entire bus fleet was replaced with more environmentally friendly compressed natural gas buses (Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority, 2014).
Birmingham income inequality is one of the highest in the country. The American City Business Journals recently examined four income disparity indicators across 102 MS As. Ten percent of the MSAS illustrated greater income disparities in every category, including
54


Birmingham. Specifically, West (2014) reports that Birmingham ranks: 13th in the percent of income held by the top 20% of earners; 13th in income inequality based on the Gini Index; and 22nd for the highest rate of people living below the poverty line. Disparities are also more prevalent along racial lines. Today, black residents earn an average 29% less than white residents in the Birmingham metropolitan region (Cortright, 2015).
Racial segregation also has a prominent history in Birmingham. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963) called it the most segregated city in America in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail. The Birmingham Campaign in May of that year was a major turning point in the Civil Rights Movement, leading to the formal removal of white only signs from public restrooms, drinking fountains, desegregation of lunch counters, and efforts to improve economic opportunity for black and African American residents through policy and citizen advisory committees (Public Broadcasting Service, 2015).
While racial integration has improved in the city since the Civil Rights Movement, income segregation particularly of people of color has maintained over the decades. Even though the economic status of many black people improved in Birmingham, Massey & Denton (2010) found no change in the income segregation of the poorest and most affluent black residents from 1970-1980. Looking beyond racial categories, Birmingham ranks second amongst large metros where the wealthy are most segregated from the poor, with a Gini Index of .58 (Florida and Mellander, 2015).
Income inequality and segregation also differ based on the neighborhood. Appendix C displays how the longitudinal trends differ at the city and neighborhood levels. One chart displays the Dissimilarity element and the Theil element for one neighborhood in Birmingham. In this neighborhood, income inequality has dipped, while it has increased in
55


the MSA overall. The difference provides room to explore the extent to which transit access has or has not been associated with neighborhood economic changes over time.
The relationship between public transit, income inequality, and income segregation in Birmingham also has a long and entrenched history. Between 1956-1958, activists initiated the Birmingham Bus Boycott to dismantle segregation of the bus system to no legal avail.
The region has also continually struggled with raising adequate funding to support the construction of important transit projects, which disproportionately hurt minority and low-income communities (Sanchez, Stolz, & Ma, 2003). Because the State of Alabama does not allocate funding for transit, Birmingham greatly relies on federal funding from the Federal Transit Administration. Thus, Title VI analyses are also a familiar component for those involved in decisions to expand or reduce bus services.
Furthermore, the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham (RPCGB) (2015) recently adopted a Human Services Coordinated Transportation Plan: .. .to improve services for transportation disadvantaged individuals by ensuring that communities coordinate transportation resources (p. 1). It includes goals, demographics, a service inventory, public involvement data, a needs assessment, and strategies for improvement. In addition, Section 5316 explicitly addresses access for low-income residents. In addition to Title VI activities, the RPCGB initiative offers a rich context for exploring whether such planning processes administrators lead to more equitable actions and/or outcomes.
Orlando. FL
The Orlando MSA has a bus system and recently gained a commuter rail line. The Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority has served Orlando since 1972. Lynx is a bus system that serves the area. Much of the transportation has been designed to service
56


popular tourist destinations like Disney World and Universal Studios. The area ranked 42 out of 46 in terms of access to work by public transit (Accessibility Observatory, 2015). Walking is also problematic. Orlando was reported as the most dangerous metropolitan area in the country for walkability due to high-speed traffic development paired with inadequate pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks (Ernst & McCann, 2002).
Income inequality in Orlando has also been rising. The 95/20 ratio increased by 1.4 between 2007-2014 (Holmes & Berube, 2016). The region ranked in the top 10, with the bottom 20% earning $4,827 less after the recession, whereas the top 5% earned 13,345 less. Like Minneapolis, Orlando scores low on income segregation. The RISI is 22, the lowest of the 30 largest American cities and 24 points below the current national average. The Citys income segregation has also decreased by 1% since 1980 (Fry & Taylor, 2010).
Income inequality and segregation also differ based on the neighborhood. Appendix D displays how the trends differ at the city and neighborhood levels. One chart displays the Dissimilarity and Theil element for one neighborhood in Orlando. In this neighborhood, income inequality has dipped, while it has risen in the city overall. The dramatic difference between city and neighborhood trends again justifies why this study explores whether transit access has or has not been associated with neighborhood economic changes over time.
The City is required to measure equity as part of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. MetroPlan Orlando (2014) was adopted to ensure the region was complying with federal and state laws. It instituted a triennial review process to update demographic statistics, confirm the Boards commitment to nondiscrimination, and assess performance of Title VI objectives. The document provides several measures and indicators and is used as a tool to ensure more equitable outcomes in the Orlando area.
57


Few to no grassroots initiatives have focused on transit equity in Orlando. Local officials recently partnered with PolicyLink and the National League of Cities to improve economic opportunities for young black men (EquityBlog, 2014). There has been little action beyond this summit. Compared to the other MSAs, this minimal activity provides another perspective on persistence and how it is addressed under such administrative arrangements. The following sections outline methods for collecting data in each case.
Unit of Analysis
The relationship between social equity and public transit is explored at the neighborhood level in each case. The unit of analysis is the neighborhood. This study replicates prior segregation research (Crowder & South, 2008; Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012; Ludwig et al., 2012) and uses census tracts to represent neighborhoods. Fry & Taylor (2012) note: As a general rule, a census tract conforms to what people typically think of as a neighborhood (p. 1). From this point, the study refers to census tracts as neighborhoods.
The population of neighborhoods from each MSA amounts to: 619 in Denver, 766 in Minneapolis, 259 in Birmingham, and 379 in Orlando. These neighborhoods are included for five decennial census counts from 1970-2010. The panel dataset thus consists of: 2504 observations in Denver, 3510 observations in Minneapolis, 746 in Birmingham, and 1339 observations in Orlando. The sum of all observations for all cases equals 8099.
Data Source
Neighborhood-level data were extracted from the Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) from 1970-2010. The Urban Institute and GeoLytics jointly produce this tool. The Rockefeller Foundation started funding development of this product in the early 1990s and has offered ongoing support to update it with decennial U.S. Census data. The NCDB
58


provides tract-level data in normalized form, allowing comparison of 2010 tracts across all previous years. The NCDB includes roughly 1000 variables for each year at the Census tract-level, such as population, household, income, and employment categories.6
Data reports were run from the NCDB and copied into Microsoft Excel. The appropriate equations were used to determine the annual segregation measures for each neighborhood in Excel. Variables names are noted for future replication of this type of study using NCDB data. Data cleaning proceeded with wild code checking (Singleton & Straits, 2010) to ensure consistency and to correct illegitimate values. Data was uploaded into Stata for management and analysis. Before conducting the analysis, logical commands were run to detect missing data and other mistakes that took place during transfer (UC Regents, 2016). Operationalization of Key Variables
The section defines the key concepts and how they are operationalized. It also describes the types of common-cause confounders (endogenous, moderators, and covariates) that are included. Each may have different impacts on: a) the theoretical variable of interest access to work by transit, and b) the outcome of interest economic opportunity and income segregation (Glynn & Gerring, 2012, p. 2). Specifically, some factors may affect the independent variable but not the dependent variable, and vice versa.
This can get confusing to describe, so a graphic is provided in Figure 3.3. The diagram follows the format guidelines of Glynn & Gerring (2012). The two propositions are represented with arrows. The first tests for changes in economic opportunity as a function of access to transit. The second concerns segregation as a function of access to work by public.
6 The NCDB data are not publicly available. The Center for Local Government Research and Training purchased the NCDB and permitted access. There are various subcategories. For instance, household includes data on income, number of dwellers, head of household, etc.
59


Figure 3.3: Explanatory Diagram (Adapted from Gerring, 2011)
On
O


The other factors represent specific variables that are controlled for in the analysis. The remainder of this section outlines each variable in Figure 3.3. Types of confounders are also described in greater detail. The descriptions are provided to justify why certain control variables are included and to ensure that efforts were made to mitigate over or underestimation of the parameters included in the study.
Dependent Variables
Y1: Economic opportunity. The first dependent variable is economic opportunity. Public administration scholars have measured this concept in numerous ways. For instance, many have operationalized economic opportunity as labor force participation (Oaxaca, 1973; Connelly, 1992). Stoll et al. (2000) assessed opportunity by looking at the degree to which of low-skill jobs were in proximity to neighborhoods where people with the appropriate skillsets lived. This study uses income inequality as an indicator of economic opportunity. Previous longitudinal studies have used the Theil Statistic as a proxy measure in similar designs at the local level (Conceicao & Galbraith, 2000; Beck, Levine, & Levkov, 2010; Hoover & Yaya, 2011). Wang & Mastracci (2014) also encourage public administration scholars to increase utilization of the Theil Statistic. This study thus applies the Theil, furthering greater quantitative assessment and validation Rutledge (2002) encouraged as well.
This study uses the NCDB measures of Median Income and Total Population from 1970-2010 to calculate the Theil Statistic element for all neighborhoods across the four cases. The element refers to the neighborhood-specific measure, which is a micro-level unit that is often summed to find the Metropolitan-level Theil (University of Texas Inequality Project, 2014). Because median income is a monetary variable, an inflation adjustment was made to ensure the series is measured in constant dollars (Nau, 2016). Cost of living
61


adjustments are important to consider across each city. However, such differences are addressed through fixed effects since the analytic approach examines variation between neighborhoods rather than across MS As.
Y2: Income segregation. The second dependent variable is residential income segregation. While segregation can be measured in several ways, this study utilizes the dimension of unevenness, one of the most commonly applied indicators (Massey & Denton, 1988). Unevenness measures the extent to which one population subgroup is distributed in an area in proportion to another population subgroup. This dimension is selected to maintain consistency with scholars who continue testing the relevance of this empirical distinction (Reardon & OSullivan, 2004; Johnston, Poulsen, & Forrest, 2007; Massey, 2012).
For the metropolitan cases of Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando, the low-income population for a given neighborhood takes on the following equation:
i=1
Where:
hit = the high-income population of neighborhood i HI = the total high-income population of the MSA h = the low-income population of neighborhood i L = the total low-income population of the MSA
Equation 3.1. Index of Dissimilarity
Dissimilarity equals the proportion of low-income residents that would have to relocate to higher-income communities for integration to be achieved in a Metropolitan area. The Dissimilarity element is the neighborhood value that is typically summed to determine the index for the entire region. Because this study is interested in neighborhood variation, it utilizes the element at the census-tract level. Values are typically less than 5.
62


Independent Variable
Both propositions use the same independent variable: access to work by public transit. Previous studies have utilized singular measures such as commute times (Holzer,
1991; Accessibility Observatory, 2015) and budget allocations (Garret & Taylor, 1999) to determine public transit accessibility. Others have developed more complex indices that include route schedules, demographics, and spatial activity patterns (Foth, Manaugh, & El-Geneidy, 2013; Welch & Mishra, 2013).
X1: Neighborhood access to work by public transit X1 in Figure 3.3 illustrates the independent variable of interest: access to work by public transportation. This study uses the NCDB neighborhood-level measure of Proportion of population not working at home who travel-to-work on public transportation to measure access. This is available for 1970-2010. As the proportion of neighborhood residents riding public transit to work increases over each decade, the level of access is thus reasoned to increase.
This NCDB measure has been applied as a proxy for access in the transportation literature (Baum-Snow, Kahn, & Voith, 2005; Wier, Weintraub, Humphreys, Seto, & Bhatia, 2009; Renne, 2009). Few to no public administration studies have utilized this measure to understand equitable distribution of services. This study is one of the first to apply the measure through an administrative lens.
This indicator reflects the proportion of residents that use public transit to commute to and from work. It is not a direct measure of access, per se. This challenge is common amongst scholars that attempt to operationalize social equity access. For instance, others have measured healthcare access as the proportion of children that have health insurance, utilize prenatal care services, or visit dental care providers (Hug, 2011). Although imperfect, these
63


indicators offer potential for investigating statistical relationships between access and outcomes.
Confounding Variables
Several confounding variables are controlled for in this analysis. They include: race, ethnicity, educational attainment, homeownership, neighborhood stability, and the interaction effects between access with race and ethnicity. Each intervening variable is included in the models due to their correlation with the dependent or independent variables. The following sections justify their inclusion based on the extant literature.
Moderator1: Race Interaction of access and % of Non-White population. Race serves as a moderating variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). It affects the strength of the relationship between access and the dependent variables. The association between income inequality and segregation may depend not just on racial composition, but also the interaction between race and transit access. The proportion of white versus non-white transit ridership may have different associations with the dependent variables. Thus, the first interaction term included in the model is: Access to Transit x Proportion of Non-White Population. This leads to White Neighborhood Access and Non-White Neighborhood Access variables that are interpreted as the independent variables (See Appendix E for further clarification).
Furthermore, a high correlation between race and segregation exists. Despite downward trends in the past 50 years, racial residential segregation persists and is growing in some urban areas (Massey & Denton, 1987). The heightened association suggests that a larger population of non-white people is independently associated with the dependent variables. This study controls for this factor by including the proportion of non-white residents by calculating the difference of the NCDB Percent White variable for 1970-2010.
64


Moderator2: Ethnicity Interaction of access and % of Hispanic population.
Ethnicity also served as a moderating variable. The proportion of white versus Hispanic residents may impact association with the dependent variables. Thus, the second interaction term included in the model is: Access to Transit x Proportion of Hispanic Population. This leads to the Hispanic Neighborhood Access variable that is also individually interpreted as an independent variable in this study (See Appendix E for further clarification).
In addition, the correlation between ethnicity and segregation is growing (Iceland, 2004). The heightened association suggests that a larger population of Hispanic residents is also associated with the dependent variables. This study controls for this factor by additionally including the proportion of Hispanic residents with the variable of Percent Hispanic in each neighborhood for 1970-2010.
Mechanism1: Educational attainment. There is a strong correlation between educational attainment and income (Jencks, 1972; Mincer, 1974; Reardon, 2011).
Educational attainment may therefore be considered a mechanism that strengthens the association between the independent variable and dependent variables. Specifically, higher education allows those in neighborhoods with greater transit access to acquire higher-paying work opportunities. This, in turn, would improve the economic outcomes of the neighborhood, all else being equal.
Educational attainment is also included in this model to address potential endogeneity between the independent and dependent variables. The relationship between transit access (X) and the economic outcomes (Y) may take on a looping quality known as simultaneity. This means that X may lead to Y, but Y may also lead to X. Therefore, conditioning on the educational attainment variable controls for potential common cause confounding (Elwert &
65


Winship, 2014). This study measures this factor by including the Persons 25+ years old who have a bachelors or graduate/professional degree variable for 1970-2010 from the NCDB.
Endogenous1: Homeownership. Discriminatory housing policy has resulted in homeownership gaps based on race (Jackman & Jackman, 1980; Freeman, 2005). A positive association exists between homeownership and racial segregation (Silverman, 1973; Sander, 1997; Hoff & Sen, 2005). Income is also a significant determinant of homeownership (Kain & Quigley, 1972; Li, 1977). These findings suggest a potentially endogenous relationship between access, economic opportunity, and income segregation. More specifically, homeownership is a collider (Elwert & Winship, 2014), meaning it may be associated with the independent and dependent variables in this study. This study controls for this by including the proportion of Total owner-occupied housing units from 1970-2010.
Covariate1: Public Assistance. The proportion people living in poverty is correlated with both dependent variables, exhibiting positive correlation with income inequality (Durlauf, 1996) and income segregation (Massey, 1996). The NCDB data does not have consistent measures of the proportion of a neighborhood living below the poverty level. Therefore, a proxy variable was needed to control for the effect of populations living in financial hardship. This study incorporates the Proportion of population receiving public assistance for 1970-2010. This variable includes the percentage of residents that qualify and receive benefits from government social services based on low annual earnings.
Covariate2: Neighborhood Stability. Transportation policy has historically displaced communities of color (Alkadry & Blessett, 2010; Alkadry, et al., 2015). It has especially impacted low-income populations, inducing gentrification (Kahn, 2007; Cappellano & Spisto, 2014; Dawkins & Moeckel, 2016). Thus, the degree to which residents
66


remain in their home neighborhoods when transit access increases, or neighborhood stability, is important to consider in this study. This association suggests that greater neighborhood stability is a covariate with the two dependent variables, meaning an association with income segregation and economic opportunity. This is controlled for by including the Proportion of population 5 years and older that lived in the same house 5 years ago from 1970-2010. Analytic Strategy
A panel dataset is used to understand the extent to which changes in access are
associated with changes in income inequality and income segregation. Observational data
was pooled at the neighborhood-level for all four cases by decennial Census year. The study
was conducted with two fixed effects regression analyses. This is appropriate because of the
variation exhibited in the cross-sectional entities and over time (Halcoussis, 2004).
In the first model, n indexes the neighborhood and t indexes time. This equation
incorporates fixed effects for years and neighborhoods. The variable Inequalitynt is economic
opportunity operationalized as income inequality based on the Theil Statistic. The unknown
intercept for each neighborhood is represented by an. The first equation takes the form:
Inequalitynt = an + BiWhiteAccessnt + B2Non-WhiteAccessnt +
BsH ispanicAccess + B4Non-WhitePopnt + BsHispanicPopnt + BdidA ttainm B7Homent+ BsPubAssistancent + B9NeighborhoodStabilitynt ...Ent
Equation 3.2. Model 1
The second equation conceptualizes the variable Segregationnt and is operationalized as a
measure of income segregation based on the Index of Dissimilarity. It takes the form:
Segregationnt = an + BiWhiteAccessnt + B2N011- White A ccessm +
BsHispanicAccess + B4Non-WhitePopnt + BsHispanicPopnt + B slid A ttainm B7Homent+ BsPubAssistancent + B9NeighborhoodStabilitynt ...Ent
Equation 3.3. Model 2
67


The models are appropriate for this nonexperimental study because data meet the two requirements (Allison, 2009): 1) The dependent variables are measured on at least two occasions; and 2) The independent variable has changed across multiple occasions (1970-2010) for a substantial number of neighborhoods. More importantly, the models control for unobserved time-invariant factors, such as political leaning of residents. Fixed effects also estimate variation within rather than between units. Therefore, these models are advantageous for this study because they eliminate the key source of omitted variable bias: unobservable differences between MSAs and neighborhoods (Dougherty, 2011).
Validity Threats
Limitations of this dataset include unobserved population characteristics that cannot be accounted for. For instance, economic opportunity is conceptualized as income inequality of a given population, so it is assessed in terms of earnings. However, other elements of financial status are not included, such as accumulated wealth, assets, credit, and debt. Such factors are indicative of the boundaries of a quantitative study.
Ecological correlation is possible due to the nestedness of the dataset. It includes individuals in neighborhoods, in cities, which are in MSAs. Association may be skewed due to aggregation bias, which occurs when it is assumed that relationships for neighborhoods also hold true for individuals. For instance, Freedmans (1999) example notes a positive association between the percent of a states population that is foreign born and the states literacy rate. While the correlation may be high, there is a negative relationship between individuals whom are foreign born and those that are literate in American English. The results are likely skewed because foreign born individuals live in states where native born Americans are more literate. Thus, the association appears more positive than is the case.
68


Selection bias is also a concern in this study. It results when residents are not randomly assigned to varying neighborhoods or cities. Residents likely select where they will live based on factors that are immeasurable (Duncan, Connell, & Klebanov, 1997). Although fixed effects have the potential to account for unobserved variable bias, this data constraint is important to note and will be further discussed in the analysis.
Furthermore, serial correlation is often a problem presented with longitudinal data. It results when the residual errors from different observations in the sample are correlated (Schroeder, Sjoquist, & Stephan, 1986, p. 73). This violates a key assumption. The strong association between the input and output variables, which suggests serial correlation, is addressed with cluster-robust standard errors. Wooldridge (2013) notes that applying clustering within panel data is a valuable way to address the violation of autocorrelation (p. 691). Nichols & Schaffer (2007) note that 50 clusters is sufficient for panel data. They result in accurate inference. The datasets in this study satisfy such conditions.
Finally, the results inform the extent to which transit access is associated with economic opportunity and income segregation. However, the similarities and differences between each case offer room for further investigation of the organizational processes that effect administrative decisions surrounding equity initiatives. A qualitative approach is appropriate to grasp how transit administrators consider the persistence of inequity, how they overcome barriers, and what tools are utilized to achieve accountability, as next described.
Stage 2: Qualitative Study of Principles for Achieving Accountability This stage examines how transit administrators achieve accountability using principles for overcoming nervousness associated with minority and low-income community needs and performance measurement tools. It addresses the second research question: How
69


do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? This is a process-based line of inquiry and necessitates a qualitative design.
Preparatory Fieldwork
The first step involved participant observation in the field. The purpose was to gain a better understanding of the context of public transit through the lens of public and nonprofit transportation administrators, planners, and technical experts (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002).
This approach was also an important strategy to gain a deeper understanding of technical language, concepts, stakeholders, and governance structures.
I applied and was accepted for the Transit Alliance Fall 2016 Citizens Academy in Denver, CO. My application revealed that I was a doctoral student interested in studying transportation equity issues, making the staff aware of my interest in learning more about this topic from their perspective. I also provided this information to the other 39 participants during the orientation. Other participants included citizens and public and nonprofit employees of various transportation, environment, and energy-related agencies in the Denver metropolitan region. Participants attended three-hour sessions every Wednesday night from September 9 November 9, 2016. One session was missed. Each observation consisted of a presentation by public, nonprofit, and private transportation stakeholders that were regarded as experts in their field. Group discussions were also an important component of the sessions. Field notes were recorded each night for later analysis.
Various methodologists have argued that such participant observation serves as an important initial step in qualitative studies (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984; Bernard, 1994; Kawulich, 2005). It allows the researcher to conduct scoping for the project to determine who the most appropriate participants would be, how the questions should be structured, and what
70


type of language should be used. This preparatory fieldwork (Richards & Morse, 2005) was vital to ensure technical concepts were clear, allowing for a more informed content and interview analysis in the subsequent qualitative data collection components.
Data Sources
The first source includes public documents covering a range of equity activities and initiatives in each MSA. The second source includes interviews with administrators, planners, and other specialists responsible for initiatives and performance measure strategies. The engaged scholarship (Van de Ven, 2007) model forms the basis for this approach because it focuses on building personal relationships to produce meaningful results. Participants were incentivized to participate by offering them an executive summary of results once the study is complete. The sample is appropriate for this study since many state and local actors have adopted performance measurement systems for decades (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005). More detailed discussion of this analytic strategy is presented.
Data Collection and Analysis Content Analysis
A review of documents was conducted for Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. They were collected from online sources and reviewed prior to interviews to enhance familiarity with the initiatives, measures, and tools used by administrators in each case. Additional documents suggested by key informants in each MSA were also included. The documents were downloaded from public websites and uploaded into Nvivo qualitative software for analysis. Two approaches to content analysis were performed: manifest (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999) and directed (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
The manifest approach entailed quantifying words in documents to explore the extent
71


to which they are utilized. Coding relied on a Word Frequency Search, which is a function that performs a search and returns the most common generalizations in each MSA. Generalizations go beyond root words, synonyms, etc. and include thematic terminology. For instance, the generalization Access may include up to 20 related words (i.e. accessibility, admittance, distribution, etc.). Words were omitted if they were not indicative of themes. Other generalizations were deleted because they included the MSA name, agency, or words that were expected to appear frequently, such as transit.
The directed approach relies on existing theory. Goodens (2014) 10 principles were thus crafted into a coding scheme to explore the extent to which related words appeared across the documents in each case. A Text Search Query was performed for this component. The Nvivo stemmed category was applied. This means that the word equity may return results for closely related words like equitable, equitably, etc., but not synonyms. Two stemmed words were associated with each principle. For instance, the combination of responsible AND equity was used as a Boolean search to examine the extent to which Principle 1 was embodied, which states: Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government (Gooden, 2014, p. 196). The specific stemmed words that were used for coding each principle are listed in parentheses below.
1. Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government (Responsible, Equity).
2. The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be minimized, but rather offers instructive guidance (History,
Discrimination).
3. Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination of triggers: a. Political b. Legal c. Moral d.
Economic (Motivate, Political, Legal, Moral, or Economic).
4. Senior leadership is critically important factor in realizing sustained progress (Leadership, Equity).
5. At the individual level, public servants must recognize and eliminate behaviors that impede equity progress (Individual, Equity).
72


6. At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluate their socialization boundaries and extend them to accommodate a wider range of equity work (Organization, Equity).
7. There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a socially conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solutions (Structure, Equity).
8. Equity needs to operate in a context of accountability (Accountability,
Equity).
9. If legal barriers to discrimination have been eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline equity work (Barrier, Discrimination).
10. Significant progress in government can be achieved (Achieve, Equity).
Key Informant Interviews
Goodens (2014) principles suggest that: Significant racial equity progress in government can be achieved (p. 201). Her results are informative beyond the agencies she examined. Strategies, goals, and performance measures can be used by other public agencies responsible for a wide range of service delivery. This study examines additional cases of possibility in four MSAs, two of which have been deemed leaders in transit access and two that have low access compared to 46 other MSAs.
Exploration at the local level is important given the adoption of performance systems has not resulted in good metrics, accurate reporting, improved management, or better decision-making (Poister & Streib, 1999). Since little is known about the process for successfully implementing, adopting, and using measures to improve performance (Sanger, 2008), this study contributes by interviewing transit stakeholders.
The instrument is made up of semi-structured questions. It offers consistency while allowing for flexible questioning based on the participant (Singleton & Straits, 1993) and their role in advancing transportation equity. Questions are constructed based on a previous interview protocol proposed by Gooden (2014) for assessing how and why agencies address social equity. The principles and interview questions are presented below in Table 3.2.
73


Table 3.2.10 Principles and Related Interview Questions
# Principle (Gooden, 2014) Interview Question
1 Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government. Do you feel responsible for addressing social equity as a public official?
2 The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be minimized, but rather offers instructive guidance. To what extent does historical treatment of minority groups impact the work you do today?
3 Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination of political, moral, legal, and/or economic triggers. What motivated you to begin working to advance social equity? (Political, moral, legal, economic triggers)
4 Senior leadership is critically important factor in realizing sustained progress. How has senior leadership influenced social equity initiatives and sustained progress?
5 At the individual level, public servants must recognize and eliminate behaviors that impede social equity progress. How likely are you to independently promote equity in the provision of government services at work? Do you have conversations, dialogues, or meetings about equity in provision, administration, and delivery of public services?
6 At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluate their socialization boundaries and extend them to accommodate a wider range of social equity work. How does your organization provide boundaries on equity activities? (Required, Permitted, Discouraged, Prohibited)
7 There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a socially-conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solutions. To what extent do discussions of social equity, race, gender, or institutional discrimination take place in your department?
8 Equity needs to operate in a context of accountability. Would you say those discussions contributed to more in-depth analyses (assessments, studies, etc.)? If so, how does your organization use such analyses to hold itself accountable for advancing social equity?
9 If legal barriers to discrimination have been largely eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline social equity work. Has your city eliminated any legal barriers to advancing social equity? An example: [from case/city]. If so, how has it impacted: Agency leadership, Policies, Practices, Innovations to advance equity
10 Significant social equity progress in government can be achieved. What are you most proud of in terms of the progress that you have achieved through equity initiatives?
74


Interviews were designed with a purposive sample of administrators in the next phase. Potential participants were first identified from public documents and websites based on their role in equity activities. The goal was to recruit experts who could provide the most accurate information about transit access initiatives. Thirty potential participants were contacted via email using a common template and asked to participate as passive reporters (Foley, 2012). All were ensured that their responses would be held confidential so no individual could be identified. All contact with potential participants was recorded in a contact summary form (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to track interaction throughout the study.
Responses to the initial invitation were limited. Up to two reminders were sent to each contact to increase the number of participants willing to engage in the study. Several of the initial contacts recommended other administrators in their agencies that would be more appropriate and have further knowledge on the subject. In addition, snowball sampling was necessary to find additional contacts in Minneapolis. One of the participants was referred to me during the first interview.
Due to the limited number of willing participants, 12 total interviews were conducted, with three respondents from each MSA. Each held different areas of expertise, such as planning, policy, civil rights, or outreach. The common denominator amongst all participants was their understanding of social equity, which translated into related responsibilities.
General participant info is provided in Appendix F.
I provided a definition of equity beforehand, which was part of the overview of the study at the start of the conversation. Social equity was referred to as access to public transit. However, some interviewees discussed other forms of equity in their interviews, especially process (as it pertains to civil rights complaints, unfair treatment on trains, etc.). Interviews
75


ranged in length from 30 minutes to 1 hour. All interviews were audio recorded, documented with detailed notes, and transcribed in Excel for data management. Upon completion, a directed approach (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) to analysis was performed for each individual case.
All comments were coded into one of the 10 principles. Participant comments were analyzed to determine if they did or did not support the adoption of each principle for each MSA. Data that could not be coded into one of the categories was reexamined and put into a separate notes section.
Additional documents that were suggested by participants during the interview were also recorded. It was determined that documents mentioned by respondents had been included in the content analysis component. Respondents also recommended potential participants, whom were noted in the comments of the transcription form. Some were contacted for interviews.
Triangulation
Triangulation produces meaningful results drawn from a variety of methods, sources, and data. This stage is based on an interpretivist approach to inquiry. The analysis examines data from the subjective standpoint of the researcher and participants. Interpretivism stands in contrast to positivist approaches, which emphasize results that are subject to various validity and reliability tests. This study embraces the epistemological condition that knowledge is not objective. Furthermore, the purpose is not to develop generalizable results that can prove or disprove set hypotheses. Instead, the purpose of this qualitative analysis is to build interpretations (Flick, 1992) of the principles for overcoming nervousness associated with racial and class disparities in public transit development.
76


Triangulation of methods is utilized to reduce the risk of chance associations and of systematic biases due to a specific method (Maxwell, 2009, p. 245). In other words, different qualitative methods are employed to enhance analyses that are more comprehensive, rich, and robust. This is achieved through participant observation, content analysis, and key informant interviews. Denzin (1978) referred to this as between-method triangulation, which relies on a variety of data collection approaches.
This study also utilizes within-method triangulation (Denzin, 1978) in both the content analysis and the interview analysis. First, source triangulation is achieved by collecting and reviewing public documents from four metropolitan cases, which were selected based on their diversity of transit access, income segregation, geographic location, and various demographic characteristics. The documents were categorized into reports, plans, studies, guidelines, meeting minutes, meeting materials, and miscellaneous material. News coverage of the public actors was not utilized as many were technical specialists rather than spokespersons for their agencies.
Within-method data triangulation also informed the interview design. Diverse participants with varying positions, agencies, and perspectives were recruited to describe how processes and performance measures are used to advance social equity. A sampling plan was designed to maximize the chance of recruiting participants with diverse points of view, values, and responsibilities. All participants worked in public transit and addressed social equity in their respective jobs, albeit with a range of technical and administrative roles. This also reduced the impact of researcher biases and assumptions during interpretation of results.
The sample did not attempt to achieve representativeness or saturation. Rather, the interviews complement the other data collection efforts. The number of participants is
77


sufficient because few professionals deal with transit equity concerns (Charmaz, 2006).
Many agencies have one person responsible for all Title VI activities. Furthermore, this research design replicates previous studies that have emphasized the need to begin expanding administrative understanding (Wellman 2012) and complement other data collection for triangulation (Shea, 2011) rather than to achieve generalizable or statistically valid results.
Mixed Methods Analytic Approach
The mixed-methods analysis ensued at a procedural level (Creswell, 2014) which enhances understanding of the research questions by explaining quantitative results with follow-up data collection and analysis. The two datasets are collected separately, and the quantitative results inform the qualitative approach, open-ended questions, and procedures. This analytical strategy includes first reporting the quantitative results of the MSA neighborhood-level analysis of Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. Then, there is a subsequent discussion of the qualitative themes. The final chapter compares each stage to inform how certain principles may or may not explain the statistical findings of transit access and income equity trends in each MSA.
The interpretation of data is included in Chapter VI. A comparison of the qualitative interview results is included, which more specifically builds on the quantitative findings. The key goal of analysis is to discuss how the qualitative content analysis and interviews aid in the expansion and explanation of quantitative results. Such studies indicate the usefulness of the explanatory sequential mixed methods design, allowing for further explanation of quantitative results through the collection and interpretation of qualitative data.
Therefore, the final phase compares the qualitative interview findings in Stage 2 with the quantitative findings in Stage 1. It determines if the cases with more favorable economic
78


opportunity and segregation outcomes uphold certain principles for addressing transportation equity. This phase combines theory testing of large N statistical analysis with intensive small N case analysis to interpret and validate findings (Goggin, 1986). Results of this comparative analysis contribute to theoretical understanding and practical recommendations for transit administrators interested in advancing social equity in the form of improved economic opportunities and integration outcomes.
79


CHAPTER IV
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
This chapter addresses the first research question: To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? It presents the quantitative analysis that examines social inequity as indicated by two dependent variables: economic opportunity and income segregation. This normative question needs to be addressed through an empirical lens. More importantly, the field lacks a temporal investigation of how improved access to services like transit relate to other social and economic outcomes. The chapter thus responds to this lacuna by reporting on the relationship at the neighborhood level in four diverse cases: Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. This technique enhances the representativeness of the results by examining MSAs with varying levels of accessibility and income segregation (Seawright & Gerring, 2008).
This chapter is organized as follows. The results of the fixed effects regression models are reported for the high access cases (Denver and Minneapolis) and low access cases (Birmingham and Orlando). This analysis contributes a better understanding of the theoretical tension discussed in Chapter II. It reveals the varying extent to which transit access7 for work-related travel is associated with: 1) Economic opportunity (in line with administrative explanations) and 2) Income segregation (in line with economic explanations). As mentioned in Chapter III, these are tested using the Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) from 1970-2010.
7 This study uses the NCDB neighborhood-level measure of Proportion of population not working at home who travel-to-work on public transportation to determine access. Various transportation planning studies have applied this indicator as a proxy for access (Baum-Snow et al., 2005; Wier et al., 2009; Renne, 2009).
80


Two fixed-effects regression models were estimated to test the two propositions. The first proposition tested the administrative explanation: if access to work by public transit increases, economic opportunity increases overtime (Model 1). Economic opportunity is operationalized as income inequality. It is measured using the Theil Statistic element.8 High economic opportunity equates to a low value. The second proposition tested the economic explanation outlined in this study: if access to work by public transit increases, income segregation increases over time (Model 2). Segregation is measured by the Index of Dissimilarity element.9 The extent to which these were supported is presented by case.
The four cases provide a meso-level perspective of the longitudinal relationship between public transit and the extent to which access is or is not associated with persisting social inequity. The analysis examines variation within neighborhoods from 1970-2010. This section discusses these results in greater depth as they relate to the two propositions tested, and it provides further analysis of the control variables.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 4.1 includes the descriptive statistics for the high access cases. This shows that Denver and Minneapolis have similar neighborhoods dynamics from 1970-2010. The mean of the Inequality and Segregation elements are comparable. Approximately 4.27% of neighborhood residents have access to transit in Denver. This is similar to 6.34% in
8 The Theil Statistic is an aggregated measure of an MSA that is calculated by summing all neighborhood- level element measures. Because the unit of analysis is the neighborhood, the dataset uses the element measure for each neighborhood in Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando.
9 The Index of Dissimilarity element is the neighborhood-level value that is typically summed to determine the Index for the entire MSA region. Because this study is interested in variation within neighborhoods, the dataset utilizes the element measure at the census-tract level.
81


Minneapolis. Furthermore, the average proportion of non-white residents, higher educated residents, homeownership, and public assistance in neighborhoods is similar, at average levels within approximately 3-4% in both MSAs. The two cases vary when examining the proportion of the population that identifies as Hispanic, with higher levels in Denver, and neighborhood stability, which is greater in Minneapolis.
Table 4.1. High Access Descriptive Statistics
Denver Minneapolis
Variable (%) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
Inequality (Theil) .01 -.15 1.73 .07 .00 .47
Segregation (Dissimilarity) .12 0 .92 .01 -.12 .75
Neighborhood Access10 4.27 0 100 6.34 0 100
Non-White 12.93 0 97.84 10.31 0 97.01
Hispanic 13.79 0 100 2.62 0 44.93
Higher Educated 29.63 0 100 26.73 .38 86.96
Homeownership 66.05 0 100 69.11 0 100
Public Assistance 3.89 0 100 5.11 0 100
Neighborhood Stability 49.29 0 100 58.17 6.59 100
Table 4.2 provides descriptive statistics for the low access cases. Birmingham and Orlando also have similar neighborhood compositions concerning the Dissimilarity element, Theil element, neighborhood access, proportion of higher-educated residents, homeownership, and public assistance on average. The two varied on the percent of nonwhite residents, which is higher in Birmingham, while Hispanic residents is higher in Orlando. Furthermore, neighborhood stability overtime is higher in Birmingham (61.15%) compared to Orlando (50.07%).
10 The Neighborhood Access descriptive statistics are reported with the entire population, including all white, non-white, and Hispanic residents. These three populations are later interpreted individually in the fixed effects regression analysis.
82


Table 4.2 Low Access Descriptive Statistics
Birmingham Orlando
Variable (%) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
Inequality (Theil) .05 -.34 3.94 .03 -.34 1.98
Segregation (Dissimilarity) .27 .00 1.83 .15 0 1.53
Neighborhood Access11 1.79 0 33.04 1.76 0 43.40
Non-White 26.80 0 100 18.26 0 100
Hispanic 1.52 0 29.93 10.33 0 78.86
Higher Educated 18.72 0 88.61 19.38 0 74.04
Homeownership 65.77 .37 98.81 62.00 0 98.08
Public Assistance 5.86 0 32.10 4.26 0 37.76
Neighborhood Stability 61.15 4.77 98.60 50.07 .02 100
The results of the fixed effects regression analyses, however, show that neighborhoods in each case exhibit different trends relative to neighborhood access to work by public transit. The results are individually presented for economic opportunity (Model 1) and income segregation (Model 2) below.
Model 1: Transit Access and Economic Opportunity The four cases produce mixed results on the dependent variable of neighborhood income inequality (Table 4.3). Denver results were not significant. Minneapolis and Orlando exhibited a negative association between white neighborhood transit access and economic opportunity. Birmingham produced a positive association between transit and increasing income inequality in white neighborhoods. Conversely, as non-white neighborhood access increased, income inequality has decreased in Birmingham and Orlando. Hispanic neighborhoods in Minneapolis experienced a statistically significant increase. Therefore, the first proposition was supported in more white neighborhoods in Minneapolis and Orlando, while the proposition was supported in more non-white neighborhoods in Birmingham.
11 The access descriptive statistics are reported with the combined population of white, nonwhite, and Hispanic residents. These groups are interpreted individually in the analysis.
83


Table 4.3. Inequality Regression Results: 1970-2010
Cases Denver Minneapolis Birmingham Orlando
IV (%) Coef. RSE Coef. RSE Coef. RSE Coef. RSE
White Nbhd. Access -.01 .03 -.10** .04 1.38*** .27 ^2-* * .26
Non-White Nbhd. Access -.11 .14 -.00 .11 -1.30** .53 _ 73** .30
Hispanic Nbhd. Access -.03 .12 .51** .20 -3.11 8.58 .06 .45
Non-White Residents .04 .03 06*** .02 16*** .04 07** .03
Hispanic Residents 22*** .02 25*** .04 _ 43** .21 2g*** .04
Higher Educated 22*** .02 24*** .01 2 09*** .18 02 *** .09
Homeownership .01 09*** .01 42 *** .09 33*** .03
Public Assistance -.01 .05 20*** .02 .25* .13 .12 .10
Nhbd. Stability .05*** .01 04*** .00 42*** .08 2 2*** .02
Constant 27*** .01 23*** .01 66*** .11 _ 32*** .03
Overall R2 .40 .47 .50 .47
Overall N 2937 3708 1276 1909
Nbhd. Cluster N 619 770 264 390
***p< 001, **p<.01, *p<.05
High Access Results
Denver and Minneapolis produced dissimilar results when examining neighborhood income inequality. Denver did not produce a statistically significant result for white, nonwhite, or Hispanic neighborhood Access. Conversely, Minneapolis produced two statistically significant results at a 99% level of confidence. White neighborhood access was negatively associated with income inequality, albeit at a minimal degree. For every 5% increase in white access, income inequality dropped by approximately 0.5%. Hispanic neighborhood access resulted in a positive association, however. For every 2% increase in Hispanic neighborhood access, income inequality increased by 1% in the Minneapolis region.
While the proportion of non-white residents and public assistance did not result in statistically significant results, all other control variables produced similar associations of significance at the 99.9% level of confidence. These similar findings warrant further discussion. Higher proportions of educational attainment, homeownership, and neighborhood
84


stability were positively associated with increasing income inequality in both cases. As the proportion of Hispanic residents increased, income inequality decreased. In Minneapolis, as the proportion of non-white residents increased, income inequality decreased. There was a positive association between public assistance and income inequality.
The results indicate that the growth of income inequality in the Denver metropolitan region is not necessarily a product of the simultaneous transit access and development. There appears to be no relationship between the two variables at the neighborhood level over the past 40 years. This case does not support the first proposition of this study.
The Minneapolis region provides a different pattern. As public transit access expanded throughout the MSA, white neighborhoods have experienced better economic opportunities as evidenced by decreasing income inequality. This finding supports the first proposition of this study with 99% level of confidence. However, Hispanic neighborhoods have experienced a reduction in economic opportunity as illustrated by increasing income inequality. When taking ethnicity into account, this does not support the first proposition.
The juxtaposition of Denver and Minneapolis results is important to consider. Economic opportunity may have improved in Minneapolis white neighborhoods and fallen in Hispanic neighborhoods, suggesting outcomes that are not equitable based on race and class. The lack of an effect in Denver is also important because it suggests that status quo has been maintained. While transit access has expanded, neighborhoods have not been affected. The same economic status remains, suggesting equal results that do not amount to equity. Low Access Results
Birmingham and Orlando communities exhibit similar patterns in relation to neighborhood economic opportunity outcomes. Increased transit access was associated with
85


economic opportunity based on the racial neighborhood composition in both cases. In Birmingham, as white neighborhood access increased, income inequality increased ceteris paribus. For every 1% increase in public transit access, white neighborhoods have experienced a 1.38% increase in income inequality.
The reverse is true for non-white access. For every 1% increase, neighborhoods of color have experienced a 1.30% reduction in income inequality. This finding supports the first proposition. The normative argument that increased access to transit will lead to more equitable economic opportunity is supported when taking race into account. This finding is important given the generally widening wealth inequality gap along racial lines as discussed in Chapter II.
In Orlando neighborhoods, the results follow a similar trend. Income inequality has increased as white neighborhood access has risen. Conversely, non-white neighborhood transit access was negatively associated with income inequality with 99% confidence. The longitudinal trends thus support the first proposition. For every 2% increase in white transit ridership, income inequality has grown by nearly 1.28%. Conversely, for every 2% increase in non-white ridership, income inequality has fallen by roughly 1.46%.
The control variables also produced diverging levels of association. Both cases produced a positive association between educational attainment, homeownership, and income inequality. Both produced a negative association between the proportion of Hispanic residents and income inequality. Yet, the dependent variable produced a negative association between the proportion of non-white residents in Birmingham, whereas it was positively associated in Orlando. Furthermore, neighborhood stability was positively associated with income inequality in Birmingham but negatively associated in Orlando.
86


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding ISO-8859-1
DISS_submission publishing_option 0 embargo_code third_party_search Y
DISS_authorship
DISS_author type primary
DISS_name
DISS_surname Larson
DISS_fname Samantha
DISS_middle June
DISS_suffix
DISS_affiliation University of Colorado at Denver
DISS_contact current
DISS_contact_effdt 03/31/2017
DISS_address
DISS_addrline 14380 W Yale Pl
DISS_city Lakewood
DISS_st CO
DISS_pcode 80228
DISS_country US
DISS_email samantha.larson@ucdenver.edu
future
03/31/2017
14380 W Yale Pl
Lakewood
CO
80228
US
samantha.larson@ucdenver.edu
DISS_citizenship US
DISS_description page_count 206 doctoral external_id http:dissertations.umi.comucdenver:10822 apply_for_copyright yes
DISS_title Social Equity and Public Transit: A Comparative Analysis of Persisting Economic Outcomes and Accountability Indicators
DISS_dates
DISS_comp_date 2017
DISS_accept_date 01/01/2017
DISS_degree Ph.D.
DISS_institution
DISS_inst_code 0765
DISS_inst_name University of Colorado Denver
DISS_inst_contact Public Affairs
DISS_processing_code D
DISS_advisor
Guy
Mary
E
DISS_cmte_member
Ely
Todd
Goggin
Malcolm
Gooden
Susan
DISS_categorization
DISS_category
DISS_cat_code 0617
DISS_cat_desc Public administration
DISS_keyword Access, Accountability, Income Inequality, Segregation, Social Equity, Transit
DISS_language en
DISS_content
DISS_abstract
DISS_para This dissertation is interested in social equity in the context of public transportation. Social equity is the commitment to fairness in policy formation, service delivery, implementation, and management of public institutions. Despite 50 years of scholarship, it remains an understudied pillar of public administration. A key methodological barrier to its advancement has been the lack of quantitative tools, indicators, and benchmarks for measuring progress in the pursuit of social equity. This study overcomes this inadequacy by examining two research questions: 1) To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? and 2) How do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? The first question tests two competing propositions that suggest increased access to public transit is associated with both increased economic opportunity and residential income segregation. It assesses how one form of social equity can have inequitable effects. Longitudinal data from the Neighborhood Change Database (1970-2010) is used in this quantitative stage. Next, the second question explores what principles guide administrators to address transit equity given its persistence. Content analysis of four diverse metropolitan cases determine what transit equity measures have been incorporated. Key informant interviews with transit administrators responsible for equity and measurement are the primary method of data collection. A mixed-method, social justice research design thus provides qualitative and quantitative results. Findings are compared to determine recommendations valuable to stakeholders and policymakers deciding on issues related to social equity and segregation in their communities. Scholarly implications include advancing the application of social equity indicators and developing an analytical approach to assess fairness in neighborhoods over time through the Persistent Pathways Framework, which contributes to the “unfinished business” of measuring social equity in the discipline.
DISS_supp_abstract
DISS_binary PDF Larson_ucdenver_0765D_10822.pdf
DISS_restriction
DISS_repository
DISS_version 2011-11-08 15:37:33
DISS_agreement_decision_date 2017-03-31 13:59:16
DISS_acceptance 1
DISS_delayed_release
DISS_access_option



PAGE 1

SOCIAL EQUITY AND PUBLIC TRANSIT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERSISTING ECONOMIC OUTCOMES AND ACCOUNTABILITY INDICATORS by SAMANTHA JUNE LARSON B.A., University of North Dakota, 2005 M.S., North Dakota State University, 2011 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Affairs 2017

PAGE 2

ii This dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Samantha June Larson h as been approved for the Public Affairs Program b y Todd Ely, Chair Mary Ellen Guy, Advisor Malcolm Goggin Susan Gooden Date : May 13, 2017

PAGE 3

ii Larson, Samantha June (Ph.D., Public Affairs Program ) Soci al Equity and Public Transit: A Comparative Analysis of Persisting Economic Outcomes and Accountability Indicators Dissertation directed by Professor Mary E llen Guy ABSTRACT This dissertation is interested in social equity in the context of public transportation. Social equity is the commitment to fairness in policy formation, service delivery, implementation, and management of pu blic institutions. Despite 50 years of scholarship, it remains an understudied pillar of public administration. A key methodological barrier to its advancement has been the lack of quantitative tools, indicators, and benchmarks for measuring progress in th e pursuit of social equity. This study overcomes this inadequacy by examining two research questions: 1) To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? and 2) How do public transporta tion agencies achieve accountability for social equity? The first question tests two competing propositions that suggest increased access to public transit is associated with both increased economic opportunity and residential income segregation. It assess es how one form of social equity can have inequitable effects. Longitudinal data from the Neighborhood Change Database (1970 2010) is used in this quantitative stage. Next, t he second question explores what principles guide administrators to address transi t equity given its persistence. Content analysis of four diverse metropolitan cases determine what transit equity measures have been incorporated. Key informant interviews with transit administrators responsible for equity and measurement are the primary m ethod of data collection. A mixed method, social justice research design thus provides qualitative and

PAGE 4

iii quantitative results. Findings are compared to determine recommendations valuable to stakeholders and policymakers deciding on issues related to social e quity and segregation in their communities. Scholarly implications include advancing the application of social equity indicators and developing an anal ytical approach to assess fairness in neighborhoods over time through the Persistent Pathways Framework which contribute s The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Mary E llen Guy

PAGE 5

ii This work is dedicated to my parents Mary Kay and Larry Larson, for their unconditional love and support Your ex ample has always inspired me to care about people over profit. Thank you for setting me on such a meaningful life path

PAGE 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express the deepest gratitude to my dissertation advisor Dr. Mary Ellen Guy. Her wisdom and encouragement to explore my interests empowered me at each stage of this dissertation research project Without her guidance and support this work would not ha ve been possible. Next, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Todd Ely and Dr. Malcolm Goggin, whose work demonstrated to me the importance of a well developed research design. In addition, a sincere thank you to Professor Susan Gooden who introduced me to the social equity literature. Your mentorship and expertise on this subject has been a true inspira tion. Thank you for setting me up to embark on a meaningful agenda and career for the betterm ent of public administration scholarship a nd our democracy. I would also like to acknowledge t hose that made this study possible through their participation in accordance with COMIRB 16 1266. I am indebted to the knowledg e and experiences that all practitioners took the time to share for the advan cement of more equitable public transit systems and neighborhood outcomes Finally, I would like to note my appreciation to the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. The financial support that was provided through out my doctoral program has afforded me with many opportunities to gain valuable skills and develop my craft as I pursued this final degree.

PAGE 7

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1 The State of Social Equity Research ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 Methodological Barriers ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 Advancement Strategies ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5 Scope and Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 6 Study Goals and Research Quest ions ................................ ................................ ................... 7 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 Distinguishing between Equality and Equity in Public Transit ................................ .......... 11 Constructing Transit Equity Questions ................................ ................................ ............... 14 Assessing the Existence of Transit Inequity ................................ ................................ ....... 17 Explaining Why Social Inequity Persists ................................ ................................ ............ 24 Administrative Explanations ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 Economic Explanations ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 33 Describing How to Achieve Accountability for Transit Equity ................................ ......... 37 Transportation Performance Measurement Tools ................................ ........................... 39 Ten Principles Investigated ................................ ................................ ............................. 41 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................ ............................ 46 Mixed Methods Research Design ................................ ................................ ....................... 46 Stage 1: Quantitative Assessment of Factors Impacting Persistence ................................ .. 48 Logic of Case Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 48 Unit of Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 58

PAGE 8

iii Data Source ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 58 Operationalization of Key Variables ................................ ................................ .............. 59 Analytic Strategy ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 67 Validity Threats ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 68 Stage 2: Qualitative Study of Principles for Achieving Accountability ............................. 69 Data Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 71 Data Collection and Analysis ................................ ................................ .......................... 71 Triangulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 76 Mixed Methods Analytic Approach ................................ ................................ .................... 78 IV. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ................................ ................................ .......................... 8 0 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 81 Model 1: Transit Access and Economic Opportunity ................................ ......................... 83 High Access Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 84 Low Access Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 85 Model 2: T ransit Access and Income Segregation ................................ ............................. 87 High Access Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 88 Low Access Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 88 Interpretation of Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ 89 Persistent Pathways Framework ................................ ................................ ......................... 91 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 95 V. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ......................... 97 Content Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 98 Manifest Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 98

PAGE 9

iv Directed Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 101 Interview Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 104 Denver ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 107 Minneapolis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 111 Birmingham ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 117 Orlando ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 123 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 128 VI. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ .................. 133 Comparative Analysis of Persistence and Accountability ................................ ................ 135 Equitable ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 136 6 Partially Equitable ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 138 Eq ual ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 141 Partially Inequitable ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 144 Inequi table ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 147 Theoretical Contributions ................................ ................................ ................................ 149 Public Administration ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 149 Urban Economics ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 151 Practical Contributions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 153 Contextual Measurement ................................ ................................ ............................ 153 3 Normalizing Equity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 154 4 Community Partnerships ................................ ................................ ............................. 154 4 Civic Engagement ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 155 5 Study Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 155 5

PAGE 10

v Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 158 8 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 161 1 APPENDIX A: D enver Segregation and Inequality Trends ................................ ............................... 187 7 B: M inneapolis Segregation and Inequality Trends ................................ ....................... 188 8 C: B irmingham Segregation and Inequality Trends ................................ ..................... 189 8 9 D: Orlando Segregation and Inequality Trends ................................ .............................. 190 0 E: I nteraction Term Calculation ................................ ................................ ..................... 191 1 F: I nterview Contacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 192 2

PAGE 11

vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1. Social Equity Measures in Top Pub lic Administration Journals ...................................... 20 2.2. Transportation Equity Tools and Measures...................................................................... 40 3.1. Cas e Study Characteristics... ............................................................................................. 50 3.2. 10 Principles and Re lated Interview Questions................................................................ 7 4 4.1. High Access Descriptive Statistics.. ................................................................................. 82 4.2. Low Ac cess Descriptive Statistics................................................................................... 8 3 4.3 Inequality Reg ression Results: 1970 2010.. ...................................................................... 8 4 4.4. Segregation Regr ession Results: 1970 2010.................................................................... 8 7 4.5. PPF Pathway and Outcome by Case ............................ ..................................................... 9 4 5.1. Manifest Content Analysis Word Cloud Data.................................................................. 99 5. 2 Interview Analysis Findings Degree of Support.......................................................... 10 6 5. 3 Inte rview Analysis Summary.......................................................................................... 12 9 6.1. Comparative Analysis................................... .................................................................. 13 6

PAGE 12

vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1: Black/No nblack Segregation 1890 2010.......................................................................... 22 2.2: Income Segregation in American MSAs by Race: 1970 2010 ......................................... 2 4 2.3: American Theil Index an d Gini Coefficient: 1920 2013.................................................. 3 2 3.1: Soci al Justice Research Design.......................................... ............................................... 4 7 3.2: Diverse Case Study Design............................................................................................... 4 9 3.3: Explanatory Diagram .... ................................................ .................................................... 60 4. 1. Case Summary of Results................................................................................................. 90 4.2. Per sistent Pathways Framework..................................... ................................................ .. 9 2 5.1. Manifest Content Analysis Word C loud Data ............... .... ............................................. .. 9 9 5.2. Directed Content Analysis Findings............................................... ................................ 10 2

PAGE 13

viii LIST OF EQUATIONS EQUATION 3.1: Index of Dissimilarity.................................................................................................. ..... 6 2 3.2: Model 1............................................................................................................................ 6 7 3.3: Model 2................................................................................................................. ........... 6 7

PAGE 14

ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASPA American Society for Public Administration BJCTA Birm ingham Jefferson County Transit Authority BRT Bus Rapid Transit CEI Cost Effectiveness Index CoCs Communities of Color Coef. Coefficient DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments EEO Equal Employment Opportunity EPA Environmental Protection Agency FTA Federal Transit Administration GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information Systems HHI Herfindahl Hirschman Index HUD Housing and Urba n Development JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MTC Metropolitan Transit Commission NAPA National Academy of Public Administration Nbhd. Neighborhood NCDB Neighborhood Change Database NPA New Public Administration NPM New Public Management PAR Public Administration Review RPCGB Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham RSE Robust Standard Error RTD Regional Transportation District TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TCAB Tr ansit Citizens Adv isory Board TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery WCs White Communities WH White Neighborhoods

PAGE 15

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Public administration scholarship suggests that access to transportation is considered a necessary and significant factor in ensuring fair economic opportunities to the urban poor (see, for example, Stoll, Holzer, & Ihlanfeldt, 2000 ; Wellman, 2015 ) In contrast, e conomists posit that access to transportation is associated with increase d residential segregation, which leads to adverse social outcomes (see, for example, Cutler, Glaeser, & Vigdor, 2008). Thes e competing claims inspire key questions: To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time ? What performance mea sures are used to assess progress ? How are transit agencies held accountable for achieving social equity? Answering these q uestions contribute s to knowledge about social equity measures and performance measurement. Findings are also important for transit stakeholders and policymakers as they decide on issues related to economic opportunity and segregation in their local commun ities. The State of Social Equity Research Social equity equality in the formulation of public policy, distribution of public services, implementation of public policy, and management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contra c ). The study of social equity was established at the first Minnowbrook Conference near Syracuse University in 1968. Scholars g athered to discuss unjust government action erupting across the United States. When citizen led e ffor ts gained traction, scholars joined the mov e ment to address injustice The concept has diffused into public administration and policy theories since that foundational convening.

PAGE 16

2 Equity scholars have since examined t he status of women and minorities in the public sector, building theories of representative bureaucracy ( Rosenbloom, 1983; Rehfuss, 1986; Lewis, 1988 ). Perry & Wise (1990) conceptualize d social equity as a normative motive of public sector professionals Sc hneider & I ngram ( 1993) argue d that powerful, positively viewed target groups justify their receipt of public services by emphasizing efficiency and minimizing equity based rationales. Brewer & Selden (2000) include d the admi nistrative values of efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness in their organizational performance typology Such application s demonstrate how s ocial equity factors in to all stages of the policy process. S ocial equity has also been presen t ed as one of the pillar s of public administration (Frederickson, 1980; 1990) Svara & Brunet (2005) support this claim by outlining the qualities that constitute a pillar. Frederickson (2010) argues that it must be balanced with the pillars of efficiency and economy. Gooden & Portil lo (2011) bricks and/or options of new building materials to the pillar of social equity research p. i67). This commitment has brought social equity from a special conference topic to a McCandless, 2012, p. S12). But s ocial equity remains undervalued and understudied d espite five deca des of attention. This is evident in reviews of Public Administration Review (PAR) one of the premier journals in the field. PAR published just 54 equity based articles from 1940 1969, but almost 800 articles have appeared since 1969 (Guy & McCandless, 2012). A more granular look at publication records by decade provides a more compelling picture Social equity research grew from 3.6% of PAR in the 1 960s to 6.3% in the 1970s, but it fell back to just 3.1% in the 1980s. Raadschelders & Lee (2011) found that the efficiency driven New Public Management (NPM) movement has dominated the study and practice of public

PAGE 17

3 administration ever since to the detrimen t of equity research. While there has been an upsurge since the 1990s less than 5% of all PAR articles have focused on social equity in the past 75 years (Gooden, 2015 a ). In comparison, the top three t opics that have dominated PAR articles include public management (17%) policy (13%), and organizational studies (10%) (Raa dschelders & Lee 2011) Empirical publications on social equity have also been deemed inadequate (Pitts, 2011). PAR does not represent the entirety of adm inistrative scholarship, but takes the pulse of the most pressing topics over time. T hese publication trends show that social equity research has battled against competing emphases This suggest s three key points S ocial equity is an important area to study it is gaining attention as a pillar of the field, and the subject commands further investigation. This study addresses such a need. I must first acknowledge the methodological barriers that have prohibited further development of social equity resear ch Methodological Barriers Several barriers have prevented the growth of social equity research. The opposing value of efficiency has overshadowed equity in scholarship for decades. Efficiency can be operationalized using a much simpler formula E fficiency is achieved when the most output result s from the least input. Foundational scholars used this formula to establish a robust literature on organizational workflow and productivity (Taylor, 1914 ; Fayol, 1916 ). Retrospective studies of Progressive Era performance measurement find that many contemporary principles were established during that time such as managing for results, government productivity, generalizable assessment across communities and accountability (Williams, 2003 ). Exami ning the roots of public administration illustrates the adoption of scientific and bureaucratic principles of municipal research firms, while c itizen centered

PAGE 18

4 approaches to public service fell within the realm of social work and other social sciences (Stiv ers, 2002) Emphasis on efficient public service delivery competed with equitable outcomes ever since The New Public Management movement in the 1980s especially contributed to this priority. Efficiency research grew in the 1990s, and performance measurem ent became an imperative (Behn, 1989, 1993, 1995). E fficien t government was deemed a direct competitor of equitable outcomes Scholars like Levine (1979) described an efficiency equity tradeoff when cutback management takes place. Selden, Brewer, & Brudney (1999) found the same based on their study of practitioners; they constructed a continuum of administrator values with managerial efficiency on one end and social equity on the other based on interviews. Stone (1997) argued that such a tradeoff is part of the distributional paradox inherent of all public policies Definitional clarity has been another challenge A concept must be well defined to study and s ocial equity is historically ill defined. Some might say that the only c onsensus is that scholars l ack agreement on its meaning (Frederickson, 2005) Critics have pushed for a more operational meaning of social equity that is measurable (Rosenbloom, 2005) 1 Unclear definitions have resulted in operationalization challenges. Rutledge (2002) contended that advancing social equity would require better measures In a keynote address to the American Society of Public Administration (ASPA) he argued: the profession still 1 I utilize the definition of social equity as adopted by the National Academy of Public of close to 800 peer elected fellows. Election is one of the highest honors for th ose engaged in the study or practice of public administration. The fellows are responsible for establishing the organization's policies and priorities and serving as advisers on panels, convened for each study, which issue the findings and recommendations.

PAGE 19

5 does not have good answers or acceptable strategies for policy implementation. A maj or weakness has been our failure as a profession to develop the quantitative tools, indicators, and benchmarks to define objectives and measure progre ss in pursuit of social equity (Rutledge, 2002, p. 391). discipline. What is e asiest to measure gets measured. Few have empirically examined s ocial equity because measure ment is perplexing (Pitts, 2011). N ormative measures must move beyond the traditional input output model (Ya ng & Holzer, 2006) They must address the complexity of governance as it relates to democratic values (Moynihan et al. 2011). This is a challenging task. Many barriers to social equity research have prevented its advancement. Values of efficiency and effectiveness have overshadowed eq uity for decades. The difficulty in defining and measuring equity complicated such studies. Further attempts were made to create an operational definition and framework to assess equity, but f ew performance measurement tools exist. Those in operation are n ot well understood in the field to date Advancement Strategies The examination and validation of measures is necessary for advancement of social equity measurement ( Rutledge, 2002; Johnson & Svara, 2011; Gooden & Portillo, 2011 ). Standing Panel on Social Equity developed a framework by which social equity can be measured. It consists of four categories. Procedural fairness includes the examination of problems concerning groups of people in procedural rights, treatment, and how elig ibility is determined within policies and programs. Access includes a review of the distribution of services across groups. It concerns who benefits from policies and programs. Quality considers the degree to which existing services are consistently provid ed and to whom. It

PAGE 20

6 also encompasses which services and benefits are processed for groups and individuals. Outcomes concerns social disparities between groups based on race, income, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and other minority traits (Johnson & Svara, 2011) Gooden (2015b) elaborates that scholars must move beyond measuring how much social inequity exists. She suggests a research agenda that utilizes access, quality, procedural fairness, and outcome measures to explain why inequities persist and to describe how to hold agencies accountable for advancing social equity with performance measurement systems. These two objectives make up the primary goals of this study. Scope and Context Public transportation is a useful context for exploring measures within the NAPA social equity framework. Municipal transit administrators have considerable familiarity with the concept of social equity (Wellman, 2015). They have also been required to submit equity analyses to receive federal funding since the passage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More than five decades of mandated measurement has led local transportation departments to have some of the most well developed performance measures systems ( Poister, 2005 ) that have been used to improve performance ( Poister, Pasha, & Edwards, 2013 ). Nonetheless the relationship between social equity and public transportation performance measurement has received scant attention. Prior research has focused on first tier cities that are largest i n population and gross domestic product (GDP), such as Chicago (Kain, 1968), New York (Kantrowitz, 1969), and Los Angeles (Logan, Zhang, & Alba, 2002). This study adds further understanding at a moderate metropolitan scope examining Metropolitan Statistic al Areas (MSAs) with populations of 5 million or less

PAGE 21

7 To provide a more disaggregated analysis, f our diverse cases (King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994) are further examined at the neighborhood level in this study. The Denver Aurora Broomfield, Minneapolis St. Paul Broomfield, Birmingham Hoover and Orlando Kissimmee Sanford MSAs were selected because they are moderately sized and vary on two key variables of interest: access to work by public transit and income segr egation. Although each MSA includes multiple secondary cities and suburban areas the remainder of this study refers to each by the largest city in population: D enver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando Each was selected to represent an MSA that has hig h access and high segregation (Denver), high access and low segregation (Minneapolis), low access and high segregation ( Birmingham ), or low access and low segregation (Orlando). 2 Study Goals and Research Questions The first goal of this study is t o explai n why inequities related to income inequality and income segregation persist in the context of local public transportation services The operational measure of access to public transit is utilized for this objective. It can provide empirical evidence of the complicating effects of increased access to a public service meant to provide greater physical, and thus social, mobility. Public administration scholars contend that increased access to public services is a sign of social equity (Lucy, Gilbert, & Birkhead, 1977; Garcia Zamor, 2009; Johnson & Svara, 2011). Some argue that increased access to work by public transit leads to greater economic opportunities ( Stoll et al., 2000; Wellman, 2015). Alternative economic liter ature suggests that the expansion of public transit is positively associated with higher residential segregation over time (Cutler et al., 2008; 2 Additional characteristics of interest are discussed in Chapter III.

PAGE 22

8 Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012). Spatial mismatch theory (Kain, 1968) provides further evidence that i ncreases in racia l segregation correlate s with longer co mmute times to work for low income and minority citizens. Such studies utilize segregation measures that have also been proposed as indicators of social equity in public administration (Wang & Mastracci, 2014). The se administrative and economic explanations compete. Does access to work by public transit increase or decrease economic opportunity ? If an increase then it may be an indicator of social equity. Does access to work by public transit associate with segregati on trends? If yes, it may also be an indicator of the reinforcement of social inequity. In other words, c an one determinant of social equity also correlate with social inequity? The first research question examines this tension by asking: RQ1: To what ext ent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time ? The second goal of this study is to describe how public transportation agencies are held accountable for advancing social equity. Understanding accountability requires the examination of performance assessment through measurement systems There has been little attempt to bridge social equity and performance measurement literature in the public management domain. R esearch has chiefly examined how to improve organizational efficiency (Gore, 1993; Hatry, 1978 ; 2014) or effectiveness (Cohen, 1993; Rainey & Steinbrauer, 1999). More recent studies have compared the extent to which equity is incorporated into performance measurement. Brewer & Selden (2000) found that federal managers ranked performance on social e quity below e fficiency, productivity, return on investment, and quality of work. Jennings (2005) discovered that 10 federal agencies failed to even consider how social equity impacts their mission Internal equity has not been achieved in

PAGE 23

9 examinations of the status of women and minorities in federal positions (Riccucci, 2009). S tudies linking indicators to policing performance have also found an inad equate focus on equity compared to the other two values (Coulter, 1980; Brunet, 2005; Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008 ; Charbonneau et al., 2009 ). This indicates that s ocial equity measure s are insufficient ly understood in performance measurement scholarship and practice alike Further examination is necessary T his study also contribute s to this body of literature by examining what leads transit administrators to assess social equity, what performance measurement tools they use, and how their actions translate into fairness for the people they serve. This leads to the second research question: RQ2: How do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? This chapter introduc es the importance and state of social equity research in public administration today Publications trends illustrate that there has been minimal growth in the study of fairness in acc ess, quality, procedural fairness, an d social outcomes in the past 75 years (Raadschelders & Lee, 2011; Gooden, 2015a) Several barriers to the advancement of social equity in scholarship and practice are identified. Inadequate indicators and performance measures (Rutledge, 2002) are the primary problem addressed in this dissertation. The social equity literature has evolved to a position in which questions of persistence and accountability are most pressin g. The next chapter reviews the evolution of this scholarship and explains how this study contribute s to those two areas in the context of public transportation init i atives

PAGE 24

10 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the evolutionary development of social equity research established by Gooden (2015b). I t is structure d into her five chronological periods to illustrate what is known, and what is yet to be known, when examining the lacuna between social equity and performance measurement literature in the context of public transportation As previously stated, examining this area can contribute to the need for more comprehensive benchmarks (Rutledge, 2002) and improved understanding of how administrators use assessment tools to capture performance in formation (Pitts, 2011; Gooden & Portillo, 2011) The first three sections discuss the state of scholarship based on the questions that were being addressed, as follows: 1) Understanding the context of equality (Pre 1960): This section provides an overview of the context for equality within the American a dministrative system. It notes little scholarly response to inequities prior to 1960. 2) Acknowledging inequality and constructing social equity questions (1960s 1980s): This section discusses the development of academic approaches to social equity beginni ng with the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968. 3) Assessing the existence of social inequity (1980s 1990s): This section reviews scholarship that identifies how much inequity exists over the past 50 years. The final sections revi ew two key questions that rem ain open for discovery today Gooden (2015b) proposes that scholars have been working to understand why social inequities persist (1990s 2000s). This relates to the first research question of this study The development of scholarly social equity measures is discussed in this section, and the definition and measurement of transit equity and segregation is provided. The key theories

PAGE 25

11 that explain the nature and extent to which factors impact economic opportunity and segregation are described and testable prop ositions are presented Gooden (2015b) notes that the most recent period of scholarshi p examines how to achieve accountability for social equity (2010s and beyond). This connects to the second question of this dissertation Th is chapter closes by discussin g 10 principles for overcoming barriers to assess social equity in practice. Distinguishing between Equality and Equity in Public Transit Foundational scholarship focused on context of public administration. The Declaration of Independence We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. most who m were not w hite, Protestant, property owning men. Citizens of a different race, class, and gender have bee n struggling for fair and equal trea tment under the law since the Constitution first outlined how individual liberties would be protected and for whom Literature in the first half of the 20 th Century aimed to understand this phenomenon in a nation that claimed to be a democracy (Follett, 1918 ; Schumacher, 1932; Waldo, 1952 ) The problematic nature of equality is evident in several passenger rail segregation cases that immediately followed the Civil War (Lemmon, 1953) and the landmark ca se of Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Homer Plessy was a man of mixed race who was arrested fo The court ruled th at it was within constitutional bou nds to provide separate railcar accommodations for white and b lack passeng ers if both cars were of equal quality The ruling legally required separate

PAGE 26

12 accommodations in public facilities It i.e. Jim Crow laws that sanctioned segregation of public restroom s schools, housing and trans it The enforcement of transit segregation over the next several decades illustrat ed the injustice inherent in separate but equal policies Palmore (1997) retrospectively notes that interstate travel made accessibility a major challenge for African Americans in the1880 1890s because states adopted different legal requirements for separation. A black passenger could board an integrated train in Chicago, sit down in her seat, and then be forced to another car or train once she crossed the Tennessee state line A white passenger could board t he same train while enjoying the privilege of staying in the same seat for her entire trip. Transit segregation may have been founded on the grounds of providing equal quality of rail cars but it made equal access ibility, and thus mobility, impossible. The implications of unequal mobility disproportionately challenged black Americans of all a ges across the United States for decades to come. Consider Brown v. Board of Education the ruling that dismantled school segregation A mobility issue motivated the case Oliver Brown was frustrated because his eight year old daughter Linda had to walk through a busy rail yard to board a bus, which took her 21 blocks to the scho ol that all black children were forced to attend home (Wishon, 2004) With the help of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Oliver fou ght school board policies that mandated unequal access and extra burden on his daughter in her journey to school. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, which decided that segregation in public education denied children equal educational opportunity in 1954. The ruling recognized how disproportionate spatial mobility resulted in unfair social consequences for people of color.

PAGE 27

13 Brown v. Board of Education formally connected the dots between spatial mobility and social mobility The U.S. government acknowledged an unfair advantage in education and other economic opportunities due to inequitable access. But public administration s cholars sca rcely examined such phenomena despite the endurance of discrimination and the mounting dispr oportionate outcomes The discipline remained silent on the issue throughout the 1950s. Some examinations of the implementation of segregation began to recognize the adverse outcomes, such public housing projects in Chicago (Long, 1957). Others conducted e xtreme case Honolulu because which did not exhibit racial segregation patterns. Thus, s ome scholars began to ask why sorting existed in some cities and not others. They began to explore how decision making im pacted social outcomes. Yet, the literature rarely recognize s the impact of judicial decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and how they affect public administrators There was no nod to Rosa Parks when she refused to give her seat to a w hite man, inspiring a mass protest of public transit segregation known as the Montgomery Bus Boycotts. Scholars of the time paid no attention to the Supreme Court ruling in Browder v. Gayle which deemed that laws requiring segregation on public buses unconstitution al in 1956. Only recently have scholars discussed the importance of such decision upon policy implementation and public administration today (Henderson, 2004). From Homer Plessy on the train to Rosa Parks on the bus, scholars struggled to understand how th e concept of equal ity fit into democratic ideals for 60 consecutive years They began to recognize the historical, structural, economic, political, geographic, and cultural dimensions of injustice toward the end of this period of social struggle (Gooden,

PAGE 28

14 2015b) Including such factors brought forth a different conception of fairness and justice, or social equity P rotests erupted to speak out against government institutions that failed to fulfill their oath. Equality marches for African American s led to policy change on a larger national level. Grassroots efforts led to evaluation of and enactment of new polic ies began to address inequality The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that outlawed discrimination within the realm of voting, education, and employment. The segregation of public accommodations was also ruled unconstitutional, and federal agencies were charged with instituting practices to reduce disparities in public service delivery. Discussions of e quity thus came to the forefront of scholarly discourse toward the end of the Civil Rights Movement. Constructing Transit E quity Questions The next era of scholarship drew from democratic p hilosophies to construct social equity questions. Waldo (1948) inspired a new generation of research when he challenged And 20 years later, he initiated the first Minnowbrook Conference in 1968. Waldo was on e of few participants over the age of 35. The strategy was to involve only young, innovative scholars that were coming of age in an era of unrest. Waldo thus inspired the next generation of scholars hip to examine the inherent tension between achieving demo cratic ends through bureaucratic means. When q uestions started being posed through the lens of social equity, the New Public Administration (NPA) movement was born Around the same time Rawls (1971) A Theory of Justice put forth an argument that society must be founded on fair distribution of goods He specifically proposed two

PAGE 29

15 the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example inequaliti es of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in As previously discussed, this conception of social justice as betw een equality and equity Moving forward the NPA literature began to build on classic A newfound emphasis was placed on developing a modern theory of government that effectively equalizes the distribution of public services amongst citizens fro m racial, ethnic, class, and other minority backgrounds that are disadvantaged due to generations of historical oppression. Scholars hip began to acknowledge that public administrators seldom considered the unfair treatment of women and minorities when designating program beneficiaries (Frederickson, 2005 ). The civic discourse that took place at Minnowbrook led to a Public Administration Review ( PAR ) in 1974 (Frederickson, 1990). The issue recognized the importance of a pplying a normative lens to the study of public administration. Scholars realized they must consider the historical, political, social, geographic, and structural components that affec t opportunities of different target groups to varying degrees. They recognize d that not everyone begins life with the same opportunities at the same starting point. Social equity research consequently investigated the distribution of government services t o determine which groups w ere considered versus those whose voices were left unheard (Chitwood, 1974). It also examined the degree to which public administrators were committed to advancing social equity (Hart, 1974) and whether women and minorities were

PAGE 30

16 treated fairly within public personnel systems ( McGregor, 1974; Cayer & Sigelman, 1980 ). The discussion began to transition from asking how to make equal opportunities available to realizing th Campbell, 1976). Fairness became a more appropriate priority based on the times The NPA movement thus set a renewed course in scholarship by identifying a set of values that were overshadowed by scientific management, efficiency, and public sector product ivity Frederickson (1976) argued that NPA had a rich history that was founded in Its emergence was made possible through a shift in the v alues of efficiency to humanism, responsiveness, participation, administrative responsibility, decentralization, democracy, and social equity As theoretical attention to social equity was gaining merit, public t ransportation services were first becoming question (Poister, 1975) Scholars approached it as a complex policy problem. Poister (1982) found that new ly developed transit accommodations for elderly and the disabled were not efficient, effective, and did not respond to real needs of those populations. He called on others to determine if such issues pertained to the domain of transportation, civil rights, or both. Subsequent scholarship has examined the performance of public transit in terms of efficiency, effectivene ss, and equity (Poister, 1997). Thus, r enewed values, philosophies, and objectives for public administration scholarship also led to a more comprehensive approach to research questions. The occurrence of Minnowbrook II (in 1988) maintained an eye toward the status of social equity research (Guy, 1989) Minnowbrook III (in 2008) offered a revised set of social equity questions that

PAGE 31

17 developed on site and were shared throughout the field ( Portillo 2011 ; Nabatchi, Goerdel, & Pef fer, 2011 ). Assessing the Existence of Transit Inequity Acknowled g ing underserved populations, and thus the presence of inequity in public service delivery was a vital first step. The next phase of scholarship aimed to understand how much inequity exists. A handful of policy and public administration scholars developed distinctive tools for measuring equity (Coulter, 1980; Blanchard, 1986). Still, m ost continue measuring social equity by drawing from five metrics that have been validated o ver decades of application Wang & Mastracci ( 2014) describe five such measures, including the Blau Index, Gini Coefficient, Index of Dissimilarity, Herfindahl Hirschman Index, and the Theil Statistic. Each has a well established history in urban economics and regional studies research and deserves individual explanation. The Blau Index measures variation in categorical data. It is used to determine the level of diversity present among a group of individuals (Pitts, 2005). Administrative researchers have ap plied it to assess workforce diversity in the public sector (Lewis, 1994; Pitts, 2005; Choi & Rainey, 2010), on public and nonprofit boards (Grissom, 2009; Gazley, Chang, & Bingham, 2010), and amid citizens active in educational policy implementation (Resh & Pitts, 2013). The Gini Coefficient was developed to measure how distribution of income among households deviates from a perfectly equal distribution (The World Bank, 2015). It assesses how evenly the total earnings are distributed across residents withi n a shared geographic location. If earnings are concentrated within a small group of individuals ( e.g. the top 1%), the Gini Coefficient is high, indicating a n unfair distribution of wealth held in the hands of

PAGE 32

18 the few. Scholars have utilized this measure to determine external equity outcomes, such as how evenly school district spending is distributed (Johnston & Duncombe, 1998; Moser & Rubenstein, 2002). The measure has also been used as a proxy to gauge internal equity in representative bureaucracy research (Meier & Nigro, 1976; Riccucci & Saidel, 1997). The Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI) measures the probability that two randomly selected individuals will be from different categorical group s ( e.g. white and black) It ranges from 0 1 and has typically been used to measure racial and ethnic diver sity. If it were applied in a metropolitan region a higher value would indicate more diversity within neighborhoods Public administration scholars hav e utilized the HHI as an indicator of external social equity in healthcare outcomes (Martin & Smith, 2005; Provan, Huang, & Milward, 2009) and social services (Graddy & Chen, 2006; Brewer & Walker, 2010). Other scholars have manipulated the measure to eval uate attention diversity or recognition of dissimilar topics on policy agendas (May, Sapotichne, & Workman, 2006; Boydstun, Bevan, & Thomas, 2014). The Theil Statistic has traditionally measured economic inequality, evaluating discrepancies between the distribution of income and the population in different income level groups (Conceio & Ferreira, 2000). Massey & Denton (1988) has also utilized it to assess racial diversit y Some public administration applications use the Theil Statistic to capture int ernal wage equity within STEM programs (Cozzens et al., 2005) and the external distribution of knowledge production across various policy fields in Brazil (Chiarina et al., 2014). Some have noted the potential of the Theil Statistic to measure equity in th e field but not utilized it in an actual empirical investigation (Pototski, 1999; Choi, 2009). The Index of Dissimilarity was developed to measure residential segregation. Consider the example of a city with 500 white residents and 500 black residents. Imagine that

PAGE 33

19 all w hite residents live on one side of a street running through the center of the city (Neighborhood A) and all b lack residents live on the other side of that street (Neighborhood B). The Index of Dissimilarity indicates the proportion of re sidents that would have to move to another neighborhood for white and black residents to be evenly distributed, or integrated. In this imaginary case, the Index of Dissimilarity would equal 100%. Dissimilarity has also been applied to measure employee disc rimination based on race, sex, and age (Hopkins, 1980). S cholars have more recently used it to assess occupational segregation, or to determine where between men and women working in the bureaucratic state (Kerr, Miller, & Reid, 2002; S need, 2007). Some have also used it to examine the extent to which nonprofit public services are evenly delivered across communities (Feiock & Jang, 2009). I conducted a systematic literature review to determine the extent to which scholars have either dis cussed or applied these five measures Search terms included: Blau, Gini, Herfindahl, D issimilarity, Duncan, Theil, index, equity, and measure. The terms were used both in isolation, and in combination with one another to screen the relevant scholarship. The top 10 journals in public policy and administration were included based on Google Scholar Metrics 3 These publication rankings were last updated in June of 2014. All journals were searched from their inception to the most present issues available in Fe bruary of 2015. A total of 184 articles were identified, reviewed, and categori zed. Table 2.1 provides the results of this review The journals are listed in their order of impact in the field. The 3 The h index of a publication is the largest number h such that at least h articles in that publication were cited at least h times each. For example, a publication with five articles cited by, respectively, 17, 9, 6, 3, and 2, has the h index of 3. The h core of a publication is a set of top cited h articles from the publication. These are the articles that the h index is based on as described at https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html#metrics.

PAGE 34

20 Journal of Public Administration Researc h and Theory has published the most articles that have applied these measures (2.9% of all articles). Still, only 0 .7% of all articles published in the top 10 journals over ti me have utilized such measures. Note that the results of this table include a rev iew of the five measures and their use as it relates to equity concerns. These five measures have been used to evaluate other phenomena in public administration, such as revenue diversity. Other applications outside the bounds of social equity were not in c luded in this review or in Table 2.1 Table 2.1. Social Equity Me asures in Top Public Administration Journals Journal Blau Gini HHI Theil Dissimilarity Total % of All Journal Articles Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4 1 17 2 4 28 2.9 Public Administration Review 6 11 4 3 11 35 .8 Public Administration 2 3 4 1 0 10 .2 Policy Studies Journal 1 8 10 0 4 23 .6 Governance 0 5 0 0 0 5 .4 Science and Public Policy 0 5 5 2 0 12 .3 The American Review of Public Administration 1 4 1 0 5 11 .6 International Review of Administrative Sciences 1 7 1 0 0 9 .4 Social Policy & Administration 0 45 0 0 0 45 .3 Public Management Review 0 3 3 0 0 6 .6 Total Articles 15 92 45 8 24 184 .7 % of Measures Used 8 50 25 4 13 100 Wang & Mastracci (2014) propose that the Theil Statistic and Blau Index are the most useful tools for administration scholars They offer multiple group comparisons Those two are also the most underutilized. Conversely, 50% of these articles utilized the Gini

PAGE 35

21 Coefficient making it t he most applied measure Social Policy & Administration published the most articles utilizing the Gini. Its most common use has been to measure income inequality in Europe (Calero, 2002; Greve, 2004; Lund, 2008) and Asia (Wong, 1995; Croissant, 2004). Few public administration studies hav e applied the Gini in the U.S. context. The Herfindahl Inde x was the second most utilized. Most articles that applied it were published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory and t he Policy Studies Journal The Index of Dissimilarity came in third overall, but it tied with the Gini Index as the most widely utilized measure in studies in the Public Administration Review Although the Dissimilarity Index was developed to measure resid ential segregation, no studies examine spatial segregation in the f ie ld to date based on the journals reviewed Most articles use Dissimilarity to examine internal equity measures like occupational segregation. This review suggests two potential findings o f note First, the public administration literature may lack application of social equity performance measure s The systematic review found 184 articles that have utilized these five measures Yet, that is less than 1% of all articles published in the lead ing policy and administration journals. As a point of comparison, searching Public Admin i s tration Review Effectiveness (1,234 results), Economy (1,024 results), and Equity (503 results). This review offers some support for shed Second none of these measures were utilized or di s cussed in the context of public transportation. Because mobility is a vital component of social equity, this is an important area to explore further with such measures. Two of these quantitative measures are of

PAGE 36

22 specific interest wh en assessing the existence of spatial mobility and social mobility over time : the Index of Dissimil arity and the Theil Statistic The Index of Dissimilarity evaluates the extent of spatial segregation in neighborhoods. Glaeser & Vigdor (2012) found that r esidential r acial segregation rose throughout the 20 th century due to a variety of federal policy mandates T he growth of racial segregation in the U.S. after Plessy v. Ferguson required segregated public transportation, education, housing, etc. Regulations disproved of mortgage loans in mixed race neighborhoods. Public housing service providers had discretion to restrict integration. Glaeser & Vigdor (2012) provide an illustrati ve chart of this growth, comparing black and nonblack Americans (See Figure 2.1). Figure 2.1: Black/Nonblack Segregation 1890 2010 (Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012)

PAGE 37

23 The gray line represents dissimilarity in America from 1890 2010. In 1970, a Dissimilarity measu re of almost .8 meant that 80% of residents would have to move for American cities to hav e an even distribution of black and n onblack residents. 4 The enduring segregation policies and inability to move to better neighborhoods barred b lack citizens from the same social and eco nomic opportunities enjoyed by w hites (Massey, Condran, & Denton, 1987). Yet, after the policy interventions provided by the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, racial segregation has steadily declined to the extent that Glaeser & Vi gdor (2012) Alternatively, American cities have experienced steady growth of residential segregation based on income for decades. Utilizing the Theil Statistic, Bischoff & Reardon (2013) found l ess than 10 % of American families lived in a very aff luent or very poor neighborhood in 1970. By 2009, 15% of families lived in one extreme or the other The tr end is more pronounced for b lack families compared to white R ecall that the Theil Statistic is a traditional measure of income inequality. Wang & Mastracci (2014) argued that it was a useful measure for because it provides a more disaggregated view. Figure 2.2 uses the Theil to illustrate the growing income gap by h ousehold since 1970 It illustrates that inequities still disproportionately affect people of color. In addition, rising inequality is also more connected to income today. Just as policies and programs led to changes in racial segregation in public and p rivate life it is logical to deduce that income segregation outputs are partially aff ected by administrative inputs. 4 The black line in Figure 2.1 represents Isol ation over time. It measures how isolated black people are from n onblack people. A measure of .6 sugg ests that 60% of people that a b lack person interacts with are also b lack.

PAGE 38

24 Figure 2.2: Income Segregation in American MSAs by Race : 1970 2010 Note: This chart was constructed with data from the following sources: Bischoff & Reardon, 2013; Galbraith & Hale, 2014 ; U.S. Census, 2014 The question that remains for public administration scholarship is why Why does segregation seemingly continue to rise for some communities of color but fall for others, despite policy interventions like Title VI? Why is economic opportunity falling, despite decisions to improve access? And why is income inequality rising more sharply for people of color, despite a nti discrimination policies? In other words, why does inequity persist despite decades of scholarship and policy intervention? Explaining Why Social Inequity Persist s Greater empirical attention is needed to explain why social inequity persists. Scholars and practitioners have attempted to advance social equity by promoting it as a pillar of public administration alongside efficiency, economy, and effectiveness (Frederickson, 1990; Norman Major, 2011). Some have promoted social equity in Masters of Public

PAGE 39

25 Administration programs with the thought that revised curriculum would advance public servants social equity in their actual work (Rice, 2004; Svara & Brunet, 2004; Rosenbloom, 2005). Others have developed a unified definiti on as previously noted. Still, n early 50 years since the emergence of NPA the sharpened focus on social equity has not resulted in equitable public service delivery for all. Discrimination has persisted well beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I njustice is evident in events like Hurricane Katrina (Stivers, 2007). While all levels of government failed to provide the proper services to primarily black residents after the levies broke, it is important to note that mobility played a major role in the disaste r days before Katrina hit land. Many residents that did not evacuate from New Orleans were low income, elderly, African American, caregivers, and did not own a car ( Henrici, Helmuth, & Braun, 2010 ). The evacuation order was set for those that could leave with their own vehicle. This was an unfair expectation since the primary role of government is to protect its people from di rect harm. Analysis conducted years after Katrina found that local governments across the U.S. still inadequately consider socially vulnerable groups in their emergency operations plans (Gooden, Jones, Martin, & Boyd, 2009). Inequitable access to physical mobility and the lack of programmatic change is but one reason why inequitable outcomes persist Scholars must now focus on exp la nation Gooden (2015 b ) proposes four measurement criteria that are useful to move from asses s ing how much inequity exists to explaining why She promotes t he conceptual framework of access, quality, procedural fairness, and outcome equity as developed by the Social Equity Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). These categories are capable of conceptualizing reasons for the lack of advanc ement.

PAGE 40

26 Access encompasses the degree to which services and benefits are available and to whom they are distributed. It is sometimes referred to as distributional equity. In the context of T emporary A ssistance for N eedy F amilies (TANF) services, Gooden (200 6) developed specific questions for agencies to evaluate this type of inequity. Using residual differences analysis, she suggests examining if there are racial differences in what type of employment is promoted to clients and who receives what type of educ ation and training. In the context of public transportation, Smirnova & Wellman (2016) proposed a few measures to assess inequitable mobility and accessibility such as : distance to bus stops, length of journey from origin to destination, and trip information acces s Quality considers if existing services are consistently provided and to whom. It also encompasses which benefits are provided to individuals. Brunet (2005) provided indicators that can be used to assess quality in the criminal justice s ystem. For instance, one can measure if defendants are given access to legal advisors in a timely manner and if they have repeat contact with the same advisor Another indicat or of quality treatment can be determined by comparing the inmate educational nee ds assessment to hours completed o f related vocational programs. Sharp (1986) also assessed quality by measuring whether citizens can demand excellence in public services and engage in their delivery Procedural fairness includes the examination of problem s concerning groups of people in procedural rights, treatment in a procedural sense, and how eligibility is determined within policies and programs. Hug (2011) notes various examples of related measures that exist in healthcare, such as which racial groups receive referrals to specialists. He found that 25% more Latino children and 60% more Latino adults experienced challenges in getting referrals for needed specialty care. Other studies have examined questions like whether

PAGE 41

27 citizen perceptions of procedural fairness impact satisfaction with local government decision making (Herian, Hamm, Tomkins, & Zillig, 2012) and procedural fairness within public sector regulatory agencies (Regens & Rycroft, 1986). Outcomes concern disparities amongst population groups based on minority status such as race, income, gender, socioeconomic status, and many more determinants. Measures indicate whether differences exist at an aggregated level upon the completion of a public program or service. Education pro vides a well documented example Stiefel, Schwartz, & Gould Ellen (2007) note that b lack and Hispanic students typically score from three quarters to one standard deviation lower than w hite students on academic performance tests. Such disparities based on race, class, and gender are commonly referred to as the achievement A growing number of scholars are promoting social e quity measurement based on these four criteria (Wooldridge & Gooden, 2009; Gooden & Portillo, 2011; Norman Major, 2011). But s ocial equity is just beginning to be explored in these terms. This study utilizes this framework to examine the extent to which access to public transportation impacts the persistence of inequitable social outcomes like income inequality and income segregation Administrative Explanations Providing populations with access to transit is vital to securing opportunities in urban life The Civil Rights Move ment of the 1960s propelled the dismantling segregated policies. Citizens without the means to purchase their own vehicles have depende d on public transit since the rise of large urban cities. The distribution of public buses and rails across a metropolita n area thus determines who benefits from education, workforce development,

PAGE 42

28 healthcare, and other f orms of public assistance. And m etropolitan areas have experienced dramatic changes in transit over the last century to accommodate for this public need. Var ious policy developments have altered the built environment, transforming the way that people move throughout urban areas. In 1888, the first streetcar systems were introduced on American city streets. Slater (1997) notes that the first half of the 20 th Century then saw a rapid expansion and reliance on streetcar lines in major urban areas in concert with rapid urbanization, better worker wages, and low fares. However, ridership soon began to shift. The automobile industry exploded in the Progressive Era with mass produced vehicles becoming more and more available throughout the 1920s. Modern motorbuses were also released. Thus, while streetcars provided 100% of transit in 1914, just 4% of transportation took place on the rails by 1937. The Great Depres sion had a major impact on transportation infrastructure. There was little ability to finance the maintenance and expansion of rails in large cities in the 1930s. In cities like Chicago, most streetcars were eliminated by the 1950s (Barrett, 2001). The pos t WWII housing developments also triggered a mass exodus to new suburban areas beyond urban centers. Railways were replaced by roadways that enable d automobiles to move freely and abundantly from the suburbs to the inner city. It changed the way cities wer e maintained, built, and developed for decades to come. The automotive takeover led to a major need for more sophisticated roadways, which resulted in multiple transit policy developments. After President Dwigh t Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway A ct of 1956 into law, an unprecedented expansion of highway infrastructure emerged across the country. It was the largest American public works project

PAGE 43

29 to date (Weingroff, 1996). It also set off a surge of federal policies to address the growing transit iss ues that local governments were increasingly struggling to address. Although car ownership was increasing, there was still a need for alternative methods of transportation. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 set aside construction funding for publ ic and private rail projects and established the Federal Transit Administration. The National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 provided additional federal support for rail expansion to cover operating costs. President Ronald Reagan later signed t he Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which set aside funding to better maintain and repair highway and public transit system infrastructure. In the 1990s, another shift occurred with the advent of sustai nable development practices. P ublic tra nsit became a means to reduce carbon emissions, improve economic development opportunities, and enhance the quality of life in major cities. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 called for an increase in alternative fuels and more energy efficient practices. In 1 998, President Clinton signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century, which focused on enhancing economic vitality, environmental protection, public safety, better connectivity, historical preservation, efficient operations, and accessibility. Since 2000, a more local policy movement has caught on at the state and local level as well. The State of California passed the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, which called on metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) througho ut the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through transportation and land use planning initiatives (Air Resources Board, 2016). Transit Oriented Development (TOD), characterized by dense, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods established around rail syst ems became a popular method across the political spectrum for achieving such targets (Carlton, 2007). The

PAGE 44

30 Great Recession also impacted transit, forcing many to travel by bus and rail that had never done so before. A great proportion of people realized the benefits and convenience and stayed with alternative transportation even when they could afford to drive (Vock, 2014). The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) boasted record ridership 58 years after the Federal Aid Highway Act (Vock, 2014). Miller (2016) reported a record 10.8 billion trips took place on public transit networks across the United States in 2014. Furthermore, the increasing use of public transit has grown more than travel by automobile, d e spite population growth, since 2000 ( A merican Public Transportation Association, 2014). The growth in transit has led to m ore r ecent study on the development of transit perfo rmance measures that address mobility, quality of life, economic development, environmental enhancement, and community d evelopment outcomes (Poister, 2005). Further studies have found that such performance measures have in fact been used and increased effectiveness in small and medium sized transit agencies in the U.S. (Poister et al. 2013). But t ransit policy remains inequitable for minorities and the urban poor in many cases as evidenced in literature on transit dependent citizens When bus and rail lines are developed to provide more convenient access to higher income communities (Garrett & Taylor, 1999) inequity persists When commute times to social ser vice agencies are shorter from w hite neighborhoo ds than primarily Hispanic and b lack communities (Dorch et al., 2010), inequity persists. When individuals must purchase their own vehicles to travel to educational, employment, and other health care related opportunities (Lutz, 2014) inequity persists Scholars have more recently begun to examine how public servants ensure equitable access to transportation They stress the influence that government can have on outpu ts and

PAGE 45

31 outco mes. For instance, Wellman (2015) notes power over the life chances and outcomes of poor populations as transit administrators; their selections between policy alternatives determine which jobs transit dependents can access and when, how much they must pay for transit, how long they must spend en route to ibility to public transportation is a building block of more equ itable social outcomes Increased a ccess is thus concept ualized as a positive element that signifies social equity (Johnson & Svara, 2011). It represents a form of external social equity (Brewer & Selden, 2000) The public administration perspective therefore suggests that access to public transportation represents advancement of social equity by ensuring more fair services for all. I ncreased access and physical mobility should thus lead to more opportunities that offer social mobility and higher earning potential. Yet, the distribution of wealth has also dramatically shift ed in the last century For example, Saez & Zucman (2016) utilized income tax data to determine the total household wealth possessed by the top 0 .1% of families in from 1913 2012. They found a leveling off after World War II through the 1970s. Since then, wealth inequality has steadily increased across ho useholds, approaching levels akin to those immediately preceding the Great Depression. Similar trends are apparent in income inequality measures (See Figure 2.3) In the 20 th Century, inequality first peaked around 193 0. At that time, the Gini was .5, mea ning 50% of the population held a majority of all income in the U.S., while the other 50% accumulated little to none (Babones, 2012). This was followed by a more even distribution of wealth across the American population beginning in 1940. Since 1980 both measures have increased As of 2000, the Gini was .63, meaning a majority of wealth was

PAGE 46

32 held by 63% of the U.S. population. The Theil values should be interpreted in comparison across years, which shows how they follow the same general trend. Potential re asons for a greater share of income in the hands of fewer Americans have been proposed, including middle class wage stagnation, declining wages for low income workers, and tax policies that favor wealth accumulation by a small proportion of citizens (Mishe l, Gould, & Bivens, 2015). Figure 2.3: American Theil Index and Gini Coefficient: 1920 2013 Note: This chart was c onstructed with data from Frank ( 2016 ) This study therefore examines the extent to which increased access is associated with economic opportunity (operationalized as income inequality). The normative ideal behind the administrative literature suggests that opportunity should increase as access incre ases. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013 Theil Index Gini Coefficient

PAGE 47

33 Income inequality in neighborhoods should thus fall over time This administrative explanation is therefore tested through the following proposition: Proposition 1: As access to work by public transportation increases economic opportunity in crease s over time Testing this proposition can offer a greater understanding of the relationship between transportation equity and economic opportunity through a public admini stration lens It offer s understanding of the extent to which income inequality change s at the neighborhood level depending on transit access over time This can provide generalizable insight into one reason why inequity may persist over time based on the decisions of transit administrators Economic Explanations Extant e conomic theory contends with the normative proposition of administrative scholarship any low skill jobs followed the develop ment of suburban shopping malls and restaurants Those employment opportunities were therefore no longer located in urban centers where most low income residents remained. Kain (1968) later recognized a pattern at the peak of se gregation in which low income, b lack workers lived in segregated neighborhoods that were in distant proximity fro m potential work He theorized that residents were inadequately connected to jobs due to inefficient public transportation routes and schedules. He found support for this hypothesis in Detroit and Chicago. The correlation between the location of low income and minority households and remote employment opportunities became known amongst economists as spatial mismatch theory. Various scholars have examined this relationship since the 1960s, offering evidence of spatial mismatch (Kain, 1992; Stoll et al. 2000 ), findings that dispute spatial mismatch ( Jencks & Mayer, 1989; Holzer, 1991), and strategies to curb spatial mismatch through

PAGE 48

34 transit and other policies (Wilson, 1987; Blumenberg & Manville, 2004). Access to transit including the cost of fares commute times, and learning cost s (Moynihan, Herd, & Harvey, 2014) of acquiring information about jobs that are far from where individuals live have contributed to spatial mismatch for decades (Gobillon, Selod, & Zenou, 2007). This is evident in the degree to which income segregation continues to rise across the United States in general (Bischoff & Reardon, 2013). Therefore, policy recommendations have called for an expansion of public transportation to low income and minority neighborhoods (Holzer, 1991; S nc hez 1999). Equitable transit development has long been deterred despite such attention. Early public transit systems focused on serving more suburban communities, including white collar workers who traveled to work in urban centers. Although the rise of t he automobile allowed suburbanites more independent travel, public transit systems have also led local government actors to prioritize profitability over public need (Farmer, 2011; Zuk et al., 2015) D iminishing fiscal health of cities has pressured plann ing departments to develop rail projects that promote business and tourism. For example, Farmer (2011) notes that the Chicago Loop development exemplifies a system that has prioritized access for people seeking major destinations like Millennium Park, Mich igan Avenue shopping, and the income housing out of the city center and into the periphery. Alkadry, Blessett, & Patterson (2015) noted a similar effect based on housing and transportation policies that favore d businesses and white residents in the small city of Overtown, FL, an African American neighborhood near Downtown Miami. Incorporating a temporal view of the impact that access has on the urban landscape thus adds another dimension There has historically been a positive association between the

PAGE 49

35 expansion of public transportation systems and the growth of residential segregation of minority and low income populations over time A s public transit usage increases, res i dential segregation increa ses in l arge metropolitan areas ( Cutler, Glaeser, & Vigdor, 1997; Cutler, Glaeser, & Vigdor, 2008 ). This is important because s egregation is significantly related to other dimensions of economic opportunity over the life course For instance, Grady (2006) found that African American segregation in New York City is positively associated with low inf ant birth weight Others have found that those born at a low birth weight h ave lower education attainment and earn less in their adult life (Conley & Bennett, 2000 ; Behrman & Rosenzweig, 2004 ). Relatedly, Wil liams & Collins (2001) found health disparities in racially segregated neighborhoods due to less access to education and employment. Where people live affect s their economic and social wellbeing. S imi lar results have been illustrated in economically segregated neighborhoods Adults aged 30 and older living in concentrated poverty areas in the 30 largest cities have a n elevated mortality risk even after contr olling for income (Waitzman & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, in the Moving to Opportunity program, in which residents moved from high poverty neighborhoods to lower poverty neighborhoods, showed improvements in long term physical health, mental health, and sub jective wellbeing. Notably, outcomes were worse when accounting for higher levels of r ather than racial segregat ion (Ludwig, et al., 2012). The se administrative and economic explanations reveal a seeming paradox Public administration scholars contend that increased access to public transportation is a sign of social equity. Economic scholars contend that expansion of public transportation systems significantly relates to the rise of residential segregation which creates barriers to jobs, education, he althcare, and other public services Such outcomes are a sign of social inequity.

PAGE 50

36 This is a critical tension that has not been examined by scholars on either side of the aisle. This dissertation seeks to understand this tension by examining the second proposition : Proposition 2 : As access to work by public transportation increases, residential income segregation increases over time Testing this proposition enhances understanding of the relationship between social equity and segregation from the standp oint of public administration It determine s if and how the outcome is related to the expansion of access to transportation, which is conceptualized as a measure of social equity. This provide s a generalizable view of one reason why inequity persists over time. Does one means of promoting social equity (through increased ac cess to public transit ) result in increased segregation ? If so, one form of social equity may cause additional in equity issues to emerge. In sum, American metropo litan regions have experienced a general upward trend in public transit use, income inequality, and income segregation since the 1970s. N ational data provide s evidence of these pattern s. However, this is not true of all MSAs. More can be discerned by exami ning different cities and neighborhoods within those cities. For instance, Seattle, New York, and San Antonio experienced more than a 15% increase in transit access and use between 2006 and 2012. However, Cleveland experienced approximately 30% reduction in the same period Fry & Taylor (2012) identified the Residential Income Segregation Index (RISI) between 1980 2010 in the 30 largest American metropolitan areas. They rang ed from a reduction of 1 (in Minneapolis and Orlando) to an increase of 29 (e.g. Houston). In other words, several metropolitan areas have maintained an outlier status, exhibiting declines. It is thus important to further examine how some cit y level admin istrators have achieved more equitable outcomes while others have struggled to achieve positive neighborhood change

PAGE 51

37 Describing How to Achieve Accountability for Transit Equity While questions of persistence examine why inequity remains, investigating h ow equity can be advanced falls into the arena of accountability research final question asks: Accountabi lity can be defined as public agencies and their workers manage the diverse 228). Public servants are responsible for assess ing monitor ing, and verifying that they treat all citizens with f airness, justice, and equality. Accountability is thus a key driver of social equity scholars hip today Studies exploring the relationship between social equity and accountability emphasize negative consequences of managing for results Data from the Gover nment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) provides an opportunity to explore this association. Jennings (2005) reviewed federal department performance measures required by the GPRA, finding that only 6.1% of results within the systems considered social equi ty. Wichowsky & Moynihan (2006) evaluated the federal level Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and found that it fails to consider equity aspects of performance. Such studies illustrate that federal tools provide little unde rstanding of how accountabili ty can be achieved. Local level examinations provide similar results Yang (2007) found that 21% of public administrators perceive performance measures to improve equity based outcomes while 79% report using measures to increase the efficiency of their agencies Warner (2010) contends that this im balance cannot maintain S he suggests that the future of local government will move from public private partnerships to models that balance accountability, efficiency, and equity.

PAGE 52

38 Other local government research has looked at the extent to which social equity indicators are relied upon in the context of policing (Coulter, 1980; Lovrich, Steel, & Hood, 1986; Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008; Brunet, 2005 ). Many have looked at single st atistics like arrest rates. Reid (2015) argues that single indicators are in adequate and encourages more comprehensive analytical tools that can be compared across jurisdictions. Multidimensional perspectives offer greater insight of what must be accounted for in individual departments. Furthermore, few cases illustrate how public agencies use performance measurement tools to achieve accountability for social equity within specific contexts The primary source of knowledge on this topic has been drawn from evaluation of the processes unde rtaken in individual cities like Seattle, WA. Gooden (2014) interviewed city employees to discuss the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) that was established in 2004. Her in depth case study provides a background on the program development, objectiv es, how the RSJI was implemented across every city department and involved training all city employees, the acknowledgement of institutional racism, examples of department work plans to achieve greater racial equity, and results that illustrate the impact this intervention has had both internal to the City of Seattle departments and externally upon residents. Other case studies have described best practices for advancing social equity through sustainability initiatives. Svara, Watt, & Takai (2014) conducted case studies tied to inclusive citizen engagement, providing equal access to public services, and strategically designing more livable neighborhoods. Their findings suggest that the long term sustainab ility of populations requires better access to service s like housing, jobs, and public transportation. Gooden (2015b) notes that further case study research is needed to understand what specific

PAGE 53

39 indicators and tools are most useful and how they are used to evaluate administrative actions and progress. The log ic for case selection at each level of analysis is next described through the discussion of various measurement tools. Transportation Performance Measurement Tools Expansion of public transit systems has become prominent across major cities There are sev eral justification s for such development. It has been linked to increases in community connectivity ( Mathur & Srinivasan, 2009 ), better air quality ( Emison, 2006 ), reduction in congestion (Albalate & Bel, 2009) and a driver of economic performance ( Hall, 2007 ). Metropolitan areas have utilized these findings as justification for the expan sion of public transit in their respective jurisdictions Jurisdictions have also developed context ual measures to assess performance as it relates to transportation equit y Departments have been required to conduct analyses under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as previously discussed Wellman (2015) found that transit administrators often refer to Title VI in discussions of social equity, and interviews with such in their transit agency administrators allies who understand, discuss, and seek social justice The emphasis placed on social equity is evident in the types of goals and measures that cities use to assess transportation performance Table 2 .2 list s several transit oriented tools and performance measures that have been developed at the local, state, and federal levels Cities lik e Denver, Portland, and Atlanta have instituted a regional equity atlas tool that focuses on access to resources and opportunities. These tools offer mapping capabilities at the neighborhood level. Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Transit

PAGE 54

40 Administration (FTA) have also produced performance measures that focus on transit accessibility. Each is designed for decision makers, planners, and other government personnel charged with transportation policy and program de velopment and implementation. Table 2. 2. Transportation Equity Tools and Measures Agency Tool Description Atlanta Regional Commission Equitable Target Area (ETA) Index Used as input for project prioritization and evaluation, monitoring resource allocation, and assisting in decision making (Source: www.atlantaregional.com/transportation/commun ity engagement/social equity) Denver Regional Council of Governments and MileHigh Connects Regional Equity Atlas Provides users with the ability to create m aps that depict the major origins and destinations in relation to the current and future transit network. Emphasizes access to opportunity and improving connections for the most economically disadvantaged. (Source: www.denverregionalequityatlas.org) Envir onmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures Describes 12 performance measures that can be used in decision making, from transit accessibility to bicycle and pedestrian level of service. Presents possible metric s, summarizes analytical methods and data sources, and illustrates its use by one or more transportation agencies (Source: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/guide sustainable transportation performance measures) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Accessibility In dicators of Social Equity Accessibility is used as a measurement tool to assess the link between social equity and the built environment. It accounts for both land use patterns and a transportation system (Source: www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Report_No._0 066.pdf) Portland Metro Region Equity Atlas 2.0 Mapping Tool Evaluates how well different neighborhoods and populations can access the resources and opportunities necessary for meeting their basic needs and advancing health and wellbeing (Source: https:// clfuture.org/equity atlas)

PAGE 55

41 Gooden (2014) proposes that a feeling of disparities is one of the key reasons that practitioners often fail to assess the level of racial equity in their services. She argues that public administrators have a responsibility to address inequities. The first step is to acknowledge them. The existence of performan ce tools and measures in Table 2 .2 suggest some entities are taking a step toward that acknowledgement. But the act of measurement does not guarantee that the information collected wil l be used in any meaningful way (Moynihan, 2008; Moynihan & Pandey, 2010). Examining how transit administrators come to the point of using these tools c an provide more robust insight into how accountability is achieved. The tools have the power to provide data that may be useful to decision makers, public administrators, program managers community groups, and beyond Information can be utilized in planni ng efforts because measures are in context. Gooden (2014) proposes 10 fundamental principles that can guide administrators in addressing social inequity, and the extent to which these exist in the practitioner based transit equity measurement arena is the next phase of this investigation. Ten Principles Investigated Th e second stage of this study examine s a part of the process of achieving accountability by exploring 10 principles for conqu ering nervousness I examine the extent to which each principle is embodied by transit agencies in their performance measurement operations The following list outlines each principle and discuss es how it is connected to the broader tra nsportation equity literature. 1. Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government. This principle asserts that organizations must consider, examine, promote, distribute, and evaluate relevant minority groups in public service

PAGE 56

42 delivery. Previous interviews with transit administr ators suggest they are aware of the concept of social equity (Wellman, 2015). This study explore s whether administrators charged with transit equity feel such a responsibility. 2. The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be mini mized, but rather offers instructive guidance This principle stresses that administrators must admit the historical legacies of discriminat ion in policies and practices to identify where change is needed. Previous quantitative scholarship has provided emp irical evidence of the impact inequitable transit policy has had on minority and low income populations over generations ( Garrett & Taylor, 1999 ). This study determine s if transit administrators also learn from the past to inform future planning efforts in the four MSAs. 3. Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination of political, moral, legal, and/or economic triggers. Equity based initiatives are often motivated by factors that emerge beyond the organization. I ha ve repeatedly mentioned Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated city transit departments to conduct social equity analyses. This is one example of a legal trigger. Interviews with transit administrators enhance understanding of other political, m oral, and economic triggers for measuring equity in their respective regions. 4. Senior leadership is a critically important factor in realizing sustained progress. If those holding positions of power and authority value the advancement of equity, it leads to a culture in which organizational members can overcome the barrier of nervousness as well. Leadership and culture have a

PAGE 57

43 significant impact on organizational performance ( Bass & Avolio, 1993; Brewer & Selden, 2000 ; Brewer, 2005 ). While t he degr ee to which leadership impacts the assessment of equity in the context of transp ortation has been less explored, it is examined in this study. 5. At the individual level, public servants must recognize and eliminate behaviors that impede equity progress. Individual administrators vary in their propensity to discuss racism, sexism, and other forms of inequity in conversations, public dialogue, and formal meetings. This behavioral component of overcoming nervousness can impact the advancement of equity with in a larger organization. Related literature has examined how individual level determinants have consequences for organizational performance ( Kim 2005; Ca i llier, 2011) and decisions to address wrongdoing (Lavena, 2014). I nterviews provide further understanding of how individual public servants can impede or improve social equity outcomes. 6. At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluate their socialization boundaries and extend them to accommodate a wider range of equity work. Organ izations must expand the boundaries of public service work to reduce fear of participating in equity focused activities that induce feelings of nervousness. Every agency requires, permits, discourages, or prohibits specific actions of its employees. Cultur al paradigms have been found to guide the response of public sector workers to program results, personal experience, and performance information (Mahler, 1997; Moynihan, 2005; Moynihan, 2008) Such boundaries are explored in the case of transit performance.

PAGE 58

44 7. There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a race conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solutions. Gooden (2014) notes that workplace discussion about institutional indicator of progress because it can facilitate direct racial equity impact analysis of public sector policies and practices and the provision of public She argues that the challenge of imperfect policy and administ rative actions should not deter attempts for more equitable government. I nterview s with transit administrators determine the degree to which solutions for overcoming inequity directly address the systemic policies, practices, and structures that obstruct a dvancement. 8. E quity needs to operate in a context of accountability. Establishing benchmarks and initiating routine evaluation of procedural fairness, access, quality, and outcomes is a necessity for assessing performance and maintaining transparency. As performance measurement systems have grown (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005), transit departments have some of the most well developed metrics (Poister, 2005) that have been deemed useful in improving organizational effectiveness (Poister et al., 2013). The mov e toward more transparent assessment provides a rich context for exploring this principle in transit 9. If legal barriers to discrimination have been largely eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline equity work. When discriminatory policies and programs have been changed to mandate fairness, individual public servants will have greater

PAGE 59

45 discretion to address inequities above and beyond what is required D iscretionary au thority impacts the extent of public service that citizens receive (Lipsky, 2010) and whether service is just (Kelly, 1994) This study examines innovative actions taken by administrators when and if nervousness is overcome and equity is assessed. 10. Signific ant racial equity progress in government can be achieved. Gooden (2014) proposes that progress is possible based on her case studies of local, state, and federal agencies. This study builds on her proposition by examining these principles as they relate to social equity across four MSAs. Exploring these principles within public transportation can offer a more context specific understanding of how to hold agencies accountable to advance social equity. More o ver, e xamining how transit administrators assess social equity data also contribute s to the public management literature. Hatry (2014) notes that performance measurement can be made more relevant by embracing social equity analysis tools, noting: can be an important tool for examining who gets served and outcome equity ). Case studies have the power to illustrate the importance and opportunities to learn by disaggregating outcome data. The ability to achieve these results is next presented in the research design and met hodological approach

PAGE 60

46 CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the mixed methods social justice design (Creswell, 2013) that is used to explore the propositions and principles presented in Chapter II The q uantitative and qualitative research is conducted in two stages. This chapter describes the data sources collection techniques, analytic strategies and validity checks for each stage. It also discusses ho w the mixed methods analysis comp ares results to gain a further understanding of social equity persistence and accountability in Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. Mixed Methods Research Design The two research questions are investigated with mixed methods. The design entails a combination of data sources, pro cedures, concepts and techniques. Despite these elemental differences, the design is based on one philosophy of science: the critical ideological paradigm. Pontero tto, Mathew, & Raughley ( 2013) explain that this worldview assumes that reality is shaped by underlying social and political forc es. Phenomena are embedded in historica l power imbalances that re produce subjugated groups. This approach establish es a dialectical stance with respect to the researcher part icipant relationship that serves to empower the participants and stimulate transformation of oppressive conditions to more equitable ones In other words, this st udy aims to provide voice to the people bound by the historical reality of transit in equity and aid in the discovery o f methods that can empower historically disadvantaged groups that may suffer from the reinforcement of inequitable outcomes over time. M ixed methods are appropriate for this study based on Cre key challenges First, this research project allow s for exp lanation of statistical results by talking

PAGE 61

47 to people (i.e. administrators) that are responsible for achieving equitable results. Second, comparing the quantitative examination of the relationship between access and economic outcomes and qualitative findings of accountability strategies is justified. It determine s the extent to which the two analyses match. Thus, the rational e for mixed methods is t o c onfirm quantitative measures o f transit equity with the qualitative experiences of administrators liable for advancing access. Figure 3.1: Social Justice Research Design (Adapted from Creswell, 2013) 1

PAGE 62

48 Creswell (2013) social justice research design framework guides this study The epistemology upholds 2014 ), aiming to improve the status of historicall y underrepresented groups It is appropria te to address these two questions because it examines how qualitative data can further understanding of the quantitative results to explore inequalities. Figure 3.1 represents the explanatory sequential design E ach stage is conducted separately as outlined below, and results are compared in a final phase. Stage 1: Quantitative Assessment of Factors Impacting Persistence Stage 1 is variance based and examines how the factor of access to transportation relates t o the increase or decrease of two equity outcomes: economic opportunity and income segregation. It addresses the first research question: To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time ? Quantitative methods are needed to expla in this relationship in the metropolitan cases. The logic of case selection, data source, collection, and analysis techniques are thus provided. Logic of Case Selection Th i s study examines four moderately sized M SAs that differ on key variables of interest: access to work by transit and residential income segregati on. This is outlined in Figure 3.2 metropolitan rankings of Access to Jobs by Public Transit The list measures accessibility by the average time it takes commuters to get to work. It ranks the 46 largest MSAs in the ervatory, 2015). Denver and Minneapolis access because they are in the top 30% (ranked 1 1 4). Birmingham and Orlando access because they are in the bottom 30% (ranked 32 46).

PAGE 63

49 Residential Income Segregation Above Average Below Average Access to Work by Public Transit High Denver, CO Accessibility Ranking: 9 Segregation Index: 55 Minneapolis, MN Accessibility Ranking: 13 Segregation Index: 28 Low Birmingham, AL Accessibility Ranking: 46 Segregation Index: 58 Orlando, FL Accessibility Ranking: 42 Segregation Index: 22 Figure 3.2: Diverse Case Study Design In addition, the cases were selected based on income segregation. The Residential Income Segregation Index (RISI) was used to determine this point of selection The RISI is a valid and reliable measure developed by the Pew Research Center and used in other metropolitan analyses (Fry & Taylor, 2012). The measure determines the diversity of income across neighborhoods. It assesses the extent to which low income househol ds are located near high income households based on median income. The RISI ranges from 0 100. Fry & Taylor (2012) reported that the average RISI of large metropolitan areas is 46. Cases were selected based on whether the ir most recent index was above or b elow that average. The cases were also reviewed based on their demographic variation The goal was to select four diverse cases (King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994) to provide a more representative range of results. The most recent U.S. Census data from the 201 4 American Community Survey was utilized to determine this variation. This is indicated in Table 3. 1 (Census Reporter, 2014) In addition, the cases were selected to achieve the second goal of describing how transit administrators are held accountable for advancing social equity. This required further investigation of the historical, political, economic, and social trends to determine appropriate selection. The four MSAs are individually described including current equity initiatives and pe rformance tools in use to further justify their selection for this study.

PAGE 64

50 Table 3.1. Case Study Characteristics MSA Characteristics National Average Denver CO Minneapolis MN Birmingham AL Orlando FL Population (2010) NA 2,543,482 3,495,176 1,316,568 2,321,418 Access to Work by Transit 23 9 High 13 High 46 Low 42 Low Residential Income Segregation 46 55 High 28 Low 58 High 22 Low % White (Not Hispanic or Latino) 63% 65% 77% 66% 50% % Black or African American 13% 5% 8% 27% 15% % Hispanic or Latino 17% 23% 6% 4% 28% % Living Below Poverty 15% 11% 10% 18% 17% Median Household Income $51, 939 $66,870 $69,111 $45,745 $48,270 % 25+ with higher 34% 41% 40% 26% 29% Denver, CO Denver has commuter rail, light rail, and bus system services. The region has experienced substantial growth in transit projects since 1970. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) responded to rapid suburbanization by partnering with the City and County of Denver to expand transportation options for decades Denver most recently invested $5.3 billion into expanding public transit over the past 10 years (Proctor, 2014). Thus public transit ridership increased by nearly 15% between 2006 2012 ( Anbinder, 2015 ). Denve r now ranks 9 th in terms of access to work by public transit (Accessibility Observatory, 2015). Denver has also experienced variation in income inequality and income segregation over time At the city level, i ncome inequality can be assessed by examining t

PAGE 65

51 higher the ratio, the greater the income gap between the rich and the poor (Treuhaft, 2015). Between 2007 2014, the 95/20 ratio grew in Denver (Holmes & Berube, 2016). Concerning income segregation, the RISI also grew by 21 between 1980 2010 (Fry & Taylor, 2012). The City of Denver now has the fifth highest level of residential income segregation with a score of 55, which is nine points higher than the national a ver age. Income inequality and seg regation look different when examining the trends across Denver neighborhoods, however. Appendix A demonstrate s how the longitudinal trends vary w hen measured at the city level as comp ared to the neighborhood level. One cha rt displays the Dissimilarity element and the Theil element for one neighborhood in Denver. 5 In this neighborhood, segregation has remained at consistent levels, while inequality has decreased. The difference in city level trends provides room to explore t he extent to which public transit access changes are associated with economic changes at the community level. RTD also offers insight into how public transportation agencies are held accountable for achieving social equity. It has fulfilled the Title VI re quirements of conducting social equity analyses to receive federal funding. The agency has several transportation performance measures that are used to assess progress, and it has been recognized for instituting best practices for upholding transportation equity in the Denver Metropolitan Region (Florida Department of Transportation, 2014). It has gained national attention, and other transportation agencies have been advised to utilize GIS mapping tools first applied in Denver in their equity analyses (Regi onal Transportation District, 2015). 5 Individual neighborhoods were selected to illustrate variation for each MSA. T his is shown in all case descriptions in this section. Selection was not random. The first neighborhood that was listed in order (by georeference number) is provided in chart form for Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando.

PAGE 66

52 The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is also collaborating on an partnership of organizations from the private, public and nonprofit sectors that are com mitted to increasing access to housing choices, good jobs, quality schools and essential services via benefit from transit programs (Ely & Teske, 2014) while those that could benefit the most have inequitable access (Williams, 2014). The Denver Regional Equity Atlas is a performance measurement tool used to assess the needs and impacts of this initiative. Such activity provides grounds for rich interview prospects. Minne apolis, MN Minneapolis has commuter rail, light rail, and bus system services. Like Denver, the MSA has also experienced public transit development projects since the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) was established in 1967. Public bus service and sh elter expansion was the primary focus for the first several decades of the MTC. Rail expansion was debated throughout the 1970s 1990s. Development occurred at a slow pace; the first rail line started serving the public in 2004. Minneapolis now ranks 13 th out of the largest 46 cities in terms of accessibility to jobs by public transit (Accessibility Observatory, 2015). Income inequality is also on the rise in the region. The Gini Coefficient grew slightly between 2007 2012, from .43 to .44 (Maciag 2014). The 95/20 ratio also grew between 2007 2014, and Minneapolis became one of the top 10 most unequal cities in 2013 (Holmes & Berube, 2016). Minneapolis offers opposite segregation patterns than Denver, however The RISI was 28 in 2010 (Fry & Taylor 2010), 18 points below the national average. Furthermore, a decrease in segregation has only occurred in two of the 30 largest U.S. Cities:

PAGE 67

53 Minneapolis and Orlando. All other cities have experienced growth in residential income segregation since 1980. Th e index decreased by 1 point since 1980, when it scored 29. Minneapolis offers the opposite segregation patterns It has a low degree of resident income segregation. The RISI was 28 in 2010 (Fry & Taylor, 2010), 18 points below the national average. Furthe rmore, a decrease in segregation has only occurred in two of the 30 largest U.S. Cities: Minneapolis and Orlando. All other cities have experienced growth since 1980. The index decreased by 1 point since 1980, when it scored 29. Income inequality and segre gation also differ across neighborhoods. Appendix B demonstrates how the longitudinal trends differ at the city and neighborhood level s One chart displays the Dissimilarity element and the Theil element for one neighborhood in Minneapolis In this neighbo rhood, segregation has jumped while inequality has decreased. The difference in city level trends provides room to explore the extent to which public transit access changes are associated with economic changes at the community level. Minneapolis also util izes various measurement tools. Title VI Service Equity Cost Effective Index (CEI) has also been applied in planning efforts. The CEI measures the total cost of the t ransit system divided by the benefits to users. Recent reports suggest measures are used to improve transit performance. Szczepanski (2011) reported that the CEI was insufficient for Minneapolis to receive federal emerged in response to the inequitable development. Per the District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul and Minneapolis website regarding use of the CEI, a stron ger community, a more equitable public transportation

PAGE 68

54 overcame barriers and instituted processes to hold administrators accountable for the benefit of low income and min ority populations in the Minneapolis MSA. The Metropolitan Council (2014) released a recent study of note: Choice, Place, and Opportunity: An equity assessment of the Twin Cities Region The document reviews disparities in public services by minority statu s. It assesses opportunity amongst groups based on public transportation and offers public policies and responses that are necessary to alleviate poverty. These activities and tools offer rich understanding of the most recent policy and planning stages to date. Birmingham, AL Birmingham currently has a bus system that services the MSA. However, the region has a long public transit history beginning with t he Birmingham Street Railway Company in 1884. R idership increased until the mid 1920s, but like many American cities, drastically dropped thereafter. As transit needs began to surge throughout the 1960s, the Alabama State Legislature adopted legislation to develop public transit authorities across the state. The Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) was created in 1972. A marketing campaign in 1985 later led to adopt ion of for all BJTCA transit. Rapid expansion of services began in the early 2000s, and the entire bus fleet was repla c ed with more environmentally friendly compressed natural gas buses (Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority, 2014). Birmingham income inequality is one of the highest in the country. The American City Business Journals recently examined fo ur income disparity indicators across 102 MSAs. Ten percent of the MSAS illustrated greater income disparities in every category, including

PAGE 69

55 Birmingham. Specifically, West (2014) reports that Birmingham ranks: 13 th in the percent of income held by the top 2 0% of earners; 13 th in income inequality based on the Gini Index; and 22 nd for the highest rate of people living below the poverty line. Disparities are also more prevalent along racial lines. Today, black residents earn an average 29% less than white resi dents in the Birmingham metropolitan region (Cortright, 2015). Racial segregation also has a prominent history in Birmingham. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963) called it the most segregated city in America in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail The Birming ham Campaign in May of that year was a major turning point in the Civil white o restrooms, drinking fountains, desegregation of lunch counters, and efforts to im prove economic opportu nity for b lack and African American residents through policy and citizen advisory committees (Public Broadcasting Service, 2015). While racial integration has improved in the city since the Civil Rights Movement, income segregation particularly of peopl e of color has maintained over the decades. Even though the economic status of many black people improved in Birmingham, Massey & Denton (2010) found no change in the income segregation of the poorest and most affluent black residents from 1970 1980. Loo king beyond racial categories, Birmingham ranks second amongst large metros where the wealthy are most segregated from the poor, with a Gini Index of .58 (Florida and Mellander, 2015). Income inequality and segregation also differ based on the neighborhood Appendix C displays how the longitudinal trends differ at the city and neighborhood levels. One chart displays the Dissimilarity element and the Theil element for one neighborhood in Birmingham. In this neighborhood, income inequality has dipped, while i t has increased in

PAGE 70

56 the MSA overall. The difference provides room to explore the extent to which transit access has or has not been associated with neighborhood economic changes over time. The relationship between public transit, income inequality, and income segregation in Birmingham also has a long and entrenched history. Between 1956 1958, activists initiated the Birmingham Bus Boycott to dismantle segregation of the bus system to no legal avail. The region has also continually struggled with raising adequate funding to support the construction of important transit projects, which disproportionately hurt minority and low income communities ( S nchez Stolz, & Ma, 2003). Because the State of Alabama does not allocate funding for transit, Birmingham grea tly relies on federal funding from the Federal Transit Administration. Thus, Title VI analyses are also a familiar component for those involved in decisions to expand or reduce bus services. Furthermore the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingh am (RPCGB) (2015) recently adopted a Human Services Coordina ted Transportation Plan : to improve services for transportation disadvantaged individu als by ensuring that communities coordinate transp includes goals, demographic s a service inventory public involvement data a needs assessment, and strategies for improvement. In addition Section 5316 explicitly addresses access for low income residents In addition to Title VI activities, the RPCGB initiative offers a rich cont ext for exploring whether such planning processes administrators lead to more equitable actions and/or outcomes Orlando, FL The Orlando MSA has a bus system and recently gained a commuter rail line. The Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority has served Orlando since 1972. Lynx is a bus system that serves the area. Much of the transportation has been designed to service

PAGE 71

57 popular tourist destinations like Disney World and Universal Studios. The area ranked 42 out of 46 in terms of access to work by public transit (Accessibility Observatory, 2015). Walking is also problematic. Orlando was reported as the most dangerous metropolitan area in the country for walkability due to high speed traffic development paired with inadequate pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks (Ernst & McCann, 2002). Income inequality in Orlando has also been rising. The 95/20 ratio increased by 1.4 between 2007 2014 (Holmes & Berube, 2016). The region ranked in the top 10, with the bottom 20% earning $4,827 less after the recessi on whereas the top 5% earned 13,345 less. Like Minneapolis, Orlando scores low on income segregation. The RISI is 22, the lowest of the 30 largest American cities and 24 points below the current national average. T income segregation has also decreased by 1% since 1980 (Fry & Taylor, 2010). Income inequality and segregation also differ based on the neighborhood. Appendix D displays how the trends differ at the city and neighborhood levels. One chart displays the Dissimilarity and Theil element for one neighborhood in Orlando In this neighborhood, income inequality has dipped, while it has risen in the city overall. The dramatic difference between city and neighborhood trends again justifies why this study explore s whether transit access has or has not been associated with neighborhood economic changes over time. The City is required to measure equity as part of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. MetroPlan Orlando (2014) was adopted to ensure the region was complying with federal and stat e laws. It instituted a triennial review process to update demographic Title VI objectives. The document provides several measures and indicators and is used as a to ol to ensure more equitable outcomes in the Orlando area.

PAGE 72

58 Few to no grassroots initiatives have focused on transit equity in Orlando. Local officials recently partnered with PolicyLink and the Natio nal League of Cities to improve economic opportunities fo r young black men (EquityBlog, 2014). There has been little action beyond this summit. Compared to the other MSAs this minimal activity provide s another perspective on persistence and how it is addressed under such administrative arrangements. The followi ng sections outline methods for collecting data in each case. Unit of Analysis The relationship between social equity and public transit is explored at the neighborhood level in each case. The unit of analysis is the neighborhood. This study replicate s prior segregation research (Crowder & South, 2008; Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012; Ludwig et al., 2012) and use s census tracts to represent neighborhoods. Fry & Taylor (2012) point the study refer s The population of neighborhoods from each MSA amounts to: 619 in Denver, 766 in Minneapolis, 259 in Birmingham, and 379 in Orlando. These neighborhoods are inclu ded for five decennial census counts from 1970 2010. The pa nel dataset thus consists of : 2504 observations in Denver, 3510 observations in Minneapolis, 746 in Birmingham, and 1339 observations in Orlando. The sum of all observations for all cases equals 80 99. Data Source N eighborhood level d ata were extracted from the Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) from 1970 2010. The Urban Institute and GeoLytics jointly produce this tool. The Rockefeller Foundation started funding development of this product in the early 1990s and has offered ongoing support to update it with decennial U.S. Census data. The NCDB

PAGE 73

59 provides tract level data in normalized form, allowing comparison of 2010 tracts across all previous years. The NCDB includes roughly 1000 variables for each year at the Census tract level, such as population, household, income, and employment categories. 6 D ata reports were run from the NCDB and copied in to Microsoft Excel. T he appropriate equations were used to determine the annual segregation measures for each neighborhood in Excel Variables names are noted for future replication of this type of study using NCDB data. Data cleaning proceed ed with wild code checking (Singleton & Straits, 2010) to ensure consistency and to correct illegitimate values. Data was uploaded into Stata for management and analysis. Before conducting the analysis, logical commands were run to detect missing data and other mistakes that took place during transfer (UC Regents, 2016 ) Operationalization of Key Variables The section defines the key concepts and how they are operationalized. It also describes the types of common cause confounders (endogenous, moderators, and covariates) economic opportunity and income segregation (Glynn & Gerring, 2012, p. 2). Specifically, some factors may affect the independent variable but not the dependent variable, and vice vers a. This can get confusing to describe so a graphic is provided in Figure 3.3. The diagram follows the format guidelines of Glynn & Gerring (2012). The t wo propositio ns are represented with arrows. The first tests for changes in economic opportunity as a function of access to transit. The second concerns s egregation as a function of access to work by public. 6 The NCDB data are not pu blicly available. The Center for Local Government Research and Training purchased the NCDB and permitted access. There are various subcategories. For e, number of dwellers head of household, etc.

PAGE 74

60 F igure 3.3: Explanatory Diagram (Adapted from Gerring, 2011)

PAGE 75

61 The other factors represent specific variables that are controlled for in the analysis The remainder of this section outlines each variable in Figure 3.3. Types of confounders are also described in greater detail. The descriptions are provided to justify why certain control variables are included and to ensure that efforts were mad e to mitigate over or underestimation of the parameters included in the study. Dependent Variables Y 1 : Economic opportunity. The f irst dependent variable is economic opportunity. Public administ ration scholars have measured this concept in numerous ways. For instance, many have operationalized economic opportunity as labor force participation (Oaxaca, 1973; Connelly, 1992). Stoll et al. (2000) assessed opportunity by looking at the degree to which of low skill jobs were in proximity to neighborhoods where people with the appropriate skillsets lived Th is study uses income inequality as an indicator of economic opportunity. Previous longitudinal studies have used the Theil Statistic as a proxy measure in similar designs at the local level (Conceicao & Galbr aith, 2000; Beck, Levine, & Levkov, 2010; Hoover & Yaya, 2011). Wang & Mastracci (2014) also encourage public administration scholars to increase utilization of the Theil Statistic. This study thus applies the Theil, furthering greater quantitative assessm ent and validation Rutledge (2002) encouraged as well. This study use s the NCDB measure s from 1970 2010 to calculate the Theil Statistic e lement for all neighborhoods across the four cases the neighborhood specific measure, which is a micro level unit that is often summed to find the Metropolitan level Theil ( University of Texas Inequality Project, 2014). Because median income is a monetary variable, an inflation adjustment was made to ensu re the series is measured in constant dollars (Nau, 2016). C ost of living

PAGE 76

62 adjustments are important to consider across each city However, such differences are addressed through fixed effects since the analytic approach examines variation between neighborh oods rather than across MSAs. Y 2 : Income s egregation The second dependent variable is residential income segregation. While segregation c an be measured in several ways, this study utilize s the dimension of unevenness one of the most common ly applied indicators (Massey & Denton, 1988) Unevenness measures the extent to which one population subgroup is distributed in an area in proportion to another population subgroup T his dimension is selected to maintain consistency with scholars who continue testin g the relevance of this empirical distinction rest, 2007; M assey, 2012). For the metropolitan cases of Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando, the low income pop ulation for a given neighborhood tak es on the following equation: Where: h i i = the high income population of neighborhood i H I = the total high income population of the MSA l i = the low income population of neighborhood i L = the total low income population of the MSA Equation 3.1. Index of Dissimilarity Dissimilarity equals the proportion of low income residents that would have to relocate to higher income communities for integration to be achieved in a Metropolitan area. The Dissimilarity element is the neighborho od value that is typically summed to determine the index for the entire region. Because this study is interested in neighborhood variation, it utilizes the element at the census tract level. Values are typically less than 5.

PAGE 77

63 Independent V ariable Both propositions use the same independent variable: access to work by public transit. Previous studies have utilized singular measures such as commute times (Holzer, 1991; Accessibility Observatory, 2015) and budget allocations (Garret & Taylor, 1999) to deter mine public transit accessibility. Others have developed more complex indices that include route schedules, demographics, and spatial activity patterns (Foth, Manaugh, & El Geneidy, 2013; Welch & Mishra, 2013). X 1 : Neighborhood a ccess to w ork by public t ra nsit X 1 in Figure 3.3 illustrates the independent variable of interest: access to work by public transportation. This study use s the NCDB neighborhood travel to work on public transportati This is available for 1970 2010. As the proportion of neighborhood residents riding public transit to work increases over each decade, the level of access is thus reasoned to increase. This NCDB measure has been applied as a proxy for access in the transportation literature (Baum Snow, Kahn, & Voith, 2005; Wier, Weintraub, Humphreys, Seto, & Bhatia, 2009; Renne, 2009). F ew to no public administration studies have utilized this measure to understand equitable distribution of services This study is one of the first to apply the measure through an administrative lens. T his indicator reflects the proportion of residents that use public transit to commute to and from work It is not a direct measure of access, per se. This challenge is common amongst scholars that attempt to operationalize social equity access. For instance, others have measured healthcare access as the proportion of children that have health insurance, utilize prenatal care services, or visit dental care providers (Hug, 2011). Although imperfect, these

PAGE 78

64 indicators offer potential for investigating statistical relationship s between access and outcomes. Confounding V ariables Several confounding variables are contro lled for in this analysis They include : race, ethnicity, educational attainment homeownership, neighborhood stability, and the interaction effect s between access with race and ethnicity Each intervening variable is included in the models due to their correlation wi th the dependent or independent variables The following sections justify their inclusion based on the extant literature Moderator 1 : Race Interaction of access and % of Non W hite population Race serves as a moderating variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986) I t affect s the strength of the relationship between access and the dependent variables. T he association between income inequality and segregation may depend not just on racial composition, but also the intera ction between race and transit access The proport ion of white versus non w hite trans it ridership may have different association s with the dependent variables. Thus the first interaction term included in the model is : Access to Transit x Proportion of Non White Population This leads interpreted as the independent variables (See Appendix E for further clarification) Furthermore, a high correlation between race and segregation exists Despite downward t rends in the past 50 years, racial residential segregation persists and is growing in some urban areas (Massey & Denton, 1987 ). The heightened association suggests that a larger population of non white people is independently associated with the dependent variables. This st udy control s for this factor by including the proportion of non w hite 2010.

PAGE 79

65 Moderator 2 : Ethnicity Interaction of access and % of Hispanic population Ethnicity also ser ved as a moderating variable The proportion of w hite versus Hispanic residents may impact association with the dependent variables. Thus the second interaction term included in the model is: Access to Transit x Proportion of Hispanic Population This lea ds to the Hispanic variable that is also individually interpreted as an independent variable in this study (See Appendix E for further clarification). In addition the correlation between ethnicity and segregation is growing (Iceland, 2004). The heightened association suggests that a larger population of Hispanic residents is also associated with the dependent variables. This study control s for this factor by additional l y including the proportion of Hispanic residents with the variable of Hispanic in each neighborhood for 1970 2010. Mechanism 1 : Educational attainment. There is a strong correlation between ed ucational attainment and income (Jencks, 1972; Mincer, 1974; Reardon, 2011). Educational attainment may therefore be cons idered a mechanism that strengthens the association between the independent variable and dependent variables. Specifically, higher education allows those in neighborhoods with greater transit access to acquire higher paying work opportunities. This, in tur n, would improve the economic outcomes of the neighborhood all else being equal E ducational attainment is also included in this model to address potential endogeneity between the independent and dependent variables. The relationship between transit acces s (X) and the economic outcomes (Y) may take on a looping quality known as simultaneity. This means that X may lead to Y, but Y may also lead to X. Therefore, conditioning on the educational attainment variable controls for potential common cause confoundi ng (Elwert &

PAGE 80

66 Winship, 2014). This study measures 2010 from the NCDB. E ndogenous 1 : Homeownership D isc riminatory housing policy has resulted in homeownership gap s based on race ( Jackman & Jackman, 1980; Freeman, 2005). A positive association exists between homeownership and racial segregation ( Silver man, 1973; Sander, 1997; Hoff & Sen, 2005 ). Income is also a significant determinant o f homeownership (Kain & Quigley, 1972; Li, 1977). These findings suggest a potentially endogenous relationship between access, economic opportunity, and income segregation. More specifically, it may be associated with the independent and dependent variables in this study. This study controls for this by 2010. C ovariate 1 : Public Assistance The proportion people living in poverty is correlated with both dependent variables, exhibiting positive correlation with income inequality (Durlauf, 1996) and income segregation (Massey, 1996). The NCDB data does not have consistent measures of the proportion of a neighborhoo d living below the poverty level. Therefore, a proxy variable was needed to control for the effect of populations living in 2010. This variable includes the percentage of residents that qualify and receive benefits from government social services based on low annual earnings. C ovariate 2 : Neighborhood Stability. T ransportation policy has historically displaced communities of color ( Alkadry & Blesse t t, 2010; Alkadry, et al., 2015) It has especially impacted low income po pulations, inducing gentrification (Kahn, 2007 ; Cappellano & Spisto, 2014 ; Dawkins & Moeckel, 2016 ). Th us, the degree to which residents

PAGE 81

67 remain in their home neighborhoods when transit access increases, or neighborhood stability, is important to consider in this study. This association suggests that greater neighborhood stability is a covariate with the two de pendent variables, meaning an association with income segregation and economic opportunity. roportion of population 5 years and older that lived in the same house 5 years ago from 1970 2010. Analytic Strategy A panel dataset is used to understand the extent to which changes in access are associated with changes in income inequality and income segregation. Observation al data w as pooled at the neighborhood level for all four cases by decennial Census year The stud y was conducted with two fixed effects regression analyses. This is appropriate because of the variation exhibited in the cross sectional entities and over time (Halcoussis, 2004). In the first model n indexes the neighborhood and t indexes time. This equ ation incorporates fixed effects for years and neighborhoods. The variable Inequality nt is economic opportunity operationalized as income inequality based on the Theil Statistic The unknown intercept for each neighborhood is represented by a n The first equation takes the form: Inequality nt = a n + B 1 WhiteAccess nt + B 2 Non WhiteAccess nt + B 3 HispanicAccess + B 4 Non White Pop nt + B 5 Hispanic Pop nt + B 6 EdAttain nt + B 7 Home nt + B 8 PubAssistance nt + B 9 NeighborhoodS tability nt nt Equation 3.2. Model 1 The second equation conceptualizes the variable Segregation nt and is operationalized as a measure of income segregation based on the Index of Dissimil arity It takes the form: Segregatio n nt = a n + B 1 WhiteAccess nt + B 2 Non WhiteAccess nt + B 3 HispanicAccess + B 4 Non White Pop nt + B 5 Hispanic Pop nt + B 6 EdAttain nt + B 7 Home nt + B 8 PubAssistance nt + B 9 NeighborhoodStability nt nt Equation 3.3. Model 2

PAGE 82

68 The models are appropriate for this nonexperimental study because data meet the two re quirements (Allison, 2009): 1) Th e depen dent variables are measured on at least two occasions; and 2) The independent variable has changed across multiple occasions (1970 2010) for a substantial number of neighborhoo ds. More importantly, the models control for un observed time invariant fa ctors such as political leaning of residents Fixed effects also estimate variation within rather than between units. Therefore, these models are advantageous for this study because they eliminate the key source of omitted variable bias: unobservable differences between MSAs and neighborhoods (Dougherty, 2011). Validity Threats Limitations of this dataset include unobserved population characteristics that cannot be accounted for. For instance, economic opportunity is conceptualized as income inequali ty of a given population, so it is assessed in terms of earnings. However, other elements of financial status are not included, such as accumulated wealth, assets, credit, and debt. Such factors are indicative of the boun daries of a quantitative study. E co logical correlation is possible due to the nested ness of the dataset It includes individuals in neighborhoods in cities which are in MSAs Association may be skewed due to aggregation bias which occurs when it is assumed that relationships for neighbor hoods also hold true for individuals For instance, Freedman (1999) example notes a positive literacy rate. While the correlation may be high, there is a negative relationship between individuals whom are foreign bo rn and those that are literate in American English. The results are likely skewed because foreign born individuals live in states where native born Americans are more literate. Thus, the associat ion appears more positive than is the case.

PAGE 83

69 Selection bias is also a concern in this study. It results when residents are not randomly assigned to varying neighborhoods or cities. R will live based on factors that are immeasurable (Duncan, Connell, & Klebanov, 1997). Although fixed effects have the potential to account for unobserved variable bias this data constraint is important to note and will be further discussed in the analysis. Furthermore, serial correlation is often a problem presented with longitudinal data. It results when the residual errors from different observations in the sample are correlated (Schroeder, Sjoquist, & Stephan, 1986, p 73). This violates a key assumption. T he strong association between the input and output variables, which suggests serial correlation is addressed with cluster robust standard errors. Wooldridge (2013) notes that applying clustering within panel data is a valuable way to address the violation of autocorrelation (p. 691) Nichols & Schaffer (2007) note that 50 clusters i s sufficient for panel data. They result in accurate inference. The datasets in this study satisfy such conditions Finally the results inform the extent to which transit access is associated with economic opportunity and income segregation. However, the similarities and differences between each case offer room for further investigation of the organizational processes that effect administ rative decisions surrounding equity initiatives. A qualitative approach is appropriate to grasp how transit administrators consider the persistence of inequity, how they overcome barriers, and what tools are utilized to achieve accountability as next desc ribed Stage 2: Qualitative Study of Principles for Achieving Accountability This stage examines how transit administrators achieve accountability using principles for overcoming nervousness associated with minority and low income community needs and performance measurement tools It address es the second research question: How

PAGE 84

70 do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? This is a process based line of in quiry and necessitates a qualitative design. Prepa ra tory Fieldwork The first step involved participant observation in the field The purpose was to gain a better understanding of the context of public transit through the lens of public and nonprofit transportation administrators, planners, and technical experts (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002). This approach was also an important strategy to gain a deeper understanding of technical language, concepts, stakeholders and governance structures Denver, CO. My application revealed that I was a doctoral student interested in studying transportation equity issues, making the staff aware of my interest in learning more about this topic from their perspective. I also provided this information to the other 39 participants during the orientation. Other participants included citizens and public and nonprofit employees of various transportation, environment, and energy related agencies in the Denver metropolitan region. Participants attended three hour sessions e very Wednesday night from Sept ember 9 November 9, 2016. O ne session was missed Each observation consisted of a presentation by public, nonprofit, and private transportation stakeholders that were regarded as experts in their field. Group discussions wer e also an important component of the sessions. Field notes were recorded each night for later analysis. Various methodologists have argued that such participant observation serves as an important initial step in qualitative studies (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984; Bernard, 1994; Kawulich, 2005). It allows the research er to conduct scoping for the project to determine who the most appropriate participants would be, how the questions should be structured, and what

PAGE 85

71 type of language should be used. This preparatory fie ldwork (Richards & Morse, 2005) was vital to ensure technical concepts were clear, allowing for a more informed content and interview analysis in the subsequent qualitative data collection components. Data Sources The first source includes public documents covering a range of equity activities and initiatives in each MSA The second source includes interviews with administrators planners, and other specialists responsible for initiatives and performance measure strategies The engaged schol arship (Van de Ven, 2007) model forms the basis for this approach because it focuses on building personal relationships to produce meaningful results. Participants were incentiv ized to participate by offering them an executive summary of results once the s tudy is complete. The sample is appropriate for this study since many state and local actors have adopted performance measurement systems for decades (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005). More detailed discussion of this analytic strategy is presented. Data Collection and Analysis C ontent A nalysis A review of documents was conducted for Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham and Orlando They were collected from online sources and reviewed prior to interviews to enhance familiarity with the initiatives, measures and tools used by administrators in each case Additional documents suggested by key informants in each MSA were also included. The documents were downloaded from public websites and uploaded into Nvivo qualitative software for analysis. Two approaches to content analysis were performed : manifest (Potter & Levine Donnerstein, 1999) and directed ( Hsieh & Shannon 2005) The manifest approach entailed quantifying words in documents to explore the extent

PAGE 86

72 to which they are utilized. Coding relied on a Word F requency Search, which is a function that performs a search and returns the most common Generalizations go beyond root word s, synonyms etc. and include thematic terminology. For related words (i.e. accessibi lity, admittance, distribution etc.). Words were omitted if they were not indicative of themes. Other generalizations were deleted because they included the MSA name, agency or words that were exp ected to appea The directed approach relies on existing theor y principles were thus crafted into a coding scheme to explore the extent to which related words appeared across the documents in each case. A Text Search Query was performed for this com ponent. applied results for closely related words like equitable, equitably, etc., but not synonyms. Two stemmed words were associated with each principle. For instance, the combination of Boolean search to examine the extent to which operate in the ner The specific stemmed words that were used for coding each principle are listed in parentheses below 1. Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government (Responsible, Equ ity) 2. The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be minimized, but rather offers instructive guidance (History, Discrimination). 3. Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination of trigge rs: a. Political b. Legal c. Moral d. Economic ( Motivate, Political, Legal, Moral, or Economic) 4. Senior leadership is critically important factor in realizing sustained progress (Leadership, Equity) 5. At the individual level, public servants must reco gnize and eliminate behaviors that impede equity progress (Individual, Equity).

PAGE 87

73 6. At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluate their socialization boundaries and extend them to accommodate a wider range of equity work (Organization, Equit y). 7. There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a socially conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solutions (Structure, Equity). 8. Equity needs to operate in a context of accountability (Accountability, Equity). 9. If legal barriers to discrimination have been eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline equity work (Barrier, Discrimination). 10. Significant progress in government can be achieved (Achieve, Eq uity). Key Informant Interviews principles examined. Strategies, goals, and performance measure s can be used by other public agencies responsible for a wide range of service delivery. This study examines additional cases of possibility in four MSAs two of which have been deemed leaders in transit access and two that have low access compared to 46 o ther MSAs. Exploration at the local level is important given the adoption of performance systems has not resulted in good metrics, accurate reporting, improved management, or better decision making (Poister & Streib, 1999). Since little is known about the process for successfully implementing, adopting, and using measures to improve performance (Sanger, 2008), this study contributes by interviewing transit stakeholders The instrument is made up of semi structured questions. It offers consistency while allo wing for flexible questioning based on the participant (Singleton & Straits, 1993) and their role in advancing transportation equity. Questions are constructed based on a previous interview protocol proposed by Gooden (2014) for assessing how and why agenc ies address social equity. The principles and interview questions are presented below in Table 3.2.

PAGE 88

74 Table 3.2. 10 Principles and Related Interview Questions # Principle (Gooden, 2014) Interview Question 1 Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government. Do you feel responsible for addressing social equity as a public official? 2 The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be minimized, but rather offers instructive guidance. To what e xtent does historical treatment of minority groups impact the work you do today? 3 Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination of political, moral, legal, and/or economic triggers. What motivated you to begin w orking to advance social equity? (Political, moral, legal, economic triggers) 4 Senior leadership is critically important factor in realizing sustained progress. How has senior leadership influenced social equity initiatives and sustained progress? 5 At the individual level, public servants must recognize and eliminate behaviors that impede social equity progress. How likely are you to independently promote equity in the provision of government services at work? Do you have conversations, dialogues, or meetings about equity in provision, administration, and delivery of public services? 6 At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluate their socialization boundaries and extend them to accommodate a wider range of social equity work. How does your organization provide boundaries on equity activities? (Required, Permitted, Discouraged, Prohibited) 7 There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a socially conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solut ions. To what extent do discussions of social equity, race, gender, or institutional discrimination take place in your department? 8 Equity needs to operate in a context of accountability. Would you say those discussions contributed to more in depth anal yses (assessments, studies, etc.)? If so, how does your organization use such analyses to hold itself accountable for advancing social equity? 9 If legal barriers to discrimination have been largely eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline social equity work. Has your city eliminated any legal barriers to advancing social equity? An example: [from case/city]. If so, how has it impacted: Agency leadership, Policies, Practices, Innovations to advance equity 10 Significant social equity progress in government can be achieved. What are you most proud of in terms of the progress that you have achieved through equity initiatives?

PAGE 89

75 I nterviews were designed with a purposive sample of administrators in the next phase. Potential p articipants were first identified from public documents and websites based on their role in equity activities. The goal was to recruit experts who could provide the most accurate information about transit access initiatives Thirty potential p articipants were contacted via email using a common template and asked to participate as passive reporters (Foley, 2012). All were ensured that their responses would be held confidential so no individual could be identified. All contact with potential participants w as recorded in a contact summary form (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to track interaction throughout the study. Responses to the initial invitation were limited. Up to two reminders were sent to each contact to increase the number of participants willing to engage in the study. Several of the initial contacts recommended other administrators in their agencies that would be more appropriate and have further knowledge on the subject. In addition, snowball sampling was necessary to find additional contacts in Minneapolis. One of the participants was referred to me during the first interview. Due to the limited number of willing participants, 12 total interviews were conducted, with t hree respondents from each MSA E ach held different area s of expertise, such as planning, policy, civil rights, or outreach. The common denominator amongst all participants was their understanding of social equity, which translated into related responsibilities. General participant info i s provided in Appendix F. However, some interviewees discussed other forms of equity in their interviews, especially process (as it pertains to civil rights complaints, unfair treatment on trains, etc.). I nterviews

PAGE 90

76 ranged in length from 30 minutes to 1 hour. All interviews were audio recorded, documented with detailed note s, and transcribed in Excel for data management. Upon completion, a directed approach (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) to analysis was performed for each individual case. All comments were coded into one of the 10 principles. Participant comments were analyzed to determine if they did or did not support the adoption of each principle for each MSA. Data that could not be coded into one of the categories was reexamined and put into a separate notes section. Additional documents that were suggested by participants du ring the interview were also recorded It was determined that documents mentioned by respondents had been included in the content analysis component. Respondents also recommend ed p otential participants whom were noted in the comments of the transcription form. Some were contacted for interviews. Triangulation Triangulation produce s meaningful results drawn from a variety of methods, sources, and data. This stage is based on an interpretivist approach to inquiry. The analysis examines data from the subjective standpoint of the researcher and participants Interpretivism stands in contrast to positivist approaches, which emphasize results that are subject to various validity and reliability tests. This study embraces the epistemological condition that knowledge is not objective. Furthermore, the purpose is not to develop generalizable results that can prove or disprove set hypothes e s. Instead, the purpose of this qualitative analysis is nciples for overcoming nervousness associated with racial and class disparities in public transit development.

PAGE 91

77 Triangulation of methods is utilized 200 9 p. 245 ). In other words, different qualitative methods are employed to enhance analyses that are more comprehensive, rich, and robust This is achieved through participant observation, content analysis, and key informant interviews Denzin (1978) referr which relies on a variety of data collection approaches. content analysis and the interview analysis. First, source triangulat ion is achieved by collecting and reviewing public documents from four metropolitan cases, which were selected based on their diversity of transit access, income segregation, geographic location, and various demographic characteristics. The documents were categorized into reports, plans, studies, guidelines, meeting minutes, meeting materials, and miscellaneous material. News coverage of the public actors was not utilized as many were technical specialists rather than spokespersons for their agencies. Within method data triangulation also infor med the interview design Diverse participants with varying positions, agencies, and perspectives were recruited to describe how processes and performance measures are used to advance social equity. A sampling pla n was designed to maximize the chance of recruiting participants with diverse points of view, values, and responsibilities. All participants worked in public transit and addressed social equity in their respective jobs, albeit with a range of technical and administrative roles. This also reduced the impact of researcher biases and assumptions during interpretation of results. The sample did not attempt to achieve representativeness or saturation. Rather, the interviews complement the other data collection efforts. The number of participants is

PAGE 92

78 sufficient because few professionals deal with transit equity concerns ( Charmaz, 2006 ) Many agencies have one person responsible for all Tit le VI activities. Furthermore, this research design replicates previous studies that have emphasized the need to begin expanding administrative understanding (Wellman 2012) and complement other data collection for triangulation (Shea, 2011) rather than to achieve generalizable or statistically valid results. Mixed Methods Analy tic Approach T he mixed methods analysis ensued at a procedural level (Creswell, 2014) which enhances understanding of the research questions by explaining quantitative results with f ollow up data collection and analysis. The two datasets are collected separately, and the quantitative results inform the qualitative approach, open ended questions, and procedures This analytical strategy includes first reporting the quantitative results of the MSA neighborhood level analysis of Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. Then, there is a subsequent discuss ion of the qualitative themes The final chapter compares each stage to inform how certain principles may or may not explain the sta tistical findings of transit access and income equity trends in each MSA. The interpretation of data is included in Chapter V I A comparison of the qualitative interview results is included, which more specifically builds on the quant it ati ve findings. The key goal of analysis is to discuss how the qualitative content analysis and interviews aid in the expansion and explanation of quantitative results. Such studies indicate the usefulness of the explanatory sequential mixed methods design, allowing for furth er explanation of quantitative results through the collection and interpretation of qualitative data. Therefore, the final phase compares the qualitative interview findings in Stage 2 with the quantitative findings in Stage 1. I t determine s if the cases wi th more favorable economic

PAGE 93

79 opportunity and segregation outcomes uphold certain principles for addressing transportation equity. This phase combines theory testing of large N statistical analysis with intensive small N case analysis to interpret and validat e findings (Goggin, 1986). Results of this comparative analysis contribute to theoretical understanding and practical recommendations for transit administrators interested in advancing social equity in the form of improved economic opportunities and integr ation outcomes.

PAGE 94

80 CHAPTER IV QUANTITATIVE RESULTS This chapter addresses the first research question: To what extent is access to work by public transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? It presents the quantitative analysis that examines social inequity as indicated by two dependent variables: economic opportunity and income segregation. T his normative question needs to be addressed through an empirical lens. More importantly, the field lacks a temporal investigation of how improved access to services like transit relate to other so cial and economic outcomes The chapter thus responds to this lacuna by reporting on the relationship at the neighborhood level in four diverse cases: Denver, Minneapolis, Bir mingham, and Orlando. This technique enhances the representativeness of the results by examining MSAs with vary ing levels of accessibility and income segregation (Seawright & Gerring, 2008) This chapter is organized as follows T he results of the fixed effects regression models are reported for the high access cases (Denver and Minneapolis) and low access cases (Birmingham and Orlando) This analysis contribute s a better understanding of th e theoretical tension discussed in Chapter II It reveal s t he var ying extent to which transit access 7 for work related travel is associated with: 1) Economic opportunity (in line with administrative explanations) and 2) Income segregation ( in line with economic explanations). As mentioned in Chapter III t hese are teste d using the Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) from 1970 2010 7 This study uses the NCDB neighborhood working at home who travel to transportation planning studies have applied this indicator as a proxy for acces s (Baum Snow et al., 2005; Wier et al., 2009; Renne, 2009).

PAGE 95

81 Two fixed effects regression models were estimated to test the two propositions. The first proposition tested the administrative explanation: if access to work by public transit increases, economic opportunity increases over time (Model 1) Economic opportunity is operationalized as income inequality I t is measured using the Theil Statistic element 8 High eco nomic opportunity equates to a low v alue The second proposition tested the economic explanation outlined in this study: if access to work by public transit increases, income segregation increases over time (Model 2) Segregation is measured by the Index of Dissimilarity element 9 The extent to which these were supported is presented by case. The four cases provide a meso level perspective of the longitudinal relationship between public transit and the extent to which access is or is not associated with persisting social in equit y. The analysis examine s variation within neighborhood s from 1970 2010 This section discusses these results in greater depth as they relate to the two proposition s tested, and it provides further analysis of the control variables Descriptive Statistics Table 4.1 includes the descriptive statistics for the high access cases This shows that Denver and Minneapolis have similar neighborhoods dynamics from 1970 2010. The mean of the Inequality and Segregation elements are comparable Approximately 4.27 % of n eighborhood residents ha ve access to transit in Denver. This is similar to 6. 34 % in 8 The Theil Statistic is an aggregated measure of an MSA that is calculated by summing all neighborhood the dataset use Birmingham, and Orlando. 9 The Index of Dissimilarity element is the neighborhood level value that is typically summed to determine the Index for the entire MSA region. Because this stud y is interested in variation within neighborhoods, the dataset utilizes the element measure at the census tract level.

PAGE 96

82 Minneapolis. Furthermore, t he average proportion of non w hite residents, higher educated residents, homeowners hip, and public assistance in neighborhoods is similar, at ave rage levels within approximately 3 4% in both MSAs. The two cases vary when examining the proportion of the population that identifies as Hispanic, with higher levels in Denver, and neighborhood stability, which is greater in Minn e apolis. Table 4.1 High Access Descriptive Statistics Denver Minneapolis Variable (%) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Inequality (Theil) .01 .15 1.73 .07 .00 .47 Segregation (Dissimilarity) .12 0 .92 .01 .12 .75 Neighborhood Access 10 4.27 0 100 6.34 0 100 Non White 12.93 0 97.84 10.31 0 97.01 Hispanic 13.79 0 100 2.62 0 44.93 Higher Educated 29.63 0 100 26.73 .38 86.96 Homeownership 66.05 0 100 69.11 0 100 Public Assistance 3.89 0 100 5.11 0 100 Neighborhood Stability 49.29 0 100 58.17 6.59 100 Table 4.2 provides descriptive statistics for the low access cases. Birmingham and Orlando also have similar neighborhood compositions concerning the Dissimilarity element, Theil element, neighborhood access, proportion of higher educated residents, homeow nership, and public assistance on average. The two varied on the percent of non white residents, which is higher in Birmingham, while Hispanic residents is higher in Orlando. Furthermore, neighborhood stability over time is higher in Birmingham (61.15%) co mpared to Orlando (50.07%). 10 tire population, including all white, non w hite, and Hispanic residents. These three populations are later interpreted individually in the fixed effects regression analysis.

PAGE 97

83 Table 4.2 Low Access Descriptive Statistics Birmingham Orlando Variable (%) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Inequality (Theil) .05 .34 3.94 .03 .34 1.98 Segregation (Dissimilarity) .27 .00 1.83 .15 0 1.53 Neighborhood Access 11 1.79 0 33.04 1.76 0 43.40 Non White 26.80 0 100 18.26 0 100 Hispanic 1.52 0 29.93 10.33 0 78.86 Higher Educated 18.72 0 88.61 19.38 0 74.04 Homeownership 65.77 .37 98.81 62.00 0 98.08 Public Assistance 5.86 0 32.10 4.26 0 37.76 Neighborhood Stability 61.15 4.77 98.60 50.07 .02 100 The results of the fixed effects regression analyses, however, show that neighborhoods in each case exhibit different trends relative to neighborhood access to work by public transit The resul t s are individually presented for economic opportunity (Model 1) and income segregation (Model 2) below. Model 1: Transit Access and Economic Opportunity The four cases produce mixed results on the dependent variable of neighborhood income inequality (Table 4. 3 ). Denver results were not significant. Minneapolis and Orlando exhibited a negative association between white neighborhood transit access and economic opportunity. Birmingham produced a positive association between transit and increasing income inequality in white neighborhoods. Conversely, as non white neighborhood access increased income inequality has decreased in Birmingham and Orlando. Hispanic neighborhoods in Minneapolis experience d a statistically significant increase Therefore, the first proposition was supported in more white neighborhoods in Minneapolis and Orlando, while the proposition was supported in more non white neighborhoods in Birmingham. 11 The access descriptive statistics are reported with the combined population of white, non w hite, and Hispanic residents. These groups are inte rpreted individually in the analysis.

PAGE 98

84 Table 4.3 Inequality Regression Results: 1970 2010 Cases Denver Minneapolis Birmingham Orlando IV (%) Coef. RSE Coef. RSE Coef. RSE Coef. RSE White N bhd. Access .01 .03 .10** .04 1.38 *** .27 .64 ** .26 Non White Nbhd. Access .11 .14 .00 .11 1.30 ** .53 .73 ** .30 Hispanic Nbhd. Access .03 .12 .51** .20 3.11 8.58 .06 .45 Non White Residents .04 .03 .06*** .02 .16 *** .04 .07 ** .03 Hispanic Residents .12*** .02 .15*** .04 .43 ** .21 .18 *** .04 Higher Educated .32*** .02 .24*** .01 1.09 *** .18 .91 *** .09 Homeownership .11*** .01 .09*** .01 .41 *** .09 .35 *** .03 Public Assistance .01 .05 .10*** .02 .25 .13 .12 .10 Nhbd. Stability .05*** .01 .04*** .00 .42 *** .08 .11 *** .02 Constant .17*** .01 .13*** .01 .66 *** .11 .31 *** .03 Overall R 2 .40 .47 .50 .47 Overall N 2937 3708 1276 1909 Nbhd. Cluster N 619 770 264 390 ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 High Access Results Denver and Minneapolis produced dissimilar results when examining neighborhood income inequality. Denver did not produce a statis tically significant result for white, non w hite, or Hispanic n eighborhood Access. Conver sely, Minneapolis produced two statistically significant results at a 99% level of confidence. White neighborhood access was negatively associated with income inequality, albeit at a minimal degree. For every 5% increase in white access, income inequality dropped by approximately 0 .5%. Hispanic neighborhood access resulted in a positive association, however For every 2% increase in Hispanic neighborhood access, income inequality increas ed by 1 % in the Minneapolis region. While the proportion of non white r esidents and public assistance did not result in statistically significant results, all other control variables produced similar associations of significance at the 99.9% level of confidence. These similar findings warrant further discussion. Higher propor tions of educational attainment, homeownership, and neighborhood

PAGE 99

85 stability were positively associated with increasing income inequality in both cases. As the proportion of Hispanic residents increased, income inequality decreased. In Minneapolis, as the pr oportion of non white residents increased, income inequality decreased. T here was a positive association between public assistance and income inequality. The results indicate that the growth of income inequality in the Denver metropolitan region is not nec essarily a product of the simultaneous transit access and development. There appears to be no relationship between the two variables at the neighborhood level over the past 40 years. This case does not support the first proposition of this st udy. The Minneapolis region provides a different pattern As public transit access expanded throughout the MSA w hite neighborhoods have experienced b etter economic opportunities as evidenced by decreasing income inequality This finding supports the first p roposit ion of this study with 99 % level of confidence. However, Hispanic neighborhoods have experienced a reduction in economic opportunity as illustrated by increasing income inequality. When taking ethnicity into account, this does not support the first proposi tion. The juxtaposition of Denver and Minneapolis results is important to consider. E conomic opportunity may have improved in Minneapolis hite neighborhoods and fallen in Hispanic neighborhoods suggesting outcomes that are not equitable based on race an d class. The lack of an effect in Denver is also important because it suggests that status quo has been maintained While transit access has expande d, neighborhoods have not been affected. T he same economic status remains suggesting equal results that do not amount to equity Low Access Results Birmingham and Orlando communities exhibit similar patterns in relation to neighborhood economic opportunity outcomes. Increased transit access was associated with

PAGE 100

86 economic opportunity based on the rac ial neighborhood composition in both cases. In Birmingham, as white neighborhood access increased, income inequality increased ceteris paribus. For every 1% increase in public transit access white neighborhoods have experienced a 1.38% increase in income inequality. The reverse is true for non white access. For every 1% increase, neighborhoods of color have experienced a 1.30% reduction in income inequality. This finding supports the first proposition. The normative argument that increased access to trans it will lead to more equitable economic opportunity is supported when taking race into account. This finding is important given the generally widening wealth inequality gap along racial lines as discussed in Chapter II. In Orlando neighborhoods, the result s follow a similar trend. I ncome inequality has increased as white neighborhood access has risen Conversely, non white neighborhood transit access was negatively associated with income inequality with 99% confidence. The longitudinal trends thus support t he first proposition. For every 2% increase in white transit ridership, income inequality has grown by nearly 1.28%. Conversely, for every 2% increase in non white ridership, income inequality has fallen by roughly 1.46%. The control variables also produce d diverging levels of association. Both cases produced a positive association between educational attainment, homeownership, and income inequality. Both produced a negative association between the proportion of Hispanic residents and income inequality. Yet the dependent variable produced a negative association between the proportion of non white residents in Birmingham, whereas it was positively associated in Orlando. Furthermore, neighborhood stability was positively associated with income inequality in B irmingham but negatively associated in Orlando.

PAGE 101

87 Model 2: Transit Access and Income Segregation Model 2 results are also mixed (Table 4.4). Denver and Birmingh am did not exhibit significance regardless of neighborhood race or ethnicity. Minneapolis produced a positive association between white neighborhood access and income segregation. Orlando did exhibit a significant relationship with less segregation as Hispanic neighborhood access increased Furthermore, more non white neighborhoods in Minneap olis experienced less segregation The results in Denver and Birmingham neighborhoods of color were not significant. Thus, when considering white neighborhood access the second proposition is supported in Minneapolis alone. It is not supported in Orlando due to the negative association of Hispanic neighborhood access and segregation Table 4.4. Segregation Regression Results: 1970 2010 12 Cases Denver Minneapolis Birmingham Orlando IV (%) Coef. RSE Coef. RSE Coef. RSE Coef. RSE White Nbhd. Access .02 .05 .39*** .05 .39 .27 .10 .38 Non White Nbhd. Access .20 .30 .68*** .10 .22 .51 1.04 .67 Hispanic Nbhd. Access .38 .28 .27 .28 4.29 9.99 2.20* 1.13 Non White Residents Hispanic Residents Higher Educated Homeownership Public Assistance Nhbd. Stability Constant Overall R 2 Overall N Nbhd. Cluster N ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 12 The goodness of fit is relatively low in this model. However, low R 2 is common when the clusters to be subtracted from the model, and the overall effect is not incorporated when determining the fit of the model (Gould, 2017).

PAGE 102

88 High Access Results Model 2 results were divergent for the high access cases. A ccess was not significantly related to income segregation in Denver. This held true regardless of race. This suggests that the expansion of transit throughout the metropolitan region has not affected the sorting of neighborhoods by income. The results thus did not suppo rt proposition 2. Minneapolis did produce significant results. Furthermore, both cases illustrated significance on some of the control variables. Table 4.4 illustrates the results and allows for further comparison. In Minneapolis, the white and non white access variables produced significant results. For every 3 % increase in white neighborhood access to work by transit, income segregation grew by 1.17 %. The opposite is true of non white access, which decreased by approximately 1 .36 % for every additional 1% of ridership in more non white communities. T he Model 2 results in the Minneapolis region are thus divided along racial lines When taking white neighborhood access into account, the second proposition is supported, but it is not supported based on the ne gative association of non white access and income segregation. The control var iables provide further insight Despite divergence on the access variable, Denver and Minneapolis both exhibited positive effects between income segregation and the percent of non white and highly educated residents. Minneapolis also exhibited higher income segregation with a greater p roportion of homeowners, which was not significant in Denver. Furthermore, greater neighborhood stability was correlated with greater income segregation in Denver but less segregation in Minneapolis. Low Access Results The Model 2 results are also divergent for the low access cases. The second proposition is not supported by Birmingham nor Orlando Increasing white and non white

PAGE 103

89 neighborhood access to work by public transit was not associated with income segregation in e ither case Specifically, no statistically significant effect was found for the first two independent variables. Hispanic neighborhood access in Birmingham was also insignificant. In Orlando, however, the results indicate that increasing Hispanic access to work by public transit was negatively associated with income segregation with 95% confidence. While it was statistically significant, the findings do not support the second proposition of this study. F or every 1% increase in Hispanic access Orlando neigh borhoo ds experienced a 2.20 % reduction in income segregation. Thus, the case of Orlando in Model 2 produced results that refute the extant urban economic literature. The control variables were also associated with mixed results Both Birmingham and Orlando neighborhoods experienced a positive relationship between income segregation, educational attainment, and homeownership. Beyond that similarity, Birmingham had no other statistically significant results in relation to the proportion of non white residents, Hispanic residents, public assistance, and neighborhood stability. Orlando, however, showed a positive relationship betw een segregation and Hispanic residents, while neighborhood stability was negatively associated with income segregation. Interpretation of Outcomes The summation of results is illus trated in Figure 4.1 It notes whether the propositions found, it is demarcated as positive (+) or negative ( ). Up to this point, the regression results have been separated by white neighborhood access non white neighborhood access, and Hispanic neighborhood access. Figure 4.1 simplifies these three variables by combining the latter two.

PAGE 104

90 white and Hispanic neighborhood acce ss are combined into one column and c alled Communities of Color (CoC) for interpretation purposes. If at least one of the two variables were regarded as statistically significant, it is des ignated as such below. Propositions Denver Minneapolis Birmingham Orlando WH CoC WH CoC WH CoC WH CoC P1: Opportunity NS NS S (+) S ( ) S ( ) S (+) S ( ) S (+ ) P2: Segregation NS NS S (+) S ( ) NS NS NS S ( ) Figure 4.1. Case Summary of Results This representation shows that the high access cases of Denver and Minneapolis produced dissim ilar results when examining access and income inequality. Neither of the propositions were supported in Denver. Proposition 1 was supported for white neighborhood access in Minneapolis. It was not supported for CoCs. Conversely, the results between these t wo cases differed when examining the association between transit access and residential income segregation. Denver did not exhibit a significant effect regardless of race/ethnicity. Income segregation in Minneapolis increased for white ridership but decrea sed for more non white ridership. This suggests that the persisting inequitable outcome of income segregation, as predicted by Proposition 2, holds for white ridership accessing transit for work related purposes. Yet, CoC access is less associated with the persisting economic unevenness. Despite the similarities between transit in Denver and M inneapolis, higher access has somewhat different impacts on underrepresented communities. These findings are important concerning the extent to which access is associ ated with the persistence of social inequity over time. In Denver, public transit is not associated with inequity. Rather, outcomes throughout white neighborhoods and CoCs have remained the same. In Minneapolis, transit

PAGE 105

91 is minimally associated with the per sistence of social inequity since 1970. This suggests an additional layer of racial/ethnic inequity as development has taken place. Concerning the low access cases, Figure 4.1 shows that Proposition 1 was supported for more CoCs in Birmingham and Orlando. Those neighborhoods have experienced less income inequality as transit access has incre a s ed These cases offer similar evidence of the extent to which access is or more appropriately, is not associated with the persistence of social inequity. Both ill ustrated improved economic status in CoCs meaning that transit was positively associated with more equitable economic outcomes when taking account of race. However Proposition 1 was not supported when examining white neighborhood access. Residential income segregation outcomes illustrated contradiction between Birmingham and Orlando This is of interest when accounting for the high er degree of segregation in Birmingham versus Orlando. A ccess in Birmingham has had no effect on segregation since 1970 r egardless of race and ethnicity However, Hispanic neighborhoods in Orlando have experienced a negative association with income segregation. Orlando has experienced more equitable outcomes in this model which does not support Proposition 2. In comparison to the high access cases of Denver and Minneapolis, these two low access cases illustrate greater evidence of equitable outcomes, as described further below. Persistent Pathway s Framework The models produced mixed results when examining income inequality and segregation Figure 4.2 illustrate s the relationship between the propositions, which are conceptualized as pathways lead ing to five outcomes: Equitable, Partially Equitable, Equal, Partially Inequitable, or Inequitable This is the Persistent Pathway Framework (PPF).

PAGE 106

92 Figure 4.2. Persistent Pathways Framework: Relationship between Economic Opportunity and Income Segregation Relative to Transit Access (Over Time) Rel

PAGE 107

93 The PPF interprets the moderating effect of w hite and CoC neighborhood access. The degree to which the propositions are supported or not informs which of the four boxes should be selected within the Economic Opportunity box (in light gray). The same logic applies on the Income Segregation box (in dark gray). The combination of Economic Opportunity and Income Segregation outcomes resulting from white neighborhood compared to CoC access over time must be considered to determine if inequity persists in each case. The final outcome is designated with the critical foundation that CoCs have experienced historic oppression through policies, including public transit and planning. Therefore, the framework is designed to account for past treatment of minority groups. Specifically, the PPF assumes that, if non white and/or Hispanic communities experience any negative result, the outcome of transit development is at least partially inequitable. For instance, CoCs may have experienced greater economic opportunity as transit improved, but if t hey have also become more segregated, the outcome is at least partially inequitable. Figure 4.2 illustrates ten pathways (labeled 1 10) that lead to one of five possible outcomes. The pathways are determined by first selecting the box that reflects the co mbined results for white neighborhood (WH) access compared to transit access in communities of sign in each box. Furthermore, even if the result was not significan because the expansion of transit is theoretically expected to exhibit some type of change. A negative sign is designated since the change did not occur. Pathway (1) produces an Equitable outcome in which white neighborhoods expe rience less economic benefits ( ) than CoCs (+). Pathways 2 3 lead to Partially Equitable outcomes, in which both experience partial benefits (+), while white neighborhoods experience at least one negative ( ). When white neighborhoods and CoCs experience the same results (Both or +), the outcomes (4 5) are Equal

PAGE 108

94 Any pathway (6 9) that at least partially disadvantages CoCs ( ) is deemed Partially Inequitable due to the historical oppression of those groups. One pathway (10) leads to an Inequitable outcome, in which CoCs are fully disadvantaged ( ) and white neighborhoods are fully advantaged (+). Thus, an equitable result is possible in three of 10 paths. Seven pathways lead to more inequitable outcomes, making persistence of inequity more likely Comparing these outcomes begins to reveal a story about why social inequity persists in some cases based on public transit development. The PPF can be utilized to interpret the quantitative results of this study. Take the propositions Supported and Not Supported as noted in Figure 4.2. They can be transferred to the PPF to determine the outcome for each MSA. The combinations are illustrated in Table 4.5. Following each combination leads one of the 10 paths: Denver follows path 4 (Equal), Minneapolis path 6 (Partially Inequitable), Birmingham follows path 3 (Partially Equitable), and Orlando follows path 3 (Partially Equitable). Table 4.5. PPF Pathway and Outcome by Case MSA Case P1. Opportunity P2. Segregation Pathway # PPF Outcome WH CoC WH CoC Denver 4 Equal Minneapolis + + 6 Partially Inequitable Birmingham + 3 Partially Equitable Orlando + + 3 Partially E quitable The PPF thus illustrates how some equitable outcomes can also lead to inequitable impacts. Economic opportunity may increase for CoCs and decrease for white neighborhoods. Yet, this may occur in concert with increased segregation for CoCs, whereas

PAGE 109

95 white ne ighborhoods become more economically diverse. Examining these results in combination is critical to understand what fairness looks like based on varying economic outcomes in white versus CoCs over time. Summary The implications of this stage in the study are twofold. First, transit administrators can acknowledge that expanded access can have disproportionate effects on different neighborhoods over time. It is important to no te that the consequences vary For instance, t he results in this study align with t he Great Communities Collaborative (2007) which examined the impact of high speed rail expansion in the San Francisco Bay Area. Between 1980 and 2000, some neighborhoods became more economically diverse after the construction of rail transit stations in t he East Bay, whereas stations located in San Francisco and Silicon Valley were associated with increases in income segregation. Yet, administrators must realize that mass transit and rail does not automatically lead to segregation over time. For instance, Birmingham and Orlando illustrate less persistence of inequity over time when comparing access in more white neighborhoods to those that are more non white or Hispanic. Based on the result, I utilize the Persistent Pathways Framework to argue that there is a lower level of inequity because CoCs have experienced more normatively beneficial outcomes. Communities with enhanced access have experienced better economic opportunities. They have become less segregated by income. Conversely, income inequality has in creased in white neighborhoods, which have also become more segregated by income. This is what social equity looks like in the long term. Fairness requires reduction of white privilege and wealth as the empowerment in CoCs leads to regional improvements fo r all.

PAGE 110

96 Relatedly, these mixed results further justify why administrators must develop social equity indicators at a more local level. The differences amongst these cases suggest that transit can have positive effects in the long term. This supports perform ance measurement scholars like Hatry (2014), who commented on the utilization of metropolitan level analysis of aggregated data. MSA analyses are not actionable at the operational level of policy development, implementation, or evaluation because they do n ot provide contextual accounts. Aggregated measurement reduces the likelihood that results will produce usable knowledge for practitioners. Furthermore, a macro level view of trends may provide general results that do not apply to all MSAs, as evidenced by the variation across these four cases. Again, the extent to which transit access to work is associated with the persistence of social inequity depends on factors un examined in this quantitative phase. Varying association between expanded transit access, income inequality, and income segregation illustrates that transit may reinforce social inequity in some cases, while advancing economic outcomes in others. Due to these differences, the analysis of n eighborhoo d level variables in the diverse cases allow opportunity for further qualitative inquiry Chapter V takes the next step to examine why variation exist s between each MSA How has the historical treatment of minorities impacted transit development in Denver? What motivated initiatives in Minneapolis? How has senior leadership affected transit in Birmingham? Does Orlando take a socially conscious approach or not ? Discussing transit equity with administrators in each MSA thus enhances understanding of what it takes to achieve accountability when seeking to improve transit access across neighborhoods Next, address this missing component

PAGE 111

97 CHAPTER V QUALITATIVE FINDINGS This chapter addresses the second research question: How do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? The question is approached under the assumption that administrators are unable to fully realize equitable outcomes, which t hey are accountable for under democratic principles as previously discussed, due to the lack of individual and organizational acknowledgement of inequity. Gooden (2014) proposes 0 principles for overcoming the se challenges which serve as strategies for overcoming nervousness). Th is chapter explores the extent to which these principles are adopted in the four MSAs. The findings suggest how improve administrators might improve acce ss to public services like transit and ultimately benefit economic outcomes of neighborhoods. The analysis includes examination of documents interviews with transit administrators, data analysts, and other related personnel in Denver, Minneapolis, Birming ham, and Orlando. Three components of data collection and analysis are provided First, participant observation enhanced understanding of technical concepts, transportation language, and common stakeholders. Next, content analysis reveals the degree to whi 4 ) 10 principles for overcoming nervousness are represented in the plans, reports, assessments, meeting minutes, community studies, and other documents that have been developed and published by each MSA. Finally interviews with professionals in transit agencies provide practi ti oner perspective s of the extent to which the 10 principles for overcoming nervousness in pursuit of social equity are supported within each MSA The chapter concludes with a summary of analy ses, contributing insig ht into the accountability question proposed above.

PAGE 112

98 Content Analysis The first qualitative componen t included conte nt analysis of public documents from each MSA. Between 450 500 plans, reports, assessments, meeting minutes, community studies, and other documents were downloaded from public agency websites, resulting in more than 1800 documents reviewed across all four cases. Documents rang ed in publication date from the early 2000s to present. They were uploaded into Nvivo software for systematic coding and analysis. Each MSA had a separate file and analysis was conducted for each individual case. Two approaches to cont ent analysis were conducted for this component : manifest (Potter & Levine Donnerstein 1999 ) and directed ( Hsieh & Shannon 2005) Manifest Findings The manifest approach entailed quantifying words in documents to explore the degree of utilization. The purpose of this process was to understand the major interest areas that existed across each agency. Knowledge of these key themes was important to identify in a systematic manner that offered a general understanding of what topics would likely be discussed in the later interview stage. Possessing such knowledge is vital to building a better relationship and degree of trust with interview participants in the field T he coding process examined word frequency by searching for the most frequent s and synonyms. words (i.e. accessibility, admittance, distribution, etc.). Certain words were omitted if they were not indicative of actual themes. Rather, the generalizations were prevalent because they included the city name, the titles of agencies that published the reports, or general words that

PAGE 113

99 Table 5.1 shows the findings by MSA and Figure 5.1 illustrates prevalence in a word cloud S ix of the most common themes include: project, planning, funding, servi ce, access, and inclusion Notably, some cases retu rned zero results such as planning in Denver. Still, they are included because the return was high in other MSAs. The higher the percent of each theme the larger the text in Figure 5.1 For example, Project was most common in the documents (with 202,900 hits) while Inclusion w as written about far less (with 27,103 hits) Table 5.1. Manifest Content Analysis Word Cloud Data F igure 5.1. Manifest Content Analysis Word C loud Data T hree of the most prevalent themes project planning and funding are critical to public transit operations For instance, transportation p lanning requires constant review and revision It is thus a popular topic mentioned numerous times across all public documents. For example, DRCOG (2011) has prepared a report titled Transportation Planning in the Denver Region that is meant to describe how this process works in a transparent manner between three state and regional organizations in the area. An example of this theme is apparent in the following excerpt (which has relevant generalizations in bold font) : Theme Denver Minneapolis Birmingham Orlando Total % Project 38340 28953 46525 89082 202 900 39 % Planning 0 16542 27110 52100 95 752 19 % Funding 17678 11045 12240 38499 79 462 15 % Service 27188 14121 0 30026 71 335 14 % Access 14412 8780 18098 0 41 290 8% Inclusion 9521 7142 10440 0 27,103 5%

PAGE 114

100 In April 2004, DRCOG completed the initial Senate Bill 90 208 review of Plan which was subsequently approved by the regi voters in November 2004. FasTracks is a broad, region wide, long term program and numerous assumptions were made about both technology and financing. To ensure the legislative intent of the review but address the likelihood of change during the course of FasTracks implementation, 208 approval of FasTracks required an annual review by the regional transportation planning process. For this review, RTD prepares an annual FasTracks report, which identifies changes in: projec t definition, scope, or technology costs of overall plan and corridors Transportation Planning in the Denver Region Coordination with Other Transportation Processes 53 revenue projections implementation schedule operating characteristics level of bus servi ce The DRCOG Board through the transportation committees process determines if the changes identified are significant enough to require further Senate Bill 90 208 action. RTD Board final action on any significant change to the FasTracks Plan requires MPO approval through the annual review process (pp. 52 53). On the other hand, three other themes service access and inclusion take the public, particularly riders, into account. T his is to be expected given the purpose of transit services, which heavily focus on serving very specific mobility needs within each MSA. For example, the DRCOG (2011) document provides a statement that reflects this theme, stating: Constructive public involvement is essential at all levels of transportation planning. DRC OG is responsible for proactively engaging the public in the regional transportation planning process, and embraces federal requirements that MPOs provide the public with complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and early and continuing involvement in focus upon region wide transportation issues, the interrelationship of transportation planning with land use and other planning activities, and the Metro Vision plan. Public Involvement in Regional Transportation Planning blic involvement process. DRCOG reviews the process annually (p. 18)

PAGE 115

101 The differing frequencies between these six themes offers some important insight. More sub stantial discussion of the p roject planning and funding themes align with public administration literature that also publishes to a higher extent on the pillars of efficiency, economy, and effectiveness ( Brewer & Selden, 2000; Raadschelders & Lee, 2011 ). On the other hand, t he themes that received less attention service access and inclusion can be associated w ith equity. This finding corresponds with the minimal social equity literature as previously mentioned systematic review s Directed Findings The second phase of content analysis utilized a directed approach which relies on existing theor etical propositions were thus applied in this phase to find the extent to which key words were utilized across the documents in each case. may return results for closely related words like equitable, equitably, etc., but it d oes not include synonyms. A combination of stemmed words was associated with each principle. For the extent to which Principle 1 was embodied in the text, which stat Gooden, 2014, p. 196 ). Figure 5.2 shows t he findings of the directed content analysis for Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando It illustrates the percentage of results that were returned for each combination. Numbers 1 10 align with the principles ( listed below for reference ) The remainder of this section discusses the most and least prevalent themes for reach MSA. As noted below this analysis illustrate s that key principles (1 and 6) received more attention in the documents than others (2) across all four of the MSAs.

PAGE 116

102 1. Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government. 2. The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be minimized, but rather offers instructive guidance 3. Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination of triggers: a. Political b. Legal c. Moral d. Economic 4. Senior leadership is critically important factor in realizing sustained progress 5. At the individual level, public servants must recognize and eliminate behaviors that impede equity progress 6. At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluat e their socialization boundaries and extend them to accommodate a wider range of equity work 7. There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a socially conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solutions 8. Equity needs to operate in a context of accountability 9. If legal barriers to discrimination have been eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline equity work 10. Significant progress in government can be ach ieved Figure 5.2. Directed Content Analysis Findings The most prevalent topics in Denver documents concerned administrator responsibility (1), organizational activities (6), and accountability efforts (8). The topics that 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Denver Minneapolis Birmingham Orlando 1 2 3a 3b 3c 3d 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PAGE 117

103 returned the fewest results concerned history and discrimination (2), motivations for addressing equity concerns (3), and written discussion of the frontline work that moves beyond legal requirements (9) Minneapolis documents revealed the highest emphasis on administrator responsib ility (1), individual acknowledgement and equity related activities (5), and organizational activities (6). Like Denver, the same three topics that were least prevalent concerned history and discrimination (2), motivations for addressing equity concerns (3 ), and the frontline work that moves beyond legal requirements (9). In Birmingham, the public documents most emphasized administrator responsibility (1), organizational activities (6), a nd structural equity solutions (7). Fewer documentation existed regar ding history and discrimination (2), senior leadership (4), and written discussion of the frontline work that moves beyond legal requirements (9). The most prevalent principles in Orlando documents reflected topics of administrator responsibility (1), org anizational activities (6), and accountability efforts (8). The least common topics regarded history and discrimination (2), political, legal, moral, and economic motivations for addressing equity concerns (3) and the role of senior leadership (4). Thus, the most prevalent topics across all four MSAs aligned with keywords from two principles Principle 1 emphasizes the importance of accepting responsibility in addressing equity concerns. Principle 6 focuses on organizational activities that relate to equit y, which must move beyond legal requirements to permit further agency action Denver and Minneapolis both exhibited low returns on Principle s 3 and 9. Neither emphasized political, legal, moral, or economic motivations for undertaking equity related

PAGE 118

104 activities. Moreover, the MSA s provided minor documentation of the key word concerning frontline activities, which Gooden (2014) argues forms the foundation f or advancing social equity once legal barriers are overcome. This suggests that some concern may continue to exist in these MSAs aro und potential litigation if the topic of enduring inequities is too closely acknowledged by public agencies Conversely, all MSAs returned the fewest results on keywords related to Principle 2. This emphasizes the role of history and acknowledges discrimination that has been inherent in transit policies pa st, and present. This suggests a continuing lack of ackn owledgement of the historical realities of injustice inflicted upon minority and low income communities in the written documents in all MSAs argument that agencies experience a nervousness when tasked with addressing racial inequities, a feeling that translates into invisibility in public documents as well. access cases, Birmingha m and Orlando also had low returns on one additional principle s. Each MSA provided little documentation of the motivations for equity related activi ties as reflected in Principle 4 S enior leadership was thus a less critical factor in their equity considerations. Interview Analysis were further examined through interviews with public transit administrators, planners, and analysts in each MSA The purpose of this stage was to acquire more in depth data to understand the extent t o which each principle is supported in Denver, Minneapoli s, Birmingham, and Orlando. This contributed further understanding of how the organizational practices of practitioners impact the degree to which agencies work toward greater accountability for equity of their residents.

PAGE 119

105 A sampling plan was designed to m aximize the chance of recru iting participants in different agencies. All of those interviewed for this study were employed in public transit and addressed social equity in t heir respective roles, albeit with a range of technical and administrative responsibilities A to tal of 12 interviews were conducted across all cases, with 3 participants from each MSA Inter view interaction was tracked based on Miles & contact summary form ( See Appendix F ). Interviews were conducted with open e nded questions t hat addressed each of the 10 p r in ciples. After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, verbal consent was obtained from all participants. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed in Excel. Upon completion of all interviews, a directed approach to a nalysis consisted of an independent review of all transcriptions for each individual case. All comments were coded into one of the 10 principles. Data that could not be coded into one of the categories was reexamined and put into a se parate notes section. Additional documents that were suggested by participants during the interview were also noted Potential participants that were also recommended by participants were noted in the comments section of the transcription form. T he findi ngs illustrate the extent to which the 10 principles were supported in each MSA They are provided in Table 5. 2 Each principle is provided a ranking on a scale ranging from None, Minimal Moderate, or Full based on the number of respondent s who showed support for each principle in their respective MSA s The three answers were thus combined for each case. If three respondents supported the principle in each case it is designated as Full If two respondents supported the principle, it is des ignated as Moderate If 1 respondent showed support for the principle, it is designated as Minimal And if none of the respondents showed support for the principle it is noted as None

PAGE 120

106 Table 5. 2 Interview Analysis Findings Degree of Support Principle Denver Minneapolis Birmingham Orlando 1. Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of government. Moderate Full Full Full 2. The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be minimized, but rather offers instructive guidance. None Full Moderate Moderate 3. Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination of a. P olitical triggers None Moderate None None b. Full Minimal Full Moderate c. None Moderate Moderate Minimal d. None Minimal None Minimal 4. Senior leadership is critically important factor in realizing sustained progress. Moderate Full Moderate Minimal 5. At the individual level, public servants must recognize and eliminate behaviors that impede equity progress. Full Full Full Full 6. At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluate their socialization boundaries and extend them to accommodate a wider range of equity work Moderate Full Full Moderate 7. There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a socially conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solutions. Minimal Full Minimal Moderate 8. Equity needs to operate in a context of accountability. Moderate Moderate Full Full 9. If legal barriers to discrimination have been eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline equity work. Full Full Full Full 10. Significant s ocial equity progress in government can be achieved. Minimal Moderate Full Full

PAGE 121

107 The findings are next presented for each individual MSA. This illustrates the extent to which the principles received Full supported in Denver (Principles 3b, 5, 9), Minneapolis (Principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9), Birmingham (Principles 1, 3b, 5, 6, 8, 9), and Orlando (Principles 1, 5, 6, 9, 10). The other levels of support are also noted. Then, additional analysis follows with a discussion of all case findings combined. The most highly supported principles all MSAs held in common were 1, 6, and 8. All 12 participants showed support for Principles 5 and 9. The remainder of this section discusses the findings in greater depth for each MSA. Denver Full S upport D 3b (Legal Triggers) All participants noted that the legal requirements to comply with Title VI were the primary reason for addressing social equity in Denver. Even though Title VI itself was developed due to the moral tr igger from pressures that manifested through the Civil Rights Movement, the long term impacts of the mandatory statutes force local municipalities to address discriminatory practices and environmental justice concerns based on race, ethnicity, national ori gin, and income. As one participant noted: There is an awkward tension because [white] leadership and administration are serving people that they do not understand and are not connected to. And you cannot bring up equity without them discussing how it does not protect white people. So I take the approach that th e law tells us we have to do it. S o then they listen. D 5 (Individual Behaviors) All participants discussed instances in which they have individually overcome the nervousness of talking about rac e and low income populations at work. One example included having conversations with regional partners about the impacts of regional development on minority and low income populations and encouraging them to

PAGE 122

108 use the Denver Regional Equity Atlas tool. Anoth er participant noted that he contributed to the creation of a position by arguing for a staff member to solely focus on Title VI compliance in the Denver region. The third participant was a technical specialist that was highly skilled in Geographic Informa tion Systems (GIS) technology. He and some others in his department independently decided to apply for a Job Access and Reverse Commute ty and low income neighborhoods where residents were more reliant on public t ransit to go to and from work opportunities. D 9 (Frontline Work) All participants discussed address ing disparities based on race and income Title VI serves as an important legal document that has allowed agencies to mov e beyond standard requirements. One participant noted that the regional planning group is integrating the Human Services Plan with the general ridership plan to address needs of all groups. Another described that his agency is collect ing rider data since census data does not provide the much higher than the Census data shows. And that is important because one of the t This comment illustrates a n attempt to better serve the public through more innovative data collection practices. The final participant noted that the collection of data for Title VI is now being used by other depart ments t o enhance equity For instance, GIS technicians work with the Marketing department to identify locations with high Spanish and Vietnamese speaking residents Materials are created with language in mind. Moderate Support D 1 (Responsibility) Two participants supported the notion that public administrators are responsible for addressing minority and low income population concerns

PAGE 123

109 as they relate to public transit. requirement than a res This suggests less of an adoption for the emotional and historical context in which transit is situated as a key component of opportunity that is inherently promised to all through the constitutional and legal bases of this country. D 4 (Seni or Leadership) Two participants noted how leaders within their organizations were critical in creating a culture in which social equity was deemed important. One participant noted that a supervisor independently went to the FTA to persuade them to accept a more innovate GIS portrayal of equitable development practices. Another participant noted that the agency does what is required, but elected officials throughout the region are also interested in fulfilling the needs of people throughout the regio n. Yet, the final participant stated that leadership was more of a barrier to overcoming nervousness, noting: Denver is still very conservative. I can give you an example from a recent meeting with our Civil Rights Division. Our board chair asked why white men are not protected by Title VI. There is a basic misunderstanding of equity. The perception that Title VI is not for white men is problematic. Transit primarily serves minorities, but our leadership are not minorities D 6 (Organizational Boundaries) Two participants noted activities that reside in the nervous area of minority and low income population discussion. They both noted that, while many of their responsibilities are required based on Title VI compliance, they are permitted to work outside of those boundaries. For instance, one respondent noted that he has begun developing a GIS tool for service planners based on the ridership data that has been recently collected that better identifies minority routes. However, the third par ticipant expressed a need to comply and an inability to utilize survey data based on race, income, location, etc. He explained: have to follow. So [our work] is more about high level, proportional s tatistics.

PAGE 124

110 D 8 (Context of Accountability) Two participants expressed great support for the investment in performance assessment of equitable outcomes. One noted that regional governments conduct spatial analyses to determine the threshold for environmental justice concerns of disproportionate benefits and burdens on low income and minority communities. The other participant discussed innovative GIS techn iques and a specific Polygon Overlay Tool that was internally developed to streamline the process. It allows planners to show full service rail and bus routes serving low income, minority, and limited English proficiency (LEP) communities. By using that to ol, the participant noted that the organization has never failed to comply with FTA and Title VI requirements based on the analyses they have submitted. Yet, the third participant noted that there is room for improvement in the assessment of transit and so cial equity. He discussed the need for more market research, rider surveys, and transit oriented development by municipalities across the Denver region for accountability to be achieved. Minimal Support D 7 (Structural Solutions) Only one participant dis cussed a policy approach that embraced the idea of structural, systemic, and institutional barriers within public transit systems. The respondent noted the reason that the FTA became more involved in data collec tion and methodology to ensure that social eq uity analyses were valid and addressed civil rights issues. The other participants were unable to provide support for the role of social inequity D 10 (Progress) Two respondents noted enduring challenges related to transit equity and accessibility. One noted that the light rail expansion project was completed due to political reasons and public support, but that may not translate into more equitable outcomes.

PAGE 125

111 Fares remain high and affordability is an issue. The other respondent discussed the lack of measures emphasizing community engagement. But the third respondent was especially optimistic about the transit equity direction in Denver, noting: The key piece is diff working in good faith and doing the right thing. Transit folks are good people to talk to because we have a ton of data, we want to be as transparent as possible, ways to make improvements. No Support D 2 (Historical Treatment) No participants discussed lessons learned from the historical mis treatment of key groups or neighborhoods in the Denver region. Furthermore, all participants noted that they do not use historical data in their analyses. There is much greater emphasis on projecting what the future needs of the region will be. One participant mentioned H etermine the desires and expect ations of our riders. The emphasis on rider needs is also difficult to determine based on Denver history. I ncreasing interest in transit emerg ed after the Great Recession of 2007 and population growth in recent years. D 3 a, c, d (Political, Moral, Economic Triggers) While Gooden (2014) notes that agencies typically address social equity due to a combination of motivational factors none of the participants discussed political, moral, or economic triggers The legal requirements of Title VI were mentioned several times as the initial reasons for emphasis in this area. Minneapolis Full S upport M 1 (Responsibility) All participants showed support for considering the provision of public services regarding minority and low income communities in the Minneapolis

PAGE 126

112 region. All three respondents were passionate about addressing concerns based on race, ethnicity, income, and language barriers. There was also an understanding of the systematic ways in which specific communities were disadvantaged. P articipants were upfront about their role to address such injustice in strategic and intentional ways that go above and beyond fede ral reporting requirements. One participant noted: Title VI people think they already do equity. But Title VI is a low bar. It's a starting point. It means that you can discriminate, but not too most people think you either need to do [initiatives at the] policy/systems [level] or individual [frontline] level We do a middle of the road approach. It's about systems change but it's also about people who implement the policies. They will help change those systems. M 2 (Historical Treatment) All participants showed significant support and understanding for the ways in which minority and low income neighborhoods in their region had been disproportionately burdened and n egatively impacted by transit development. One participant noted that history played a major role in leading the Mayor of St. Paul to publicly apologize to the Rondo neighborhood, a majo rity African American community. The City recognized that there was immense wealth and quality of life stripped away decades before because of major interstate highway construction through the community Another participant described the degree to which historical trauma of residents informs how they develop and pass polic y today. After taking part in the public apology event, she noted : I remember waking up some nights and thinking, this process will really change this and we'll never have to do this again. But now I know we will have to do this over and over again to prov e that the City learned its lesson and that this will never happen again. M 4 (Senior Leadership) All participants noted that senior leadership was an important factor in developing and implementing social equity initiatives. One participant discussed ho w a City Council member was directly impacted and displaced by previous

PAGE 127

113 transportation development in the Rondo neighborhood. His personal experience was vital in getting other leaders on board to realize that the City had to address this injustice. Anothe r participant noted that her supervisor was very important in continuing to expand the Everyday Equity program, as noted above by making it a funding priority despite budget ding 3 light rail stops on the new development, especially noting a County Commissioner from the Rondo neighborhood. M 5 (Individual Behaviors) All participants discussed times in which they personally had to overcome the nervousness of talking about social equity at work. One example included discussions with a city employe d traffic engineer about the negative impact in the Rondo neighborhood. The engineer was inspired by the goal of overcoming the historical trauma in that area, and he applied for fe deral funding to improve walkability in that community. The project is currently underway and was designed to include a public art component that details the history of the community that lived there. Another participant discussed the Everyday Equity progr am through the Metropolitan Council in the region. Part of the initiative was to start a t the personal level by talking with all staff throughout the organization, many of which had never thought about social equity in their jobs. The third participant not ed that conversations are ongoing about the Rondo neighborhoods. She D and I said es, every single day. M 6 (Organizational Boundaries) All participants noted activities in which they engage that reside in the nervous area of discussing how to address past wrongs. Beyond the requirements of the FTA, all noted various ways in which more robust tasks are permitted

PAGE 128

114 and encouraged throughout t he organization. One participant noted that she has great support from the General Manager, and although funding has been an issue for programs throughout the organization, he recommitted funding to the Everyday Equity program. An other participant discusse with members of a minority community that was going to be impacted during the construction of a new light rail line She noted that members of her staff went out and talked with people about what they needed to not be negatively impacted The result was funding allocations for local businesses that could show that they made less in revenue during the construction They also took professional photos of business owners and paid to have them put up on billboards. They a lso changed zoning codes to allow for more signage for minority owned businesses. This illustrates the degree to which the organization risked possible litigation and instead worked with the community to find solutions based on internal and e xternal conver sations. The final participant who built a coalition of public officials from across the region, also noted that such discussions can be difficult, explaining: Many people are not Members need to talk through the racism issu es. There are many different levels of risk. There are fears of lawsuits. So the coalition has to make room for all members to do what they do. It is important to pilot community engagement projects and recruit members that are trusted advocates as well. M 7 (Structural Solutions) All participants showed support for understanding the structural, systemic barriers that are associated with public transit system development in minority and low income neighborhoods. One participant noted that institutional ra cism was a big part of the conversation when advocating to get a greater number of light rail stations in historically disadvantaged communities. Another participant stated that the problem of social the communities that have been

PAGE 129

115 affected for decades. The City of St. Paul has explicitly focused on hiring local businesses within the affected communities to do as much of the development as possible to ensure they are benefiting the most from the projects in their area. The final participant also discussed internal equity policies that address instit We are an organizatio n that is 80% male (and 100% at the top leader The Metropo litan Council has just revised their stroller policy to allow for strollers on the light This shows the understanding of barriers that emerge wh en specific voices are not represented at the top level, placing greater burden on mothers (and fathers) who are caretaking for children and rely on public transit. M 9 (Frontline Work) All participants identified activities that illustrate their organiz ations have moved beyond legal barriers to address social equity at the frontlines. One organization worked with FTA administrators and changed the course of transit development utilizing the CEI. Another participant noted that her organization has develop ed a coalition of leaders. Many partnerships between cities have emerged through a coordinated investment in improving the entire region, and the model allows several members to take credit for successes and is established on an ethic where no one member c omes in with an idea for development on their own. They must work with the other partners, and that is an innovative strategy that has proven successful. The final participant discussed several ways in which her team has moved beyond Title VI and engaged e veryone within her organization to normalize social equity. from low income communities of co lor and we partner with a community college to train

PAGE 130

116 These examples illustrate more strategic engagement than what is legally required to receive federal funds. Moderate Support M 3 a, c (Political, Moral Triggers) Two participants showed support for political and moral factors for moving social equity considerations forward in Minneapolis. The election of 2010 was noteworthy, and one participant explained equity became a key init i ative of Thrive2040 [the long range plan ] Another participant City Council, and they put pressure on the Mayor of St. Paul to address the issues in that community. That discussion is also related to the moral trigger of a grassroots campaign to improve the quality of life that had been depleted in that neighborhood. Another participant not ed the local movement that emerged from residents who were unhappy with the low levels of civic engagement by public officials to gain input and expand light r ail in areas that needed it the most. M 8 (Context of Accountability) Two participants discussed the importance of utilizing data and measures to assess social equity and accessibility and make improvements where needed. One described how her coalition utilized the Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) to show that the original li ght rail development was not benefiting most people, especially minority and low income communities. It was successfully used to advocate for and achieve the addition of 3 light rail stations in historically disadvantaged communities. M 10 (Progress) Two participants noted that they had made significant progress to achieve more equitable transit development and access for minority and low income neighborhoods. One participant discussed the need to be strategic and prepared to be in

PAGE 131

117 conversation for a long time with a wide power base. She noted that the three stops campaign was successful because they got influential political actors on their side. Another participant noted that she is most proud of the intangible progress that has been made in normaliz ing of our fabric. Bus drivers in the past felt powerless, and now they feel they can speak. We ant felt as though progress was ongoing. She noted that future development was focused on developing a light rail line from downtown to the airport. She noted: This will affect upper middleclass neighborhoods. And we already did the land use planning and t hought this would be done a decade ago. And we need it for economic development. But the meaningful engagement is more difficult. It's harder to work with these neighborhoods. It's easier to work with those who are interested in change, but these people ar e not. It reflects the privilege and that they are used to having their way. .. So one thing we have learned is the differen ce in working with neighborhoods who are traumatized versus those that are privileged. The engagement is very different. Minimal Supp ort M 3 b, d (Legal, Economic Triggers) Low support was provided for two motivators. One participant discussed the legal requirements for community engagement based on FTA guidelines, but she noted that they were inadequate and something that the communi ty fought ag ainst. An other participant noted an economic catalyst for focusing on social equity, emphasizing how businesses within the larger metropolitan region realize the need to get qualified workers to their company grounds to have a skilled workforce Birmingham Full S upport B 1 (Responsibility) All participants noted their responsibility to work in the public interest to ensure minority and low income communities were fairly treated in all transit

PAGE 132

118 development and decisions. The first respondent discussed how his work looked at all facets of Titl e VI and ensured that there was no discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, ability, etc. Other participants paid attention to their role in ensuring all voices were heard by taking civic engagement seriously. B 3b (Legal Triggers) All pa rticipants noted the need to comply with Title VI, which was the primary reason for ensuring fairness in public transit throughout the Birmingham region. One participant worked directly with area agencies to maintain compliance with all statutes. The other two participants discussed how the legal motivations are an important trigger and place to start when developing transit projects and ensuring current routes are performing well. B 5 (Individual Behaviors) All participants exhibited personal attitudes an d actions that illustrated that they had to overcome the nervousness of talking about social equity in their roles as public servants. One participant noted that he was not aware of any formal Title VI issues, and if such complaints or challenges would eme rge, he would work with agencies to address the problem and come up with a solution. He noted that his agency provides technical service, so they would individual ly work with transit providers and provide information from other projects that have worked in the past. Another participant discussed the advocacy role that planners must play with local municipalities to see the benefits and cost effective nature of her work. The final participant discussed what equity looks like in his department, which oversees 58 metropolitan planning organizations in the Birmingham area. He noted: leaving anyone out. For equity, a stronger Birmingham is good for everyone. air, and not everyone would agree with me, but we try to be fair to everybody.

PAGE 133

119 B 6 (Organizational Boundaries) All participants discussed practices that move beyond the basic federal reporting requirements that reside in the nervous area of discussing fai rness and justice. Each mentioned how they accommodate for a broad er scope of social equity work. But this looked different in each agency. One participant discussed how they have assessed low ridership issues with transit agencies and directed them to exp and their service hours to a 7:00am 9:00pm schedule. This ensured that the bus routes were more beneficial for those working in entry level and service industry positions, which are typically held by low income residents. Another participant discussed internal equity considerations, noting that she has more recently built a much better relationship with bus drivers and their union leader. She is negotiating to ensure drivers are getting the schedules that they want and she is work ing to increase the number of breaks they get while driving The final participant noted that his team takes extra steps to en sure public participation explaining: We follow Title VI. We always plan with public participation. We show that this is our plan we get input, and we also send it out to show that we followed what we said. But we go above and beyond what the law requires, because that social networks, we go to churches. I like to go out and make sure people know, whereas many just put it in the paper and call it good. We even did a phone bank on TV from 5:00 8:00pm where people could call in and give input. I want their input. B 8 (Context of Accountability) All particip ants emphasized the need to conduct social equity work in a manner that illustrates accountability by utilizing more in depth assessments and analyses. One participant mentioned that agencies report back to them on a quarterly, semiannual, and annual basis through an electronic reporting system. This ensures compliance. Another participant noted that a lot of information is collected and illustrated through their internal data center, and they collect and analyze their own data because they cannot get it el sewhere at the level in which they need it. The final participant noted that her

PAGE 134

120 organization organized a Scheduling Committee made up of staff from throughout the agency, explaining the holistic perspective that it provides: They all come together to disc uss productivity and how it can be better. We have bus operators (that see the need), customer service representatives (that hear the need), and then transportation planners that can compare those voices with transit data to improve services. B 9 (Frontli ne Work) P articipants provided examples indicating how their organizations have moved beyond legal barriers to address social equity through more innovative strategies. They noted that the greatest challenge for public transit is tied to inadequate fundin g. Alabama is one of few states that do not allocate funds to local and regional agencies for transit One participant noted that they assist recipients to fund projects in compliance of Title VI. Another describe d the new technology that her organization re cently acquired to track and ensure buses are on time and performing at a high standard for all residents. The final participant further discussed the role that public participation played in keeping a greenway development from happening. His agency prov ides feasibility studies for local projects, and after gaining a high degree of public input, they found that many environmental groups and the neighbor hood was against the project. Thus, substantial financial and resource savings resulted from that commun ity level assessment B 10 (Progress) All participants noted that their agencies had a role in ensuring progress to achieve more equitable transit and access for minority an d low income neighborhoods. One participant noted that they key was to simplify th e process for providing information and assistance. Anoth e r participant noted that relationships are getting stronger both internally and externally due to improved communication. She also discussed the new software that the agency has adopted which will better provide the tools necessary for her agency to do a better job This includ es new technology that will utilize GIS to show how

PAGE 135

121 transit impacts the population, where jobs accessibility exists on routes, and it will enhance their Title VI analysi s. The final participant also discussed how downtown development is improving the entire city. For instance, Birmingham received a $66 million Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recover y (TIGER) grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation. T hat funding will be used to develop a 12 mile bus rapid transit (BRT) program that will run from one end of the metro to the other. A key component will be neighborhood connectors, which will enhance accessibility across the region as well. Moderate Suppor t B 2 (Historical Treatment) Two of the participants noted the importance of historical treatment of minorities and low income communities in their work. One participant discussed the primary importance of Title VI and found that it ensured compliance across t he state and in Birmingham. Another participant further described how certain communities had historically been mistreated by development, explaining that people from low income and minority communities were not happy with current projects. However, ALDOT has offered build and move things and not care who was impacted. But now it makes everything The final participant did not provide insigh t into this principle, noting that his agency does not deal with land use issues. But he offered an interesting opinion, noting that communities are not complaining about the negative impacts of development. Rather, they are more upset if development is no t coming to their neighborhoods His statements suggest focus on downtown neighborhoods and redevelopment to improve the local economy. B 3c (Moral Triggers) Two participants discussed moral motivations to address social equity and accessibility in Birmin gham. As previously noted, one participant argued

PAGE 136

122 that his agency goes above and beyond to get community input and keep them informed of what is happening in transit development. Civic participation, thus, provides a high degree of motivation for the actio ns that are taken in his organization Furthermore, another agency has a Transit Citizens Advisory Board (TCAB) that plays a significant role in transit planning decisions, representing the broader community, and keeping the people from their neighborhoods informed of what is happening if services change. They are also an important mediator between the elected board and the residents to ensure they have a voice and both sides know how public policies and transit development will benefit or burden them. B 4. Two participants noted that senior leadership in their organizations were critical to improving social equity in Birmingham One participant noted: Leadership is very important. My supervisor makes sure all staff are aware and educated for what needs to be done. Her boss is the Bureau Chief and he has contact with the Director's Office. And they report to the Governor's Office and FTA. These comments additionally suggest that senior leadership work s to ensure that all issues are handled and assistance is provided to ensure discriminatory practices and devel opment does not take place. Another participant also discussed how the organization had recently gone through a massive change in leadership, and the new Executive Director has come in, assessed every s ingle department, and made the changes necessary for the agency to be successful. The final participant suggested that the recent change in elected officials in the City of Birmingham has been a positive change, and projects are being approved now that nev er would have in the past. However, he did not suggest that the leadership was a major factor in social equity related initiatives or sustained progress. Minimal Support

PAGE 137

123 B 7 (Structural Solutions) One participant showed support for the principle of understanding the structural barriers that are associated with public transit system and a ccess to opportunity He was clear that his agency address ed systematic issues experienced by minority and low income communities. The other participants emphasized c hallenges that did not incorporate an institution al view of discrimination There was greater focus on internal challenges of their agencies and the difficulty in dealing with federal reporting requirements on key performance measures. Reduction of transit funding was also a focus of improving accessibility The approaches are less conscious of the structural challenges that must be overcome. No Support B 3 a, d (Political, Economic Triggers) While Gooden (2014) notes that agencies typically address socia l equity due to a combination of motivational factors, none of the participants discussed political or economic triggers. The legal requirements of Title VI were mentioned several times. Moral factors of public input and participation were also cited by two of the three participants. This suggests a lack of deep interest in social equity by the community of elected officials and a lack of acknowledgement of the relationship between access and economic development. Orlando Full Support O 1 (Responsibility) All participants discussed how their roles include a responsibility to work in the public interest to ensure minority and low income communities are fairly treated in all transit development and decisions. This looked different for each position. One participant worked directly with communities to ensure they were engaged in

PAGE 138

124 planning processes. Another participant was a planner that was directly invol ved with understanding how transit impacted health in the Orlando region. The final participant oversaw all Title VI activities in their agency Each stressed the importance of assisting low income and minority communities in line with their authority as p ublic servants O 5 (Individual Behaviors) All participants expressed a personal understanding of social equity concerns. Each had a story about how they have independently promoted greater accessibility and equitable distribution of resources. Two participants must use certain language with their partners because not everyone understands what equity means. Both were very intentional with their words and connecting the dots between public transit and better opportunities. The third participant noted how she individually works with people throughout her organization to identify social equity concerns. She noted: I train all officers on identifying "potential issues" words that people use that might suggest they feel they are being discriminated again st. And I do that for Title VII 13 too for employees working for our contractors. And I follow up with every single one that is reported. Not a lot gets by me. And it shows we do care, and we care about EEO and compliance. O 8 (Context of Accountability) All participants emphasized the need to collect performance data to assess equitable development and outcomes. One participant noted that public meetings are an important part of her work. She emphasized prioritization of cost effective solutions to access ibility. One example was provided. A rail development had to go through a trailer park instead of a commercial business area T he assessment showed that the decision did not favor the business community over the low income neighborhood Her agency worked t o reloc ate people to a situation that wa s financially better than what th ey 13 Title VII is an additional measure that protects against discrimination of government contracted employees.

PAGE 139

125 previously had Another participant discussed the need to examine areas that are experiencing population growth, particularly in Hispanic communities They documented a pilot proje ct to expand service on Sundays, and they noted that those lines have experienced the la rgest increase in ridership Finally, the other participant further emphasized the need to be accountable to the community by engaging with residents face to face, online, and working closely with churches, school systems, going out to festivals, etc. to connect with residents and engage them in deci si on making processes and inform them of transit p rograms that could benefit their livelihoods O 9 (Frontline Work) All participants noted examples of how they have moved beyond legal discrimination concerns to address social equity through leadership One participant noted that the greatest challenge that she works to overcoming is address ing apa thy of the broader community Another discussed how she works to address the funding challenges of providing services in communities with no tax base since they are the riders that have the highest reliance. T he final participant noted she works to make certain that the reports she gets are in alignment with what is happening on the transit system. She explained: I go out and ride the train on my own from time to time. I buy my own ticket. It's for work, but I get my own ticket. And if I'm getting a bunch of calls from a specific area, I go out and see and observe what the issue might be. And I have others people that work for me go out and observe so we have a representative group. And we have never found a ny incidences. O 10 (Progress) All participants expressed progress in the Orlando region. One participant discussed the SunRail development as a step in the right direction, and more expansion is planned to provide greater access to more rural communiti es. The transit planner discussed the importance of growing regional partnerships. She discussed how well the region works together, and there is a new acknowledgement of the relationship between

PAGE 140

126 transit access and economic consequences that have led to gr eater homelessness Another participant noted that the region has $ 3 billion of construction under way, and based on the front line work of her office, not a single formal complaint has been filed. Moderate Support O 2 (Historical Treatment) Two participa nts were forthright about integrating the treatment of minority neighborhoods into their work. Each discu ssed specific communities that had experienced challenges based on housing and transit issues. One explained that a historically black neighborhood had recently gotten a HUD transformation grant to increase mixed income housing, which resulted in more workforce development opportunities. Ther e was also a bus maintenance station in their neighborhood, so the organization was working with residents to conn ect them with job opportunities. Other neighborhoo ds that have historically had low access to work opportunities in the tourism area ( i.e. Walt Disney World) have also recently been awarded federal dollars to build a transit hub to improve access. The fina l participant did not think that the region had experienced any challenges, even though some people must be displaced to make room for transit development. O 3b (Legal Triggers) Two participants expressed legal factors as th eir major motivation particula rly noting the need to comply with Title VI. The transit planner discussed reporting requirements to the FTA. Another participant emphasized her role in reviewing all construction projects and operations on a quarterly basis to ensure internal and external compliance. She also noted that her department had been focusing on social equity for a long time and it had become a standard protocol across all departments to make sure that fairness is achieved at all levels of the transit system.

PAGE 141

127 O 6 (Organizational Boundaries) Two participants discussed practices that move beyond the basic federal reporting requirements that reside in the nervous area of discussing fairness and justice. One s and then we have goals The transit planner added that the agency is now looking at all routes to see how they can better serve the disadvantaged communities. She explained: We might not be serving them as well as we could be, and we want to do more than we did in the past. We are laying the groundwork for this large area. Because both urban and rural areas lack access. O 7 (Structural Solutions) Two of the participants discussed how their agency is examining the structural barriers to better opportunity and quality of life for disadvantaged populations in Orlando. One participant discussed the agency has paid special attention to a report that illustrates a very high number of reside in the region. She noted that if their car breaks down, they are out of luck. And those people have low paying jobs, so public transportation would be a very important need for them The transit planner additionall y noted that several public and nonprofit groups throughout the region are beginning to address the high number of immigrants th at are settling in Orlando. One agency is working with hospitals because there is an acknowledgment of the relationship between transit access, employment, and health outcomes. The final participant did not indicate any structural barriers and was more focused on individual com plaints that her agency addresses Minimal Support O 3d (Economic Triggers) One participant emphasized the role that the business community has paid in increasing accessibility. She noted that many companies in the area

PAGE 142

128 realize the role that public transit plays in connecting them with the workforce they need. She explained: The b usiness community knows that they need to get employees to work. It has not been difficult to convince people of the importance of transit. Especially when we are still working on efficiency. And for people that rely solely on transit, it is hard. O 4 (Se nior Leadership) One participant discussed the importance of leadership in realizing socially equitable outcomes in transit accessibility. She noted that all levels throughout the state have been doing this work for a long time, stating ly been a key factor in developing and implementing social equity initiatives. One noted that the degree of support various on are transit champions and constituents who are transit dependent, and that is evident in their perspectives. Yet, the respondents suggested that leaders are just one part of this process. No Support O 3a, c (Political, Moral Triggers) No participants discussed political or moral motivations for social equity initiatives in the Orlando region. As noted before, the legal requirements associated with Title VI is one primary motivator. The other factor relates to an understanding and support from the business community to connect potential workers with their companies. Summary Table 5. 3 display s the total support for Principles 1 10 in the far right column It shows the sum of respondents from Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando that

PAGE 143

129 supported each principle Because three participants were interviewed in each case, t he highest possible value is 12. Table 5. 3 Interview Analysis Summary Principle Denver Minneapolis Birmingham Orlando Total Principle Support 1. Responsibility 2 3 3 3 11 High 2. Historical Treatment 0 3 2 2 7 Moderate 3 a. Political Trigger 0 2 0 0 2 Low 3b. Legal Trigger 3 1 3 2 9 High 3c. Moral Trigger 0 2 2 1 5 Moderate 3 d Economic Trigger 0 1 0 1 2 Low 4. Senior Leadership 2 3 2 1 7 Moderate 5. Individual Behavior 3 3 3 3 1 2 High 6. Org. Boundaries 2 3 3 2 10 High 7. Structural Solutions 1 3 1 2 7 Moderate 8. Accountability 2 2 3 3 10 High 9. Frontline Work 3 3 3 3 12 High 10. Progress 1 2 3 3 9 High Total Case Support 19 31 28 26 Based on the totals, the range of support is categorized as High Support (9 12 responses), Moderate Support (5 8 responses), and Low Support (1 4 responses). Each principle is categorized within one of these three levels of support. These overarching findings are useful in addressing the second research question: How do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? High Support (9 12 responses): Principles 1, 3b, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 The most highly supported principles offer insight into the activities, practices, and behaviors that may initially be adopted to achieve more equitable transit access across minority and low income neighborhoods. The combined interview analysis suggests that administrators highly support seven principles. Transit professionals understand their

PAGE 144

130 responsibility to address social equity concerns as part of their public role. A major motivator for their work begins with working in compliance with Title VI requirements. All of them understand their individual role and acknowledge low income and minority accessibility to overcome nervousness of discussing injustice in their agencies. Many strive to ensure that they uphold accountability for realizing equity and fairness in association with transit services and development. All also exemplify steps have been taken beyond legal requirements and concerns to address social equity through more strategic l eadership practices, policies, and other innovative programs. Each of these principles have led these practitioners to believe that significant progress is possible in the pursuit of more equitable transit systems and development. These findings of the int erview analysis are further supported by the directed approach to the content analysis of documents. Recall that Principle 1 produced the highest number of returns across all cases. In addition, Principles 5, 6, and 8 were also some of the most prevalent i n the wide range of publications that were included in the review. Moderate Support (5 8 responses) : Principles 2, 3c, 4, 7 The mo derately supported principles indicate activities that are less frequently adopted. Some respondents discussed the impact that the historical treatment of disadvantaged groups has played to inform subsequent actions in overcoming inequity. Some noted that citizen groups from negatively impacted communities have been a key motivator for addressing transit and access concerns. A few noted that progress was achieved through the support of elected officials and agency leaders. And a moderate number have taken a conscious approach to addressing the persistence of social inequity through examining structural and systemic barriers to opportunity based on race, ethnicity, income, etc.

PAGE 145

131 The results of the directed content analysis also support this interview analysis. Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando returned the fewest results on the search terms that emphasized the history of discrimination Principles 2 (search terms: History and Discrimination) and 9 (search terms: Barrier and Discrimination) produced fewer than 5% of the total results. Although the interviews produced one of the highest degrees of support for Principle 9, this was based on the frontline work that was achieved once barriers to discrimination were eliminated. The search terms are more limited, any may reveal different sentiments between the content analysis and the interview analysis interpretations. These u nderutilized principles are important to note T hey may serve as the enduring barriers to achieving more equitable outcomes. Transit officials may not understand the importance of gaining insight from previous cases of discrimination that have impacted min ority and low income neighborhoods in their regions. Many continue to follow legal requirements to comply with federal reporting needs rather than focusing on the voices within neighborhoods that call for better service. More can be done to develop leaders who opportunities. And a greater emphasis must be placed on understanding the structural barriers inherent in unjust systems that continue to burden minority and low income neighborhoods when compared to those that are more white, wealthy, and privileged. Low Support (1 4 responses) : Principles 3a, 3d Finally, the least supported principles are critical to note. Specifically, t wo motivational factors within Princi ple 3 produced the lowest support based on the interview analysis. Just two respondents noted that political factors motivated their MSA to address transit equity concerns, both of which were from Minneapolis. One respondent from

PAGE 146

132 Minneapolis and one respon dent from Orlando noted that the business community was an important stakeholder in working toward better accessibility for job seekers and fulfillment of opportunities as needed by companies especially in the tourism areas This finding is important bec ause it suggests that political and economic factors have not been adequately justified as reasons to provide greater accessibility for historically disadvantaged groups through metropolitan regions. More can be done to illustrate the relationship between political will and increasing social equity in addition to illustrating cost effectiveness of increased transit access to low income and minority neighborhoods. This can be achieved by comparing such qualitative findings with the quantitative results previ ously presented in Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. The theoretical and practical implications for the combined stages of research are provided in the final chapter.

PAGE 147

133 CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION This study set out to advance the understudied and undervalued pillar of social equity. Despite decades of attention, research on equitable administration remains in the margins when compared to efficient, effective, and economical public service delivery P ublication s illustrate a miniscule degree of social equity articles since the 1940s (Raadschelders & Lee, 2011; Gooden, 2015a). Va rious methodological barriers have challenged social equity research. Some of the key challenges have included disciplinary emphasis on efficiency that began at the turn of the 20 th Century the performance movement catapulted New Public Management during the 1980s, and definitional uncertainty T his study addressed another barrier: the lack of quantitative analyse s and indicat ors to assess fairness of decisions and outcomes This research accomplished two goals First, it enhanced understand ing of why social inequity persists in the context of grow ing pub lic transportation networks over time Gooden (2015b) proposed that the amount of social inequity that exists has been adequate ly demonstrated, but the reasons for persistence of injustice remain unclear Therefore, the first phase investigated one potential factor: the impact that public transit has had on neighborhood income inequality and income segregation from 1970 2010. Utilizing fixed effects regression analysis the first research question examined: To what extent is access to work by pub lic transportation associated with the persistence of social inequity over time? This was explored across neighborhoods in four MSA s : Denver and Minneapolis (high access) compared to Birmingham and Orlando (low access) The low access cases produced more e quitable outcomes, whereas social inequity persisted in the high access cases.

PAGE 148

134 Second, this study improve s awareness of factors in the black box of management that affect how agencies maintain accountability for social equity concerns. S pecifically, Gooden ) 10 principles for overcoming nervou sness in pursuit of fair and just policies, plans, and practices were utilized to investigate this puzzle. They inform ed the second research question: How do public transportation agencies achieve accountability for social equity? The qualitative phase captured the degre e of support for each principle as determined by content analysis and interviews in the four cases. While many of the principles received high support, this study found administrators minimally ac knowledged historical oppression and lacked integration of structural and systemic barriers in approaches to advancing access This final chapter draws from the quantitative results and qualitative findings in accordance with the mixed methods research des ign (See Chapter III ) Recall that this analytic approach is rooted in the critical ideological paradigm (Ponterotto et al., 2013) which assumes that reality is shaped by social and political forces. I t asserts that phenomena like social equity can only b e understood by considering the historical power relations that maintain institutional barriers Pu blic institutions thus enable the persistent subjugation of minority groups despite decades of government intervention Moreover, this design utilizes a social justice lens. Findings are meant to improve the position of historically disenfranchised groups. I pay special attention to this aim throughout this concluding chapter. The following discussion is composed of three parts. First, it reviews how the q uantitative results from Chapter IV inform the qualitative findings from Chapter V, and vice versa. Second, the key theoretical contributions to public administration and urban economic s literature are examined. Next, the practical implications for adminis trators

PAGE 149

135 interested in advancing social equity through transportation planning and administration mechanisms are provided. Finally, the chapter closes with a discussion of limitations and ideas for future research. Comparative Analysis of Persistence and Ac countability What do the quantitative and qualitative components of this study reveal when compared in tandem ? Table 6.1 connects the Chapter IV results that led to the Persistent Pathways Framework (PPF) with the Chapter V findings as they relate to Principles. The following discussion is organized into five sections that align with the PPF outcomes: Equitable, Partially Equitable, Equal, Partially Inequitable, and Inequitable T he outcomes denote the degree to which transit access is associated with the economic benefit or burden based on race and ethnicity separated by white communities (WCs) and communities of color (CoCs). Furthermore, the qualitative findings illustrate which principles are most likely included or excluded for eac h of the five PPF outcomes More specifically, the following discussion int erprets intervie w analyse s to describe why Denver neighborhood change has been Equal and Minneapolis neighborhood change has been Partially Inequitable Conversely, this section provide s further insight into the reasons that both Birmingham and Orlando neighborhood change has been Partially Equitable for communities of color. Th e comparative analysi s subsequently reveals the extent to which transit administrators address the principles for overcoming nervousness to achieve better social equity performance This discussion therefore begins to illustrate the relationship between neighborh ood economic outcomes over time in relation to current transit agency programs, policies and practices.

PAGE 150

136 Table 6.1. Comparative Analysis Outcome Persistent Pathway(s) Description Explanatory Principles MSA Equitable 1 WCs: Full B urden CoCs: Full B enefit Include 2, 7 N/A Partially Equitable 2 3 WCs: Partial B urden CoCs: Partial B enefit Include 8, 10 Birmingham, Orlando Equal 4 5 WCs: Same B urden CoCs: Same B enefit Include 3b, 5, 9 Exclude 3acd, 4, 7 Denver Partially Inequitable 6 9 WCs: Partial B enefit CoCs: Partial B urden Exclude 8, 10 Minneapolis Inequitable 10 WCs: Full B enefit CoCs: Full B urden Exclude 3b 9 N/A WCs: White Communities ** CoCs: Communities of Color 1. Public administrators have a responsibility to operate in the nervous area of governm ent. 2. The legal history of discrimination is an important context that cannot be minimized, but rather offers instructive guidance 3. Initial motivators to begin navigation of nervousness typically include some combination of triggers: a. Political b. Legal c. Moral d. Economic 4. Senior leadership is critically important factor in realizing sustained progress 5. At the individual level, public servants must recognize and eliminate behaviors that impede equity progress 6. At the organizational level, government agencies should evaluate their socialization boundaries and extend them to ac commodate a wider range of equity work 7. There are no perfect solutions; however, solutions that embody a socially conscious approach most directly facilitate structural equity solutions 8. Equity needs to operate in a context of accountability 9. If legal barr iers to discrimination have been eliminated, agency leadership, policies, practices, and innovations form the foundation of essential frontline equity work 10. Significant progress in government can be achieved Equitable Pathway(s): 1 Description : WCs F ull Burden, CoCs Full Benefit The Equitable pathway requires fully beneficial outcomes for CoCs while their white counterparts realize fewer economic gains over time This is what social equity looks like when taking race and class into account. It factors in the historical oppression that minority

PAGE 151

137 groups have experienced for generations. White and wealthy populations have typically received more benefits based on discriminatory policy design and systems that afforded them greater power and authority for generations. This pathway thus affords better opportunity to those that have bared greater burden at the hands of public agencies. No cases in this study produced economic results that led to an Equitable outcome. Moreover, it is possible that very fe w to no other cities have accomplished this outcome as transit has expanded in the past several decades. Only one path out of 10 leads to this outcome. Again, the quantitative analysis did not yield these results in Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, or Orla ndo. This designation is based on the narrow focus of the estimated coefficients in Chapter IV, which incorporates the combination of economic opportunity and income inequality trends as function of neighborhood access to transit over time. Explanatory Pri nciples N one of the cases gained full s upport across all 10 principles in the qualitative phase. This is important to note. I t is probable that all principles must have full support of local transit officials arguably, for an extended period for organ izational learning to take place and more equitable policies to take hold. Then, i t is like ly that MSAs can experience Equitable neighborhood outcomes given adequate time. Based on the qualitative findings, I assert that transportation administrators must particularly acknowledge two key principles. Include Principle 2. Principle 2 asserts that the legal history of discrimination is important and can provide vital information in future planning efforts. Based on interview analysis, this was one of the least supported principles overall Past incidents of inequitable access and even neighborhood devastation in communities of color did exist due to transportation policy. Yet, this did not fully inform future planning or policy efforts in any

PAGE 152

138 case. Therefore, historical oppression of local minority groups was a missing component, and it is likely a necessary determinant for public agencies to realize fully equitable possibilities. Include Principle 7. Pr inciple 7 received little support Few asserted socially conscious approaches that tied into structural equity solutions Participants rarely described t ransportation as a social problem in each city I t is therefore unsurprising that planning efforts di d not acknowledge how institutional discrimination is associated with transit. Thus solutions to social mobility issues, looking beyond the physical trip from home to work, did not consider structural and policy change s for those that have historically experienced barriers to opportunity. This too is likely vital to achieve the most equitable results. Partially Equitable Pathway(s): 2 3 Description : WCs Partial Burden, CoCs Partial Benefit Birmingham and Orlando n eighborhoods followed a path toward Partially Equitable outcomes. Birmingham outcomes were statistically significant when accounting for income inequality based on race. Specifically, white neighborhood access was positively associated w ith income inequali ty, while CoCs experienced less income inequality as access expanded. The first proposition thus led to a positive result for minority communities. White neighborhood access was positively associated with inequality in Orlando Non white neighborhood acce ss moved in a negative direction with income inequality. CoCs access was not statistically significant, but it also followed a negative direction. These trends illustrated a beneficial change for minorities while white communities experienced more burden. This is deemed more equitable due to historical discrimination and inequitable housing and transit policies that has privileged w hite commuters and communities.

PAGE 153

139 The second proposition found no association between access and income segregation regardless o f race and ethnicity in Birmingham Therefore, all neighborhoods received the s ame benefits and burdens, despite access trends. The lack of significance is the reason this pathway is only partially beneficial. The combined pathway of these two results thus led to a Partially Equitable outcom e for Birmingham neighborhoods. Orlando fixed effects regression results were slightly different. Hispanic neighborhood access was negatively associated with income segregation. This is a sign of greater equity due to the heightened benefits of this historically disenfranchised group in the region. The two propositions tested thus led to an outcome designation of Partially Equitable as previously mentioned. Explanatory Principles The fixed effects results and qualitative analys e s prov ide important insights into the potential determinant s of this outcome The manifest content analysis of Birmingham documents resulted in nearly 75% of themes focused on projects, funding, and planning. The other two main topics were access and inclusion. Birmingham was the only case that did not primarily e mphasize the topic of service. Thus, as a low access case, this result at first appears to support the suggestion that accessibility is of lower interest to transit administrators and planning professionals. Furthermore, the directed content analysis produ ced a higher return on economic triggers compared to the other three cases. The content analysis thus suggests that there is less visibility for equity initiatives in Birmingham The manifest analysis of Orl ando documents revealed the least mention of acce ss and inclusion. Project, funding, and planning topics accounted for nearly 85% of the major themes. The remaining topic primarily emphasized service considerations. This is sensible

PAGE 154

140 given that the SunRail commuter line has been a major project in the reg ion opening in 2014. Again, as a low access case, the lack of emphas Moreover, the results of the directed content analysis are noteworthy. Nearly 40% of the search results emphasized the responsibility of public administr ators to address social equity concerns (Principle 1). This is nearly double the amount of results in Denver, Minneapolis, and Birmingham. The second and third most noted themes emphasized organizational actions to address equity (Principle 6) and the impo rtance of upholding accountability (Principle 8). Yet, interview analyses provide further insight. Birmingham participants provided the second highest degree of principle support Twenty eight out of 39 possible (72%) statements were supported Seven princip les received full support Orlando participants supported the third highest degree of the 10 principles, with 26 supportive statements out of 39 possible (67%). Five of the 10 principles received full support from participants. Because the two cases had the same outcome, it is important to consider which principles received equally high support Participants in both cases provided full support for the principles that emphasized accountability (8) and the possibility of achieving signi ficant progress (10). Include Principle 8 Participants in Birmingham and Orlando were cognizant of ensuring social equity concerns were handled in a transparent manner. All held themselves and their agencies accountable in a variety of ways. Birmingham agencies accompli shed this by utilizing GIS software to map spatial concerns, providing publicly available data, and organizing a transit advisory board made up of local citizens to inform and improve the bus system. Orlando transit administrators took similar approaches, particularly emphasizing citizen engagement and community outreach to enhance awareness and gather input.

PAGE 155

141 Include Principle 10 Participants full y support ed the idea that government actors can achieve progress through social equity initiatives. One Birmingham participant noted that simplify ing the process was critical to providing better information to planners Another discussed how the adoption of new software is key, such as more advanced GIS technology to show im pacts, where job accessibility exi sts, and to enhance Title VI analysis. In Orlando, participants expressed the crucial role of regional partnerships in their success Another noted, despite $3 billion of construction front line workers have ensure d no complaint s. Equal Pathway(s): 4 5 Description : WCs Same Burden, CoCs Same Benefit Denver outcomes followed a path toward Equal outcomes. N eighborhoods illustrated that there was no statistically significant relationship between transit access, income inequality, and income segregation over the four decades examined. Access to work by public transportation was not associated with persisting social inequity over time. This held true regardless of race and ethnicity. Although no relationships existed the results are informative. The lac k of impact despite greater accessibility has maintained the same benefits and burdens that have existed since 1970. Improved access has not had a positive impact on employment or earnings for white, non white, or Hispanic communities. The status quo h as been maintained. Thus, the economic opportunity and segregation outcomes are Equal Explanatory Principles Various reasons for this assessment can be deduced from the qualitative analyse s The manifest content analysis revealed that documents chiefly focused on projects, funding, and

PAGE 156

142 service. Denver was the only case that did not produce a higher emphasis on planning. Access and inclusion held l ess prominence. This is logical since Denver has undergone extensive transit projects, including recent expan sion of light and commuter rail s. Project funding has been a key focus. Furthermore, service has been a primary topic, especially as abrupt changes have been made to routes across the metro region. This expansion has relied on federal funding, so Title VI social equity analysis have been important to illustrate that minority and low income communities have not been disproportionately impacted. Thus, reporting equal impacts has been the key emphasis, as opposed to the development of a more equitable transit system that lifts underrepresented communities The results of the directed content analysis also revealed that when compared to the other three cases, Denver public documents produced the least r eturns for showing a responsibility to address social equity concerns (Principle 1). This is critical to consider. Public administrators must first recognize their role in addressing ra cial and economic barriers This suggests minimal awareness in transpo r tation policies and procedures. Again, while equal impacts may be achieved equitable impacts may not be a priority. The interview analysis further substantiates how Denver accomplishes equal transit services as opposed to equity. The principles with full support contribute to this reasoning as outlined in the following. Include Principle 3 b All participants most extensively agreed that legal triggers served as the primary motivator to address the nervous area of race and income disparities in relation t o transportation planning Specifically, the federal mandates that required social equity analysis to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were the most commonly discussed motivator.

PAGE 157

143 Include Principle 5. Furthermore, interviews revealed that all viewed themselves as vital independent forces in this work. Each recognized how their individual actions in the transportation world could either impede or improve social equity for constituents. Include Principle 9. Relatedly, since legal barrier s had been eliminated based on federal oversight, the foundation of frontline social equity work was becoming established For instance, RTD recently developed two frontline positions to focus specifical ly on transit equity issues. Their roles included bui lding greater trust with historically disadvantaged communities in the region through community forums, events, and other connections. Exclude Principle 3 a, c, d. Gooden (2014) notes that agencies typically address social equity due to a combination of m otivational triggers. N one of the participants discussed political, moral, or economic triggers. The legal requirements of Title VI were mentioned several times as the initial and enduring reason for action. An additional factor may be necessary to move beyond equal to equitable outcomes. Exclude Principle 4. While moderate support was provided for the principle of senior leadership in Denver, the lack of full support is informative. One participant noted that the agency does what is required, but elected officials are most interested in fulfilling political promises for business development Another participant noted that conservative white leaders were more of a barrier because they did not understand topics like social equity and oppression. Thus, an Equal outcome may be more likely when leadership is lacking. Exclude Principle 7. Minimal support was provided for the structural barriers to opportunity resulting from public transit. The r espondent noted the reason that the FTA became more involved in data collection to ensure that social equity analyses addressed civil rights issues. The other participants did not express

PAGE 158

144 14, p. 200) in persisting social inequity. This omission may result in equal versus equitable outcomes. Furthermore, participants reported the lowest support o f the principles overall. They provided 19 statements out of 39 possible (49%) When taking the r esults from both analyses into account, Denver illustrates a case in which legal compliance may provide equal outcomes but not social equity. This is important. As illustrated in the past, when government works toward equal service s it does not ensure fair and just outcomes Therefore, this approach allows disparities to continue, albeit in ways that are not directly traceable to public transit services levels of access. Partially Inequitable Pathway(s): 6 9 Desc ription : WCs Partial Benefit, CoCs Partial Burden Minneapolis followed a path toward Partially Inequitable outcomes. The results were statistically significant when accounting for income inequality and income segregation. Access to work by public tran sit was associated with persisting soc ial inequity from 1970 2010 based on race and ethnicity. White neighborhood access was negatively associated with income inequality, suggesting more beneficial economic opportunity in those communities. Non white neighborhood access was not statistically significant. Yet, Hispanic neighborhood access to work by public transit was positively associated with increases in income inequality holding all other factors constant. Conversely, neighborhood income segregation had grown in primarily white neighborhoods but decreased in CoCs, enhancing burden on minorities. Overall, economic opportunities produced inequitable results, while income segregation outcomes produce d more equitable results. These tensions lead to the conclusion

PAGE 159

145 that transit access has had a Partially Inequitable impact on neighborhoods. Transit is thus partially associated with the persistence of inequity over time as noted in Chapter IV. Explanatory Principles The quantitative analysis in Minneapolis is important to consider in combination with the qualitative findings discussed in Chapter V. The manifest content analysis of public documents resulted in nearly 70% of themes focused on projects, fun ding, and planning topics. The remainder emphasized access, inclus ion, and service Like Denver, these results can be attributed to the rapid expansion of light rail services in the region in recent years. The directed content analysis of Minneapolis publ ic transit documents is also importa nt The word search prominently emphasized the responsibility of public administrators to address social inequities (Principle 1), the role of individual public servants in recognizing and addressing related barriers (Pr inciple 5), and the necessity for government agencies to examine ways to extend their work beyond what is required (Principle 6). This focus on organizational socialization boundaries is especially important to consider within the Minneapolis region, becau se it echoes the results of the interview analysis. The participants interviewed for this study provided the greatest support for the principles for overco ming nervousness, with 31 statements of support out of the 39 possible (79%) Moreover, their statem ents led to high level of support for seven out of the 10 principles. This was the highest out of all four cases. Paradoxically, Minneapolis neighborhoods illustrated the greatest degree of inequity based on the quantitative result. This mixed methods analysis thus suggests that the persistence of social inequity over the past four decades has led Minneapolis to take further actions to address nervousness in discussions of race, class, and other identities, which has served as a histo rical barrier.

PAGE 160

146 Exclude Principle 8. For instance, one of the participants noted that local government actors were embarrassed by a report tha t illustrated stark racial and economic disparities that continue to exist in the region. This empirical evidence was especially difficult for public administrators to stomach because Minneapolis prides itself on being a progressive region that embraces diversity. Several of the described transit equity initiatives grew from motivation s to address the enduring inequit ies reflected in that baseline assessment. In other words, accountability measures were previously excluded from decision making, which may have allowed for partially inequitable outcomes to persist. Exclude Principle 10. Participants emphasized that much work was still needed to realize significant progress, even though they shared s ome of the most innovative initiatives. Participants described rich community engagem ent, including public apologies, financing minority owned businesses and preserving cultu ral neighborhood characteristics Metro Transit had recently embarked on the Everyday Equity initiative, which sought to normalize conversations about race and class and opportunity throughout the entire organization. This was a formal strategy that none of the other three cases had attempted. It was the most holistic initiative on an organizational level. One finding that was unique to Minneapolis involved the degree of internal equity work that the transit organizations and city departments were beginnin g to engage in as an initial step, as opposed to external equity. Yet Minneapolis suggests a compelling and contradictory possibility. Access to work by transit may be high, income segregation may be low, and administrators may be engaging in robust initiatives. Sti ll, the changes in access are having disproportionate effects on access in CoCs over time. Such enduring inequities may be addressed by organizational actions. This suggests that, as support for the principles reaches maximum levels, it cou ld be because

PAGE 161

147 higher degrees of inequity exist. In other words, considerable social inequity problems must be present before government actors develop policy solutions to address them. Inequitable Pathway(s): 10 Description : WCs Full Benefit, CoCs F ull Burden The Inequitable path requires negative outcomes for communities of color while historically advantaged white communities experience greater economic gains over time. It sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from an Equitable result. The unba lanced privilege provided to wealthy, white neighborhoods continue to be amplified in the scenarios examined in this study. White communities continue experiencing greater economic opportunity, while the earnings gap widens for communities of color. Furthe rmore, income segregation decreases for white neighborhoods, while other communities of color become sorted by economic status None of the cases resulted in an Inequitable outcome based on the framework Only one path of out 10 leads to this result. The likelihood of this combination is thus lower than the middle range of outcomes, which have 8 out of 10 possibilities when factoring in neighborhood economic opportunity and income segregation. Therefore, an outcome on this path is unlikely in other regions beyond Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. Furthermore, all cases had at least some support for the 10 principles for overcoming nervousness to address social inequity, as discovered in the qual itative analysis. This is important. It is probable that an Inequitable outcome is exceedingly difficult if at least some of the principles have been adopted by transit administrators. For instance, since Title VI

PAGE 162

148 mandates compliance, it is unlikely that i t will have not support by transit agencies. Further discussion of the expected excluded princ i ples provides further insight. Explanatory Principles Based on the qualitative findings, I assert that transportat ion equity initiatives mitigate entirely Inequ itable outcomes This proposition is based on two of the most prominently supported principles across all four cases Exclude Principle 3b. T he legal trigger of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the primary motivator in all four cases This federal mandate to illustrate nondiscriminatory practices was used to sway planning initiatives and pressure decision makers to act in accordance with more equitable development to avoid legal action. Other triggers varied between the cases. Minneap olis participants noted a political trigger with a new mayor and city council representation that emphasized equitable neighborhood development. Birmingham participants discussed the important moral trigger of grassroots efforts and citizen advisory groups in their decision making. And Orlando participants described the role of the business community in supporting transit to enhance economic development. Still, the legal motivator to comply with feder al reporting requirements was steadfast. Thus, Title VI i s a critical policy instrument. If it were excluded, then an MSA may follow the pathway to a fully Inequitable result. Exclude Principle 9. Furthermore, all participants supported this principle. It asserts that, once legal barriers are addressed, individu als within agencies can then introduce equity initiatives through various forms of leadership, policies, and practices. Since this was unanimously adopted across Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando, it is possible

PAGE 163

149 that the exclusion of this princi ple will enhance the likelihood that a fully Inequitable outcome will occur over time despite government intervention Theoretical Contributions Various theoretical implications arise from this analysis. The results contribute understanding to the theoretical di mensions of the literature discussed in Chapter II. The first included the administrative explanation of social equity, which assumes that a normative outcome is inherent in greater access as indicated in Proposition 1. The second area of dis cussion focuses on the theoretical foundations of economic explanations that predict increasing segregation because of transit expansion, as indicated in Proposition 2. Public Administration The first contributions improve empirical understanding by addressing methodological barriers. For instance, this study applied the Theil Statistic and Index of Dissimilarity, as proposed by Wang & Mastracci (2014), to understand social inequity. The appli utilizing equity measures. Such indicators should be applied to realize the extent of equitable governance practices. The quantitative analysis also offered counterintuitive evidence to the assump tion that equitable access will lead to better opportunity. This study provides longitudinal results that indicate varying degrees of association between those two variables over four decades. The spatial and temporal context of t he metropolitan region mat ters. D emographic composition of neighborhoods also affects the relationship for primarily white as compared to communities of color It thus introduces an alternative assumption: the implementation of socially equitable services (i.e. transit access) can be associated with subsequent forms of inequity (i.e. less economic opportunity and higher segregation ). Although this result is conflicting

PAGE 164

150 with normative arguments founded on the democratic ideal of fairness and justice, it supports a broader literature that has uncovered similar results. As discussed in Chapter II, Sanchez (2002) evaluated public transport investments and the degree to which they were associated with wage distribution as indicated by the Gini Coefficient. His study utilized cross section al data in 158 large MSAs in 1989 1991. The results indicated a positive relationship between transit development and income inequality. Similarly, the results of this study suggest that transit can elicit opportunities that are more equitable for some communities but not for all. This finding is important to consider in a legal context. As previously discussed, large scale public transportation projects are often funded by federal allocations with the legal mandate that such projects cannot disproport ionately affect low income and minority populations. Local governments are required to show this in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In accordance with Garrett & Taylor (1999), these findings suggest that public transportation expansion may im prove the access of white neighborhoods Therefore, access to such public transit possibilities further benefits the privileged and powerful, and social inequity persists in some cases, as shown in Minneapolis. Another key implication includes further unde rstanding of who wins or loses as transit access improves. use transit for work and other needs a re disadvantaged by current development patterns. Yet, this study finds that different neighborhoods in diverse MSAs fare better or worse, depending on the degree of development. In accordance with theory of justice, this study argues that in come inequality is just if it compensates for the least advantaged members of society. The Persistent Pathways Framework draws fro m this conceptualization to illustrate

PAGE 165

151 differing degrees (or outcomes) of equity. Based on the results of this study communit ies of color seemingly benefit from improved access in Orlando and Birmingham, but communities of color are more burdened by transit development in Denver and Minneapolis. Urban Economics As mentioned in Chapter II, economic explanations for rising income segregation have not been tested in the context of transit administration and increased access. The results of Model 2 for all high and low access cases therefore contribute a novel understanding of the relationship between access and income segregation. This study found that changes in the degree of income segregation vary based on the racial and ethnic composition of riders, the neighborhoods in which they reside, and the metropolitan region. Economic explanations have recommended public transit expansio n (Holz, 1991; Sanchez, 1999; Blumenberg & Manville, 2004) to address the spatial mismatch of low income and minority residents and economic opportunities (Kain, 1968). However, increased access is effectively allowing for additional neighborhood sorting b y income in some cases as seen in this analysis. One potential reason for this continuation can be attributed to the lack of economic pressures imposed by Title VI, which specifically focuses on eliminating discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and coun try of origin. Income segregation is seldom given weight in the shadow of racial segregation. This may be one reason that conservative and liberal policymakers support transit oriented development. These findings also contribute to literature on transit a nd gentrifi cation S ome cities are beginning to address this phenomen a through housing polic y (Dawkins & Moeckel, 2014). Kochhar has reached its highest point since 1989, when whites had 17 times the wealth of black

PAGE 166

152 in clude differences in homeownership, income, unemployment rates, educational attainment, and inheritance (p. 1). Notably, transit access and development within Birmingham and Orlando did not contribute to the persistence of such economic and racial inequity Examining the results across the four cases offer insight into potential determinants for vari ation based on the MSA For instance, increasing transit access has led to Partially Equitable outcomes in Birmingham and Orlando, the low access cases. The hig h access cases exhibit more Equal (Denver) or Partially Inequitable (Minneapolis) results. The findings thus suggest that public transit access can produce more equitable impacts than economic explanations have previously postulated. At a micro level of an alysis, increasing transit may have a more robust impact on social equity in MSAs t to work. Overall, t hese results reveal the complex ity of segregation. Integration has not advanced political representation (Johnson, 2012), job op portunities (Raphael & Stoll, 2010), public safety, or public school system performance (De la Roca, Gould Ellen, & O Regan, 2014). Despite more even racial distribution across MSAs, CoCs continue to suffer from persisting social inequity across other soci al, economic, and political domains. Furthermore the qualitative findings provide insight into reasons that discrepancies exist between Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. Wholly equitable results require greater acknowledgement of historical op pression in key neighborhoods. They also require more systematic, structural solutions that take other systems of oppression into account. For instance, race, class, and gender barriers throughout education, employment, healthcare, etc. are necessary to co nsider as they relate to public transit and economic opportunity writ large On the other hand, a fully inequitable result is also less likely due to

PAGE 167

153 the legal protections that are guaranteed by policies like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There fore, this multi methodological analysis offers additional insight into how operate in a broader theoretical context. Practical Contributions The theoretical contributions are equally important to consider in a practical context. Mass public transit projects often rely on federal allocations. They require social equity analyses to illustrate that projects do not disproportionately affect low income and minority populations. Federal performance measurement purportedly ensur e s that l ocal agencies mainta in fairness in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The findings of this study however, suggest a major issue with this reporting mechanism: agencies submit social equity analyses at single points in time. I argue tha t Title VI reporting should integrate longitudinal analysis Historical trends are important to consider when planning transit expansion, offering an opportunity to learn from the past. P redictive reporting should also be included to consider long term imp act s of development at the neighborhood level Participants from e ach MSA that are worthy of note. These are importa nt to consider because participants recommended them as strategies for other transit administrators to extend social equity, going beyond the compliance standards of Title VI. The following sections discuss four tactics drawn from each case. They provide an actionable way in which administrators can address persisting inequity and advance accountability and social justice in their respective regions Contextual Measurement Census data are one of the most convenient options for assessing public transportation ridership. However, such indicators are often inaccurate representations of actual needs.

PAGE 168

154 Denver pa rticipants suggested that transit agencies should attempt to collect their own localized data to understand who truly rides public transit, where they ride it to, how long it takes, etc. RTD recently received funding to distribute an on board survey of rid ers on key routes throughout the metropolitan area. Field interviewers used iPads to collect survey information in real time. A representative sample was achieved based on total daily ridership. The on board survey illustrated a very different picture of w ho was accessing public transit when compared to census data. This data is being used to inform future transit development in key neighborhoods. Thus, more contextual measurement is being used to enhance equitable development for low i ncome and minority co mmunities. Normalizing Equity One of the first steps to begin overcoming nervousness is to normalize discussions of social inequity in agencies. The Everyday Equity program in Minneapolis offers notable strategies to achieve this normaliza tion within an organization. The program has existed for less than two years, but it has taken various actions. Some of these include: hosting 58 employee engagement events and facilitating countless conversations, building a network of leaders through tra ining and professional development activities, communicating equity related stories within and beyond the agency, and reinforcing and coordinating human As equity embeds in process es that make up the black box more socially equitable outcomes can be realized for communities that receive related services Community Partnerships Partnerships are critical to improve social equity because the concept is multidimensional. Improving quality of life relies on more than a singular entity, like public

PAGE 169

155 transit. Additional factors influence outcomes, such as health access, educational qual ity, employment opportunities, etc. Transit administrators in Orlando highlight strong public private partnerships as the key. The business community understands and supports a robust system that can affordably provide convenient access to and from work. F urthermore, a more recent strategic partnership includes examining how public transit negatively affects health outcomes. The metropolitan planners are working with healthcare stakeholders on more comprehensive access and quality issues across the region. These partnerships are well developed and relied upon as work continues to grow in this area. Civic Engagement Effective and equitable transit access still relies on citizen input. While planning can be difficult to understand due to sophisticated technol ogy and language, riders continue to provide important perspectives that must be account ed for in the administration of public transit services. The Birmingham Transit Citizens Advisory Board plays an important role in ensuring that people that rely on pub lic transit are part of the decision making process. In addition to representing riders throughout the metropolitan region, the board has also aspects of the current t ransit system. Grassroots movements to maintain a balanced approach to efficient, effective, economical, and equitable transit is thus an important strategy that could be undertaken in other regions to improve more socially equitable outcomes in the long t erm, offering lessons learned from qualitative and quantitative accounts Study Limitations The limitations of this research are important to consider. First, the Index of Dissimilarity and Theil Statistic applied in the fixed effects regression analysis may not be

PAGE 170

156 the most appropriate measures. Additional validation of measures could be conducte d to determine if the measures are reliable. For instance the Theil Statistic of income inequality could be tested against the Gini Coefficient of income inequality to determine the extent to which they are correlated. Such examination can further inform if they are interchang eable or if they can be used in future studies. The access measure is also imperfect because it more accurately reflects the proportion of neighborhood residents that utilize public transit. Various transit access measures could be compared against this NCDB measure to validate its application. For instance, distance from home to bus stops, length of journey and trip information (Smirnova & Wellman, 2016) are potential indicators that deserve further attention in future wor k. Second, the qualitative research phase included various limitations. For instance, the directed content analysis utilized a Boolean search of stemmed words that represented the 10 different principles. However, the other option for auto coding would con sist of a proximity search (Richards, 1999) which searches for key words that are within a specific range of words that can be specified when the search terms are set. The proximity search may produce different results that offer a more reliable result th at better captures the principles of interest. I nterviews were completed with 12 participants, or three from each MSA. As noted in Chapter III, this is not a representative sample. Rather, it is purposive. I nterviews complement ed the oth er data collection efforts (Shea, 2011). They were an important first step to begin expanding administrative understanding of social equity in the public transit context (Wellman, 2012). Charmaz (2006) maintains that a study such as this may recruit fewer participants since few profess ionals deal with transit equity. Nonetheless, future efforts could specifically expand to a greater number of interviews by recruiting participants from

PAGE 171

157 additional MSAs. Future research should adopt this opportunity to further understand the deg not willing to take part in the interview) suggests that these individuals may have been more comfortabl e wit h the topic. This introduces a threat to internal validity since participants that agree d to be interviewed may have done so because they are more familiar with a topic, which could skew the results toward a more positive result. Another bias may have occurred in accordance with advancing equity init i atives Thus, in div i d u al administrators may have been uncomfortable discussing race, ethnicity, class, etc. in the interview. If they had pa rticipated, the results may have been less confirmatory. This study is one of the first to explore Gooden were independently developed to assess the extent to which administrators adopted each guiding statement. As a reflexive researcher, I acknowledge that some of the questions may not directly get at the heart of each of these principles in a valid way. The questions may not explicitly speak to t he thought that Gooden (2014) aimed to portray. Furthermore, upon participants were asked to describe what they were proud of based on their equity initiatives. This assumes that partici pants perceived some degree of success, whereas that may not be the case. Thus, believe in progress toward more equitable outcomes may have been over reported. Furthermore, the researcher alone conducted the analysis, so intercoder reliability practices we re not sought in the coding. I previously argued that the interview questions were straightforward and participants directly answered each question as it was related to

PAGE 172

158 Principles 1 10. Still, future work could benefit from expanding interviews to a greate r number of participants in each case to gain a more robust degree of data that could be used to test of the degree of support for each principle is valid More broadly, the sole focus on economic outcomes is a drawback of this study. For instance, equitab le transit access may have resulted in better economic opportunity for communities of color in Birmingham and Orlando. The reduction of economic status of white neighborhoods seems like an adverse effect. However, while white residents may have less econom ic capital, the social, cultural, and environmental capital may improve in those MSAs. Economic justice for people of color may be associated with the growth of racial tolerance over time. This can lead to greater social cohesion, which has been found to f oster improved community resilience. Such unintended consequences are important to define and assess in future analyses as well. Future Research The culmination of this study is informative in many regards for those interested in transit equity, performan ce measurement, accountability, neighborhood change, economic opportunity, income inequality, segregation, and a wide range of topics that are pertinent to enhancing fairness and justice through public policy. Still many questions remain. The concluding t houghts presented here serve as a platform for future resear ch. The following questions are meant to foster further scholarship that can benefit public administration in theory and practice. The first research question of this study was motivated by the br oader puzzle concerning why social inequity persists (Gooden, 2015b. Based on the results of this research further examination should adopt more longitudinal quantitative assessments, in

PAGE 173

159 both public transit and other contexts. More specifically, path depe ndency of public agencies is an important factor that could be integrated into future studies The historical treatment of minority groups by government officials may either help or hinder advancement of equitable practices and neighborhood outcomes Relatedly, a theoretical examination of the tensions of social equity are important to test in healthcare, education, employment, etc. In other words, what are the positive and negative externalities and how are they associated with persistence over time ? Various social equity framework measures (access, quality, procedural fairness, and outcomes) should be utilized to investigate additional counterfactual assumptions of improvement, as was done in this study. Furthermore, the Persistent Pathways Framework (PPF) could be modified with other variables to interpret other tensions. T his study examined transit access as it relates to communities of color in Denver, Minneapolis, Birmingham, and Orlando. While racial minority neighborhoods are a vital con text in which to study fair access future research could benefit from examining these phenomena through a lens of intersectionality that includes gender More specifically, Goodyear (2015) reported that women make up most public transit ridership accounting for 55% of riders on average Yet, most urban planners are men, and more than 80% are white (Owens, 2015 ). Due to the lack of representation the built environment se ldom accounts for the needs of communities of color and women, who often have greater responsi bilities in terms of childcare, household responsibilities, hospital care, etc. Examining access and social equity using feminist standpoint theory, which explicitly acco unts is important. It offers a rich field for understanding h ow to improve equity for at least half if not more of the population that are seldom considered in the context of transit equity.

PAGE 174

160 Finally, organizational learning the ory could benefit from further investigation of the tensions that serve as a barrier t o equitable outcomes The field has examined various ways in which public and nonprofit agencies use research based knowledge to exploit and explore ( March, 1991 ) methods for improvement in the pursuit of the public interest. Yet, to address the inadequate understanding of social equity measures, further emphasis should be placed on examining how, why, and which performance indicators are utilized This can ultima tely inform more equitable decision making a nd create organizational change. After all, change is the necessary component of all agencies, which must break from the historical and systemic processes of oppression to realize more equitable ends.

PAGE 175

161 REFERENCE S Accessibility Observatory. (2015). Access across America: Transit 2014. Regents of the University of Minnesota. Retrieved December 22, 2015, from http://access.umn.edu/research/america/transit/2014/ Air Resources Board. (2016). Sustainable communities. California Environmental Protection Agency Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm. Albalate, D., & Bel, G. (2009). What local policy makers should k now about urban road charging: L essons from worldwide experience. Public Administration Review 69 (5), 962 974. Alkadry, M. G., & Blessett, B. (2010). Aloofness or dirty hands? Administrative culpability in the making of the second ghetto. Administrative Theory & Praxis 32 (4), 532 556. Alkadry, M. G., Blessett, B., & Patterson, V. L. (201 5). Public administration, diversity, and the ethic of getting things done. Administration & Society 1 28. DOI: 10.1177/0095399715581032. Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. Thou sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. American Public Transportation Association: 2014 Public Transportation Fact Book, Washington, DC, November, 2014. Retrieved from www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2014 APTA Fact Book.pdf. Anbinder J. (2015, January 23). Will low gas prices hurt mass transit? The Week. Retrieved from http://theweek.com/articles/535184/low gas prices hurt mass transit. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychologica l research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 1173 1182. 1940s. Illinois Periodicals Online Retrieved from http://www.lib.niu.edu/2001/iht810125.html. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly 17 (1), 112 121. Baum Snow, N., Kahn, M. E., & Voith, R. (2005). Effects of urban rai l transit expansions: Evidence from sixteen cities, 1970 2000 [with Comment]. Brookings Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 147 206. Beck, T., Levine, R., & Levkov A. (2010). Big bad banks? The winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States. The Journal of Finance 65 (5), 1637 1667.

PAGE 176

162 Behn, R.D. (1989). Leadership counts. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8 (3), 494 500. R.D. Behn et al, Performance Indicators for State Government: A Report to the Durham, NC: The Governors Center at Duke University. Behn, R.D. ( 1995). The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review 55(4), 313 324. Behn, R.D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 63 (5), 586 606. Behrman, J. R., & Rosenz weig, M. R. (2004). Returns to birthweight. Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (2), 586 601. Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (second edition). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority. (2014). BJTCA history. Retrieved from www.bjcta.org/about us/bjcta history/. Bischoff, K., & Reardon, S (2013). Residential segregation by income, 1970 2009. US2010. Retrieved from www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Da ta/Report/report10162013.pdf. Blanchard, W. (1986). Evaluating social equity: What does fairness mean and can we measure it? Policy Studies Journal 15 (1), 29 54. Blumenberg, E., & Manville, M. (2004). Beyond the spatial mismatch: W elfare recipients and transportation policy. Journal of Planning Literature 19 (2), 182 205. Boydstun, A. E., Bevan, S., & Thomas, H. F. (2014). The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it. Policy Studies Journal 42 (2), 173 196. Bradbury K. L., Kodrzycki, Y. K., & Mayer, C. J. (1996). Spatial and labor market contributions to earnings inequality: An overview. New England Economic Review, May/June, 1 10. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: I mproving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14 (1), 63 82. Brewer, G. A. (2005). In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (4), 505 527.

PAGE 177

163 Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and T heory 10 (4), 685 712. Brewer, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2010). The impact o f red tape on governmental performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (1), 233 257. Brunet, R. (2005). Measuring social equity performance in the criminal justice system. In Southern Conference on Public Administration, Raleigh, NC: Department of Political Science and Public Administration, North Carolina State University Calero, J. (2002). The distribution of public social expenditure in Spain: a general analysis with special reference to age and social class. Social Policy & Administration 36 (5), 443 464. Caillier, J. G. (2011). Funding, management, and individual level factors: What factors matter in predicting perceived organizational ef fectiveness? International Journal of Public Administration 34 (7), 413 423. Cappellano, F., & Spisto, A. (2014). Transit oriented development & social equity: From m ixed use to mixed framework. Advanced Engineering Forum 11, 314 322. Carlton, I. (2007). Histories of transit oriented development: Perspectives on th e development of the TOD Concept. University of California Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Devleopment Retrieved from http://iurd.berkeley.edu/wp/2009 02.pdf. Cayer, N. J., & Sigelman L. (1980). Minorities and women in state and local government: 1973 1975. Public Administration Review 40 (5), 443 450. Campbell, A. K. (1976). Approaches to defining, measuring, and achieving equity in the public sector. Public Administration Review 5 56 562. Census Reporter. (2014). Profile. Retreived from http://censusreporter.org. Charbonneau, E., & Riccucci, N. M. (2008). Beyond the usual suspects: An analysis of the performance measurement literature on social equity indicators in policing. Publi c Performance & Management Review 31 (4), 604 620. Charbonneau, E., Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Holzer, M. (2009). The self reported use of social equity indicators in urban police departments in the United States and Canada State & Local Government Review 95 107. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide t hr ough qualitative a nalysis (2 nd edition). Lond o n: Sage Publications.

PAGE 178

164 Chiarini T., Oliveira, V. P., & e Silva, F. C. D. C. (2014). Spatial distribution of scientific activities: An exploratory analysis of Brazil, 2000 10. Science and Public Policy 41 (5), 625 640. Chitwood, S. R. (1974). Social equity and social service productivi ty. Public Administration Review 34 (1), 29 35. Choi, S. (2009). Diversity in the US federal government: Diversity management and employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (3), 603 630. Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Managing diversity in US federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review 70 (1), 109 121. Chute, C. F. (1958). The Honolu lu Metropolitan Area: A challenge to traditional thinking. Public Administration Review 18 (1), 7 13. Clark, W. A., & Avery, K. L. (1976). The effects of data aggregation in statistical analysis. Geographical Analysis 8 (4), 428 438. Clay, P. L. (1979). The process of black suburbanization. Urban Affairs Review 14 (4), 405 424. Cohen, S. A. (1993). Defining and measuring effectiveness in public management. Public Productivity & Management Review 17 (1), 45 57. Conceio, P., & Ferreira, P. (2000). The young person's guide to the Theil index: Suggesting intuitive interpretations and exploring analytical applications. Retrieved from http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/utip_14.pdf. Conceio P., & Galbraith, J. K. (2000). Constructing Long and Dense Time Series of Inequality Using the Theil Index. Eastern Economic Journal 26 (1), 61 74. Conley, D., & Bennett, N. G. (2000). Is biology destiny? Birth weight and life chances. American Sociolog ical Review 65 (3), 458 467. Connelly, R. (1992). The effect of child care costs on married women's labor force participation. The Review of Economics and Statistics 74 (1), 83 90. Cortright J. (2015, April 16). Want to close the black/white income gap? Work to reduce segregation. City Observatory. Retrieved from http://cityobservatory.org/segregation and the wage gap/.

PAGE 179

165 Cortright, J. (2016, July 19). Homeownership can exacerbate inequality. City Observatory. Retrieved from http://cityobservatory.org/homeownership can exacerbate inequality/. Coulter, P. B. (1980). Measuring the inequity of urban public services methodological discussion with applications. Policy Studies Journal 8 (5), 683 698. Cozzens, S. E., Bobb, K., Deas, K., Gatchair, S., George, A., & Ordonez, G. (2005). Distributional effects of science and technology based economic development strategies at state level in the United States. Science and Public Policy 32 (1), 29 3 8. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. DBER Speaker Series Paper 48. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dberspeakers/48 Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed metho ds approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Croissant, A. (2004). Changing welfare regimes in east and Southeast Asia: Crisis, change and challenge. Social Policy & Administration 38 (5), 504 524. Crowder, K. & South, S.J. (2008). Spatial dynamics of white flight: The effects of local and extralocal racial conditions on neighborhood out migration. American Sociological Review 73 (5), 792 812. Cutler, D. M., Glaeser, E. L., & Vigdor, J. L. (1997). The rise and decline of the American ghetto (No. w5881). National Bureau of Economic Research. Cutler, D. M., Glaeser, E. L., & Vigdor, J. L. (2008). Is the melting pot still hot? Explaining the resurgence of immigrant segregation. The Review of Economics and Statistics 90 (3), 478 497. Dawkins, C. & Moeckel, R. (2014). Transit induced gentrification: Who will stay, and who will go? Presented at the Transit, Transit Oriented Development, and Urban Form: A Bi National Symposium Featuring Paris, France, and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://smartgrowth.umd.edu/assets/tod_gentrification_v3.pdf. De la Roca, J., Gould Ellen, I., & O'Regan, K. M. (2014). Race and neighborhoods in the 21st century: What does segregation mean today? Regional Science and Urban Economics 47 138 151. Denver Regional Council of Governments. (2011). Transportation planning in the Denver region. Retrieved from https://drcog.org/programs/transportation planning Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods. New York: McGraw Hill. DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press

PAGE 180

166 District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. (n.d.). Stops for us. Retrieved from http://dcc stpaul mpls.org/special proj ects/stops us. Dorch, E. L., Bathman, J., Foster, D., Ingels, L., Lee, C., Miramontes, C., & Youngblood, J. (2010). Social service availability and proximity and the over representation of minority children in child welfare. Journal of Health and Human Se rvices Administration 33 (3), 277 320. Dougherty, C. (2011). Introduction to econometrics (f ourth edition) New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Duncan, G. J., Connell, J. P., & Klebanov P. K ( 1997 ). Conceptual and methodological issues in estimating causal effects of neighborhoods and family conditions on individual development. In. J. Brooks Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds), Neigh borhood p overty : Context and consequences for c hildren (pp. 219 250). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Durlauf, S. N. (1996). A theory of persistent income inequality. Journal of Economic growth 1 (1), 75 93. Elwert, F., & Winship, C. (2014). Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology, 40 3 1 53. Ely, T ., & Teske, P. (2014). Success e xpress: Transportation innovation in Denver Public Schools. Center for Education Policy Analysis. Retrieved from http://milehighconnects.org/wp content/uploads/2014/12/Success Express 2014.pdf. Emison, G. A. (2 006). The EPA bureaucrat who c ould. Public Administration Review 66 (S1), 152. Ernst, M., & McCann, B. (2002). Mean streets. Surface Policy Transportation Project. Retrieved from http://transact.org/wp content/uploads/2014/04/Mean_Streets_2002.pdf. EquityBlog. (2014). Expanding opportunity for black boys & young men in Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://equityblog.org/2014/05/02/expanding opportunity for black boys young men in orlando fl/. Farley, R. (1970). The changing distribution of negroes wit hin metropolitan areas: the emergence of black suburbs. American Journal of Sociology 512 529. Farmer, S. (2011). Uneven public transportation development in neoliberalizing Chicago, USA. Environment and Planning A 43 (5), 1154 1172. Fayol, H. (1916). General and industrial management. London, UK: Pitman.

PAGE 181

167 Feiock, R. C., & Jang, H. S. (2009). Nonprofits as local government service contractors. Public Administration Review 69 (4), 668 680. Fitzmaurice, G. (2000). The meaning and interpretation of interaction. Nutrition 16 (4), 313 314. Foley, L. (2012). Constructing the respondent. In Jaber F. Gubrium, James A. Holstein, Amir B. Marvasti, & Karyn D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of int erview research: The complexity of the craft. (2 nd ed., pp. 305 317). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452218403.n22 Follett, M. P. (1918). The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Foth, N., Manaugh, K., & El Geneidy, A. M. (2013). Towards equitable transit: examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996 2006. Journal of Transport Geography 29 1 10. Flick, U. (1992). Combining methods Lack of methodology: Discussion of Sotirakopoulou & Breakwell. Ongoing Production on Social Representations, 1 (1), 43 48. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: Basic Books. Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City & Community 2 (1), 3 19. Florida, R. (2014, March 18). The U.S. cities with the highest levels of income segregation. The Atlantic. Retrieved from www.citylab.com/work/2014/03/us cities highest levels income segregation/8632/ Florida, R., & Mellander, C. (2015). Segregated city: The geography of economic http://martinprosp erity.org/media/Segregated%20City.pdf. Florida Department of Transportation. (2014, July). Best practices in evaluating transportation performance: Final report. Florida Department of Transportation, Freight Logistics and Passenger Operations, Transit Office. Retrieved from www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/Pages/BestPracticesinEvaluatingTransitPerformanceFinal Report.pdf. Frank, M.W. (2016). U.S. state level income inequality data. Sam Houston State University. Retrieved from: www.shsu.edu/eco_mwf/inequality .html. Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New public administration Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

PAGE 182

168 Fred erickson, H. G. (1990). Public administration and social e quity. Public Administration Review 50 (2), 228 37. Frederickson, G. (2005). The state of social equity in American public administration. National Civic Review 94 (4), 31 38. Frederickson, H. G. (2010). Social equity and public administration: Origins, developments, and applications. Armonk, NY: M.E. Shar pe. Freedman, D. A. (1999). Ecological inference and ecological fallacy. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/class/ed260/freedman549.pdf. Freeman, L. (2005). Black homeownership: The role of temporal changes and residential segregation at the end of the 20th Century. Social Science Quarterly 86 (2), 403 426. Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2012). The rise of residential segregation by income. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/01/the rise of residential segregation by income/. Galbraith, J., & Hale, J.T. (2014). The evolution of economic inequality in the United States, 1969 2012: Evidence from data on inter industrial earnings and inter r egional incomes. World Economic Review, 3 1 19. Garrett, M., & Taylor, B. (1999). Reconsidering social equity in public transit. Berkeley Planning Journal 13 (1), 6 27. Gazley B., Chang, W. K., & Bingham, L. B. (2010). Board diversity, stakeholder representation, and collaborative performance in community mediation centers. Public Administration Review 70 (4), 610 620. Garcia Zamor, J. C. (2009). Social equity in urban develo pment: The Leipzig e xperience. International Review of Public Administration 14 (2), 1 11. Glaeser, E., & Vigdor, J. (2012). The end of the segregated century: Racial separation in America's Neighborhoods, 1890 2010 New York, NY: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Glynn, A. N., & Gerring, J. (2012). Strategies of research design with confounding: A graphical description. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30725659/structure10_19.pdf?A WSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Exp ires=1488576332&Signature =68sSv6vADSOgv2Hxk9aXUoOQ6%2FQ%3D&response content disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DStrategies_of_Research_Design_with_Conf o.pdf

PAGE 183

169 Gobillon, L., Selod, H., & Zenou, Y. (2007). The mechanisms of spatial mismatch. Urban S tudies 44 (12), 2401 2427. research. The Western Political Quarterly, 39 (2), 328 347. Gooden, S. (2006). Addressing racial disparities in social welfare programs: Using social equity analysis to examine the problem. Journal of Health & Social Policy 22 (2), 1 12. Gooden, S., Jones, D., Martin, K. J., & Boyd, M. (2009). Social equity in loc al emergency management planning. State & Local Government Review 41 (1), 1 12. Gooden, S., & Portillo, S. (2011). Advancing social equity in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl 1), i61 i76. Gooden, S. (2014). Race and social equity: A nervous area of government. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Public Administration Review 75 (3), 372 381. Gooden, S. (2015b). From equality to equity. In M. Guy & M. Rubin (Eds.), Public administration evolving: From foundations to the future (pp. 210 231). New York, NY: Routledge. agencies be catering to them? Citylab Retrieve d from www.citylab.com/commute/2015/01/more women ride mass transit than men shouldnt transit agencies be catering to them/385012/. Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better & costs less. Report of the National Per formance Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2 the same for areg and xtreg, fe? StataCorp LLC Retrieved from http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/statistics/areg versus xtreg fe/. Grady, S. C. (2006). Racial disparities in low birthweight and the contribution of residential segregation: a multilevel analysis. Social Science & Medicine 63 (12), 3013 3029. Graddy, E. A., & Chen, B. (2006). Influences on the size and scope of networks for social service delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (4), 533 552.

PAGE 184

170 Great Communities Collaborative. (2007). Transit oriented for all: The case for mixed income transit oriented communities in the Bay Area. Retrieved from http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/publications/GCCFramingPaper_FINAL.pd f. Greve, B. (2004). Denmark: Universal or not so universal welfare state. Social Policy & Administration 38 (2), 156 169. Grigoryeva, A., & Ruef, M. (2015). The historical demo graphy of racial segregation. American Sociological Review 0003122415589170. Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory mup043. Gudell, S. (2016, July 12). A wealth of problems: How the housing bust widened the rich poor gap. Zillow. Retrieved from http://www.zillow.com/research/foreclosures and wealth inequality 12523/. Guy, M. E. (1989). Minnowbrook II: Conclusions. Public Administration Review 49 (2), 219 220. Guy, M. E., & McCandless, S. A. (2012). Social equity: Its legacy, its promise. Public Administration Review 72 (s1), S5 S13. Halcoussis, D. (2004). Understanding econometrics. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Hall, J. L. (2007). Informing state economic development policy in the new economy: A theoretical foundation and empirical examination of state innovation in the United States. Public Administration Review 67 (4), 630 645. Harper, C. (2013, June 10). METRO red line Title VI service equity analysis. MetroTransit. Retrieved from www.metrocouncil.org/getdoc/1ac3d418 932a 4187 a3ba ceb4e065e317/BusinessItem.aspx. Hart, D. K. (1974). Social equity, justice, and the equitable adm inistrator. Public Administration Review 34 (1), 3 11. Hatry, H. P. (1978). The status of productivity measurement in the public sector. Public Administration Review 38 (1), 28 33. Hatry, H. (2014, July). Transforming performance measurement for the 21 st Century. Urban Institute. Retrieved from www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication pdfs/413197 Transforming Performance Measurement for the st Century.PDF Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational L eadership 58 (6), 6 11.

PAGE 185

171 Henderson, L. J. (2004). Brown v. Board of Education at 50: The multiple legacies for policy and administration. Public Administration Review 64 (3), 270 274. Henrici, J. M., Helmuth, A. S., & Braun, J. Research. Retrieved from www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/women disasters and hurricane katrina#sthash.U1epW7uh.dpuf Herian, M.N., Hamm, J.A., Tomkins, A.J., & Zillig, L.M.P. (2012). Public participation, procedu ral fairness, and evaluations of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory mur064. Hoff, K., & Sen, A. (2005). Homeownership, community interactions, and segregation. American Economic Revi ew 95 (4), 1167 1189. Holmes, N., & Berube, A. (2016). City and metropolitan inequality on the rise, driven by declining incomes Brookings Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/research/city and metropolitan inequality on the rise driven by declining incomes/ Holzer, H. J. (1991). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: What has the evidence shown? Urban Studies 28 (1), 105 122. Hoover, G. A., & Yaya, M. E. (2011). Racial/ethnic income inequality responses to a government maintenance program in the United States. Public Finance Review 1091142110396502. Hopkins, A. H. (1980). Perceptions of employment discrimination in the public sector. Public Administration Review 40 (2), 131 137. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research 15 (9), 1277 1288. Hug, R.W. (2011). Social equity, health, and health care. In N.J. Johnson & J.H. Svara (Eds.), Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public administration ( pp. 121 164). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Iceland, J. ( 2004). Beyond black and white: M etropolitan residential segregation in multi ethnic America. Social Science Research 33 (2), 248 271. Iceland, J., & Nelson, K. A. (2008). Hispanic segregation in metropolitan America: Exploring the multiple forms of spatial assimilation. American Sociological Review 73 (5), 741 765. Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1980). Racial inequalities in home own ership. Social Forces 58 (4), 1221 1234.

PAGE 186

172 Jargowsky, P. (2003) Stunning progress, hidden problems: Declines in concentrated poverty in the 1990s Washington, DC: Brooks Institution. Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. ( 1989 ). Residential segregation, job proximity, and black job opportunities : The empirical status of the spatial mismatch hypothesis Chicago, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University. Jennings, E. T. (2005, September). Social Equity and the Government Perfor mance and Results Act. In t h e 8th Meeting of the Public Management Research Association, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, September Johnson, V. C. (2012). Black power in the suburbs: The myth or reality of African American suburban politic al incorporation Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Johnson, N. & Svara J. (Eds.). (2011). Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public administration Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Johnston, J. M., & Duncombe W. (1998). Balancing conflicting policy objectives: The case of school finance reform. Public Administration Review 58 (2), 145 158. Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., & Forrest, J. (2007). The geography of e thnic residential segregation: A comparative study of five countries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97 (4), 713 738. Kahn M. E. (2007). Gentrification trends in new t ransit oriented communities: Evidence from 14 cities that expanded and built rail transit s ystems. Real Estate Economics 35 (2), 155 182. Kain, J. F. (1968). Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 82 (2), 175 197. Kain, J. F., & Quigley, J. M. (1972). Housing market discrimination, home ownership, and s avings behavior. The American Economic Review 263 277. Kain, J. F. (1992). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Three decades later. Housing Policy Debate 3 (2), 371 460. Kantrowitz N. (1969). Ethnic and racial segregation in the New York metropolis, 1960. American Journal of Sociology 74 (6), 685 695.s Kelly, M. (1994). Theories of justice and street level discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4 (2), 119 140. Kerr, B., Miller, W., & Reid, M. (2002). Sex based occupational segregation in US state b ureaucracies, 1987 97. Public Administration Review 62 (4), 412 423.

PAGE 187

173 Kim, S. (2005). Individual level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (2), 245 261. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific i nference in qualitative research Princeton University Press. King, Jr., M. L. (1963). Letter from Birmingham city jail Philadelphia, PA: American Friends Service Committee. Kochhar, R., & Fry, R. (2014, December 12). Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession. Pew Researc h Center. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact tank/2014/12/12/racial wealth gaps great recession/. Kodrzycki, Y. K. (2002). Educational attainment as a constraint on economic growth and so cial progress. In Y. K. Kodrzycki (Ed.), Education in the 21st Century: Meeting the c h allenges of a changing w orld pp. 37 84. Conference Proceedings of the 47th Economic Conference of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Retrieved from www.bos.frb.org/econ omic/conf/conf47/conf47.pdf Kunst, R. M. (2009). Econometric methods for panel data Part II. University of Vienna. Retrieved from https://homepage.univie.ac.at/robert.kunst/panels2e.pdf. Lachapelle, U. (2011). Transit dependence and choice riders in the NHTS 2009: Improving our understanding of transit markets, presented at Using NHTS Data for Transportation Decision Making Conference, Washington, DC, June 6 7, 2011. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2011/NHTS1/Lachapelle .pdf. Ladd, H. F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31 (2), 203 227. Lavena, C. F. (2014). Whistle blowing individual and organizational d eterminants of t he decision to report wrongdoing in the federal g overnment. The American Review of Public Administration 0275074014535241. Lemmon, S. M. (1953). Transportation segregation in the federal courts since 1865. The Journal of Negro History 38 (2), 174 193. Levine, C. H. (1979). More on cutbac k management: Hard questions for hard times. Public Administration Review 39 (2), 179 183. Levy, J. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25 (1), 1 18.

PAGE 188

174 Lewis, G. B. (1988). Progress toward racial and sexual equality in the federal civil service? Public Administration Review 48 (3), 700 707. Lewis, G. B. (1994). Women, occupations, and federal agencies: Occupational mix and interagency differences in sexu al inequality in federal white collar employment. Public Administration Review 54 (3), 271 276. Lichter, D. T., Parisi, D., Taquino, M. C., & Grice, S. M. (2010). Residential segregation in new Hispanic destinations: Cities, suburbs, and rural communities compared. Social Science Research 39 (2), 215 230. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public s ervice Russell Sage Foundation. Logan, J. R., Zhang, W., & Alba, R. D. (2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review 67 (2), 299 322. Long, N. E. (1957). Review: Discovering the politically feasible. Public Administration Rev iew, 17 (3), 194 195. Lovrich Jr, N. P., Steel, B. S., & Hood, D. (1986). Equity versus productivity: Affirmative action and municipal police services. Public Productivity Review 10 (1), 61 72. Lucy, W. H., Gilbert, D., & Birkhead G. S. (1977). Equity in local service distribution. Public Administration Review 37 (6), 687 697. Ludwig, J., Duncan, G. J., Gennetian, L. A., Katz, L. F., Kessler, R. C., Kling, J. R., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012). Neighborhood effects on the long term wel l being of low income adults. Science 337 (6101), 1505 1510. Lund, B. (2008). Major, Blair and the third way in social policy. Social Policy & Administration 42 (1), 43 58. Lutz, C. (2014). The US car colossus and the production of inequality. American Ethnologist 41 (2), 232 245. McGregor, E. B. (1974). Social equity and the public service. Public Administration Review 34 (1), 18 29. Maciag, M. (2014). Income inequality climbing in many large cities. Governing Retrieved from www.governing.com/topics/ health human services/gov income inequality big cities.html. Mahler, J. (1997). Influences of organizational culture on learning in public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7 (4), 519 540.

PAGE 189

175 March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization S cience 2 (1), 71 87. Martin, S., & Smith, P. C. (2005). Multiple public service performance indicators: Toward an integrated statistical approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (4), 599 613. Massey, D. S. (1996). The age of extremes: Concentrated affluence and poverty in the twenty first century. Demography 33 (4), 395 412. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1987). Trends in the residential segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970 1980. American Sociological Review 52 (6), 802 825. Massey, D. S., Condran, G. A., & Denton, N. A. (1987). The effect of residential segre gation on black social and economic well being. Social Forces, 66 (1), 29 56. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1988 a ). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces 67 (2), 281 315. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1989). Hypersegregation in US metropolitan areas: Black and Hispanic segregation along five dimensions. Demography 26 (3), 373 391. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (2010). The continuing causes of segregation. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The Blackwell city reader (pp. 177 1 85). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Massey, D. S. (2012). Reflections on the dimensions of segregation. Social Forces 91 (1), 39 43. Mathur, S., & Srinivasan, S. (2009). High speed rail in the M idwes t United States: Potential for s uccess. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 4 (13), 59 74. Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214 253). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. May, P. J., Sapotichne, J., & Workman, S. (2006). Policy coherence and policy domains. Policy Studies Journal 34 (3), 381 403. Meier, K. J., & Nigro, L. G. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attit udes of federal executives. Public Administration Review 36 (4), 458 469.

PAGE 190

176 Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review 65 (2), 180 190. MetroPlan Orlando. (2014). Title VI nondiscrimination plan. MetroPlan Orlando: A Regional Transportation Partnership. Retrieved from www.metroplanorlando.com/files/view/title vi nondiscrimination plan adopted 12 10 2014 014.pdf Metropolitan Council. (2014). Choice, place, and Oopportunity: An equity assessment of the Twin Cities region Retrieved from https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/Projects/Thrive 2040/Choice Place and Opportunity.aspx Mile High Connects. (2016). Mile High C onnects. Retrieved from http://milehighconnects.org/. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Sage Publications, Ltd Miller, V. (2016). Record 10.8 billion trips taken on U.S. public transportation in 2014. American Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2015/pages/150309_ridership.aspx. Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings (Human Behavior & Social Institutions No. 2) Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Moser, M., & Rubenstein, R. (2002). The equality of public school district funding in the United States: A national status report. Public Administration Review 62 (1), 63 72. Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Goal based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review 65 (2), 203 216. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2 0 (4), 849 866. Moynihan, D. P., Fernandez, S., Kim, S., LeRoux, K. M., Piotrowski, S. J., Wright, B. E., & Yang, K. (2011). Performance regimes amidst governance complexity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (s 1), i141 i155.

PAGE 191

177 Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2014). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory muu009. Nabatchi, T., Goerdel, H. T., & Peffer, S. (2011 ). Public administration in dark times: Some questions for the future of the field. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (s 1), i29 i43. National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). Declaration of Independe n ce Retrieved from www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html. Nau, R. (2016). Statistical forecasting: Notes on regression and time series analysis. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. Retrieved from http://people.duke.edu/~rnau/411home.htm. Nelson, A. C., Dawkins, C. J., & Sanchez, T. W. (2004). Urban containment and residential segregation: A preliminary investigation. Urban Studies 41 (2), 423 439. Nichols, A., & Schaffer, M. (2007). Clustered errors in Stata. Retrieved from http://www.sta ta.com/meeting/13uk/nichols_crse.pdf. Norman M ajor, K. (2011). Balancing the four Es; Or can we achieve equity for social equity in public a dmin istration? Journal of Public Affairs Education 17 (2), 233 252. O'Leary, R., & Kim, S. (2010). The future of public administration around the world: The Minnowbrook perspective Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International E conomic R eview 14 (3), 693 709. Office of Community Support. (2014). Denver community immigrant and neighborhood assessment. Denver Human Rights and Community Partnerships. Retrieved from www.denvergov.org/Portals/643/documents/CommunitySupport/ImmRef_Assessmen t.pdf. Owens. J. (2015). U rban planning faces possible diversity setback. Next City. Retrieved from https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/planning accreditation board diversity urban planning. Palmore, J. R. (1997). The not so strange career of interstate Jim Crow: Race, transportation and the dormant commerce c lause, 1878 1946. Virginia Law Review 83 (8), 1773 1817. Parks, V. (2016). Rosa Parks redux: Racial mobility projects on the journey to work. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106 (2), 292 299.

PAGE 192

178 Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review 50 (3), 367 373. Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (4), 615 631. Pitts, D. W. (2011). A little less conversation, a little more action: Using empirical research to promote social equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (s1), i77 i82. Poister, T. H. (1975). Review: Urban transportation planning and policy making. Public Administration Review, 35 (1), 94 98. Poister, T. H. (1982). Federal transportation policy for the elderly and handicapped: Responsive to real needs? Public Administra tion Review 42 (1), 6 14. Poister, T. H. (1997). A survey of performance measurement systems in state transportation departments. Public Works Management & Policy 1 (4), 323 341. Poister, T. H., & Streib G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review 59 (4), 325 335. Poister, T. H. (2005). Performance measurement in transportation: State of the practice. In the Transportat io n Research Board Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems Second National Conference. Irvine, CA, August 22 24, 2004. Poister, T. H., Pasha, O. Q., & Edwards, L. H. (2013). Does performance management lead to better outcomes? Evidence from th e US public transit industry. Public Administration Review 73 (4), 625 636. Ponterotto, J. G., Mathew, J. T., & Raughley, B. (2013). The value of mixed methods designs to social justice research in counseling and psychology. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5 (2), 42 68. Potoski, M. (1999). Managing uncertainty through bureaucratic design: Administrative procedures and state air pollution control agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9 (4), 623 640. Potter, W. J., & Levine Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27 (3), 258 284. Provan, K. G., Huang, K., & Milward H. B. (2009). The evolution of structural embeddedness and organizational social outcomes in a centrally governed health and human services network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (4), 873 893.

PAGE 193

179 Public Broadcasting Service. (2015) The Birmingham campaign. Black Culture Connection. Retrieved from www.pbs.org/black culture/explore/civil rights movement birmingham campaign/#.V8BqxGXAVGI. Raadschelders, J. C., & Lee, K. H. (2011). Trends in the study of public administration: Empiric al and qualitative observations from Public Administration Review, 2000 2009. Public Administration Review 71 (1), 19 33. Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration R esearc h and T heory 9 (1), 1 32. Raphael, S., & Sills, M. (2006). Urban crime, race, and the criminal justice system in the United States. In R.J. Arnott & D.P. McMillen (Eds.), A Companion to Urban Economics (pp. 515 535 ). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2010). Job sprawl and the suburbanization of poverty Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/wp content/uploads/2016/06/0330_job_sprawl_stoll_raphael.pdf Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Sociological Methodology 34 (1), 121 162. Reardon, S.F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low income childre n New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press Rehfuss, J. A. (1986). A representative bureaucracy? Women and minority executives in California career service. Public Administration Review 46 (5), 454 460. Reid, R.H. (2015, June 25). High performance policing: Getting the metrics right. Governing Retrieved November 12, 2015 from www.governing.com/gov institute/voices/col performance management metrics policing.html Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham. (2015). Human Services Coordinated Transportation Plan Retrieved from www.rpcgb.org/transportation/transit/. Regional Transportation District. (2015). RTD best practices. Regional Transportation District. Retrieved from www.rtd denver.com/doc uments/best practices 2015.pdf.

PAGE 194

180 Regens, J.L. & Rycroft, R.W. (1986). Measuring equity in regulatory policy implementation. Public Administration Review 46 (5), 423 431. Renne, J. L. (2009). From transit adjacent to transit oriented development. Local Environment 14 (1), 1 15. Resh, W. G., & Pitts, D. W. (2013). No solutions, only trade offs? Evidence about goal conflict in street level bureaucracies. Public Administration Review 73 (1), 132 142. Riccucci, N. M. (2009). The pursuit of social equity in the federal government: A road less traveled? Public Administration Review 69 (3), 373 382. Riccucci, N. M., & Saidel, J. R. (1997). The representativeness of state level bureaucratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Public Administration Review 57 (5), 423 430. Rice, M. F. (2004). Organizational culture, social equity, and diversity: Teaching public administration education in the postmodern era. Journal of Public Affairs Education 10 (2), 143 154. Richards, L. (1999). Using NVivo in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2005). Qualitative methods (third edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Rognlie, M. (2015, March 19). Deciph ering the fall and rise in the net capital share. The Brookings Institute. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/bpea articles/deciphering the fall and rise in the net capital share/. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review 47 (3), 227 238. Rosenbaum, J. E., DeLuca, S., & Tuck, T. (2005). New capabilities in new places: Low income black families in suburbia. In X. de Souza Briggs (Ed.), The geography of opportunity: Race and housing choice in metropolitan America (pp. 150 175). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Rosenbloom, D. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review 43 (3), 219 227. Rosenbloom, D. (2005). Taking social equity seriously in MPA education Journal of Public Affairs Education 11 (3), 247 252. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute

PAGE 195

181 Rubinowitz, L. S., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2000). Crossing the class and color lines: From public housing to white suburbia. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rutledge, P. (2002). Some unfinished business in public admi nistration. Public Administration Review 62 (4), 390 394. Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131 (2), 519 578. Saha sustainable development survey in medium to large cities in the United States. Journal of Planning Education and Research 28 (1), 21 37. Sander, R. H. (1997). Housing se gregation and housing integration: The diverging paths of urban America. U. Miami L. Rev. 52 977. S nchez T. W. (1999). The connection between public transit and employment: T he cases of Portland and Atlanta. Journal of the American Planning Associati on 65 (3), 284 296. S nchez T. W. (2002). The impact of public transport on US metropolitan wage inequality. Urban Studies 39 (3), 423 436. S nchez, T. W., Stolz R., & Ma, J. S. (2003). Moving to equity: Addressing inequitable effects of transportation policies on minorities. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Retrieved from www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/sanchez moving to equ ity transportation policies.pdf S nchez T. W. (2008). Poverty, policy, and public transportation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42 (5), 833 841. Sanger, M. B. (2008). From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review 68 (s1), S70 S85 Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science R eview 87 ( 2), 334 347. Schnore L. F., & Evenson, P. C. (1966). Segregation in southern cities. American Journal of Sociology 72 (1), 58 67. Schroeder, L. D., Sjoquist, D. L., & Stephan, P. E. (1986). Understanding regression analysis: An introductory guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Schumacher, W. (1932). Thirty years of the people's rule in Oregon: An analysis. Political Science Quarterly 47 (2), 242 258.

PAGE 196

182 Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research. Political Research Quarterly, 61 (2), 294 308. Selden, S. C., Brewer, G. A., & Brud ney, J. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public a dministration : Understanding the administrative role c oncept. Administration & Society 31 (2), 171 204. Shapiro, T., Meschede, T., & Osoro, S. (2013). The roots of the widening racial wealth gap: Explaining the black white economic divide. Institute on Assets and Social Policy. Retrieved from www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/Shapiro%20racialwealthgapbrief.pdf. Sharp, E. (1986). Citizen demand making in the urban context Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Shea, J. (2011). Taking nonprofit intermediaries seriously: A middle range theory for implementation research. Public Administration Review 71 (1), 57 66. Silverman R. H. (1973). Homeownership for the poor: Subsidies and racial segregation. NYUL Rev. 48 72. Singleton, R.A. & Straits, B.C. (2010). Approaches to social research (Fifth edition). Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press. Slater, C. (1997). General motors and the demise of streetcars. Transportation Quarterly 51 45 66. Smart Growth America. (2016). Tag: Birmingham. Retrieved from www.smartgrowthamerica.org/tag/birmingham/. Smirnova O. & Wellman, G. C. (Producer). (2016). Equity in public administration: The case of public transit [Webinar]. In American Society for Public Administration Retrieved from www.aspanet.org/PUBLIC/ASPA/Events/Webinars/Webinar Archive 2016.aspx. Sneed, B. G. (2007). Glass walls in state bureaucracies: Examining the difference departmental function can make. Public Administration Review 67 (5), 880 891. Stiefel, L. Schwartz, A. E., & Gould Ellen I. (2007). Disentangling the racial test score gap: Probing the evidence in a large urban school district. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26 (1), 7 30. Stivers C. (2002). Bureau men, settlement w omen: Construct ing public a dmini stration in th e Progressive Era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

PAGE 197

183 issue of r ace. Public Administration Review 67 (s1), 48 56. S tivers, C. (2014). Learning to t alk of race in public a dministration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory muu049. Stoll, M. A., Holzer, H. J., & Ihlanfeldt K. R. (2000). Within cities and suburbs: Racial residential concentration and the spatial distribution of employment opportunities across sub metropolitan areas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19 (2), 207 231. Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy para dox: The art of political decision making New York NY : WW Norton. Svara, J. H., & Brunet, J. R. (2004). Filling in the skeletal pillar: Addressing social equity in introductory courses in public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education 10 (2) 99 109. Svara, J. H., & Brunet, J. R. (2005). Social equity is a pillar of public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education 11(3), 253 258. Svara, J., Watt, T., & Takai K. (2015). Advancing social equity as an integral dimension of sustainability in local communities. Cityscape 17 (2), 139. Szczepanski, C. (2011, October 26). How a Twin Cities commun ity fought for transit equity And won. Streetsblog USA. Retrieved from http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/10/26/how a twin cities community fought for transit equity and won/. Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management Norwood, MA: The Plimpton Press. Taylor, S. J. & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research: The search for meanings (second edition). New York: John Wiley. The World Bank. (2015). GINI Index. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI Tranmer, M., & Steel, D. G. (1998). Using census data to investigate the causes of the ecological fallacy. Environment and Planning A 30 (5), 817 831. Treuhaft, S. (2015, March 10). Meet our four newest indicators. PolicyLink. Retrieved from www.policylink.org/blog/4 new indicators.

PAGE 198

184 U.S. Census Bureau. (2014, December 10). Annual income and earnings inequality m etrics: 2009 to 2012. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from www.census.gov/programs surveys/sipp/publications/tables/ineq metrics.html. UC Regents. (2016). Missin g data in Stata Retrieved from www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/modules/missing.html. University of Texas Inequality Project. (2014). Beginner's guide Inequality s tudies. Retrieved from http://utip.lbj.utexas.edu/tutorials.html. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research: a guide for organizational and social research Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Van Treeck, T., & Sturn, S. (2012). I ncome inequality as a cause of the Great Recession? A survey of current debates. Geneva: International Labour Office, Conditions of Work and Employment Branch. Retrieved from www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/ --ed_protect/ --protrav/ --travail/documents/publication/wcms_187497.pdf. Vock, D. C. (2014). Public transit ridership reaches highest level since 1956. Governing Retrieved from www.governing.com/news/headlines/Public Transit Ridership Reaches Highest Level Since 1956.html. Waitzman, N. J., & Smith, K. R. (1998). Separate but lethal: The effects of economic segregation on mortality in metropolitan America. Milbank Quarterly 76 (3), 341 373. Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Waldo, D. (1952). Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review 46 (01), 81 103. Wang, S., & Mastracci, S. (2014). Gau ging social justice: A survey of indices for public m anagement. Public Administration Quarterly 38 (4), 488. Warner, M. E. (2010). The future of local g overnment: Twenty f irst century c hallenges. Public Administration Review 70 (s1), s145 s147. Watson, T. (2009). Inequality and the measurement of residential segregation by income in American neighborhoods. Review of Income and Wealth 55 (3), 820 844. Weingroff, R. F. (1 996). Creating the interstate s ystem. Public Roads 60 (1), 10 17.

PAGE 199

185 Weiss, C. H. (1983). Ideology, interests, and information. In S. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis, (pp. 213 245). New York, NY: Springer. Welch, T. F., & Mishra, S. (2013). A measure of equity for public transit connectivity. Journal of Transport Geography 33 29 41. Wellman, G. C. (2012). Community empowerment and public transportation agencies: a case study analysis of transit agencies' community development initiatives. Community Development 43 (4), 512 526. Wellman, G. C. (2015). The social justice (of) movement: How public transportation administrators def ine social j ustice. Public Administration Quarterly 39 (1), 117 146. West, T. (2014, January 31). Five eye opening stats on income inequality in Birmingham. Birmingham Business Journal. Retrieved from www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2014/01/31/five ey e opening stats on income.html. Wilson, M. L. (1945). Review: Basic social science applied to administration. Public Administration Review, 5 (4), 386 391. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Williams, D. W. (2003). Measuring government in the early twentieth century. Public Administration Review 63 (6), 643 659. Williams, Z. (2014). Left at the station: A civil rights perspective on transit justice in the Front Range. 9 to 5 Colorado. Retrieved from http://milehighconnects.org/wp content/uploads/2014/10/Left at the Station.pdf. Williams, D. R., & Collins, C. (2001). R acial residential segregation: A fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health R eports 116 (5), 404. Wichowsky, A., & Moynihan, D. (2006). Public policies, citizenship outcomes and the implications for performance measurement: An analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. In the Association for Public Policy Anal ysis and Management (APPAM) Fall Conference University of Wisconsin Madison, November 2 4, 2006. Wier, M., Weintraub, J., Humphreys, E. H., Seto, E., & Bhatia, R. (2009). An area level model of vehicle pedestrian injury collisions with implications for l and use and transportation planning. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41 (1), 137 145. Wishon, P. (2004). Brown v. Board of Ed ucation at 50: Reflections on Plessy, Brown, and our professional c onscience. Young Children 59 (3), 77 79.

PAGE 200

186 Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (fifth edition). Delhi, India: Cengage Learning. Wooldridge, B., & Gooden, S. (2009). The epic of social equity: Evolution, essence, and emergence. Administrative Theory & Praxis 31 (2 ), 222 234. Wong, C.K. (1995). Measuring third world poverty by the international poverty line: The case of reform China. Social Policy & Administration 29 (3), 189 203. Wrigley, N., Holt, T., Steel, D., & Tranmer, M. (1996). Analysing, modelling, and resolving the ecological fallacy. In P.A. Longley & M. Batty (Eds.) Spatial analysis: Modelling in a GIS environment (pp. 25 40). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. structural orientations. Public Administration Quarterly 31 (3), 342 383. Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance trust link: Implications for performance measu rement. Public Administration Review 66 (1), 114 126.

PAGE 201

187 APPENDIX A : D enver Segregation and Inequality Trends 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 City Level Trends Dissimilarity (Segregation) Theil (Inequality) -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Example: Neighborhood Level Trends Dissimilarity Element Theil Element

PAGE 202

188 APPENDIX B: Minneapolis Segregation and Inequality Trends 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 City Level Trends Dissimilarity (Segregation) Theil (Inequality) -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Example: Neighborhood Level Trends Dissimilarity Element Theil Element

PAGE 203

189 APPENDIX C: Birmingham Segregation and Inequality Trends -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 City Level Trends Dissimilarity (Segregation) Theil (Inequality) -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Example: Neighborhood Level Trends Dissimilarity (Element Theil Element

PAGE 204

190 APPENDIX D: Orlando Segregation and Inequality Trends -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 City Level Trends Dissimilarity (Segregation) Theil (Inequality) -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Example: Neighborhood Level Trends Dissimilarity Element Theil Element

PAGE 205

191 APPENDIX E: Interaction Term Calculation Two interaction term s were calculated in this study : Non White Neighborhood Access and Hispanic Neighborhood Access. 1. Non White Neighborhood Access This variable was calculated for each residents that are non white). The product of that i nteraction becomes Non White Neighborhood Access. The variable is then added to the models, in addition to the original variables as directed by other applications (See Fitzmaurice, 2000; Brambor, Clark, & Golder, 2006). 2. Hispanic Neighborhood Access. This variable was calculated for each neighborhood Hispanic or Latino). The product o f that interaction becomes Hispanic Neighborhood Access. Again, tt he variable is then added to the models, as directed by other applications (See Fitzmaurice, 2000; Brambor, Clark, & Golder, 2006).

PAGE 206

192 APPENDIX F: Interview Contacts Interview participants were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. Thus, this table provides the agency names that each participant worked for in each case. It also notes their area of expertise as it relates to public transportation (civil rights, planning, poli cy, or outreach). MSA Contact Agency Expertise Denver 1 Regional Transportation District Planning 2 Regional Transportation District Civil Rights 3 Denver Regional Council of Governments Policy Minneapolis 1 Metro Transit Planning 2 City of St. Paul Policy 3 District Councils Collaborative Civil Rights Birmingham 1 Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham Policy 2 Alabama Department of Transportation Civil Rights 3 Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority Planning Orlando 1 Florida Department of Transportation Civil Rights 2 MetroPlan Orlando Planning 3 MetroPlan Orlando Outreach