Work of the Few, Benefits Us All

UCS recently announced its 2010 Human Service Awards. You might wonder what do a Sheriff, newspaper opinion writer and nonprofit child advocacy agency all have in common. As I see it, they all seek to promote the common good – that which benefits everyone in our community, regardless of income, address, sex, age, race or other distinct attribute. These three award winners, in their respective roles, work to improve the community for everyone.

Sheriff Frank Denning seeks a community that is safe from crime. While not everyone is the victim of a crime, we all feel safer knowing that we can rely on a swift response. Bob Sigman seeks a community that has integrity and “does the right thing.” In his weekly column in the Johnson County Sun he writes about issues that directly may affect only a few, but as a community affect us all. Kansas Action for Children (KAC) seeks a community that puts children first. Through their advocacy work, KAC seeks policies that improve the lives of children and their families.

The work and accomplishments of Sheriff Denning, Bob Sigman and KAC are not based on self-interest or the interest of a few. Rather, they are committed to working to improve life for all of us. As an individual, I have not been the victim of a crime (or committed a crime) in Johnson County, I do not have children, and many of the issues addressed in Bob Sigman’s articles don’t directly touch my life. But, I personally enjoy a richer quality of life through their efforts to make this a better community. I thank them for their work – and hope that they serve as an example for others.

Sheriff Frank Denning, Shannon Cotsoradis (Kansas Action for Children) and Bob Sigman

Rethinking the Cause for Suburban Poverty

Johnson County human service providers have been sounding the alarm for the past several years that poverty is increasing.  Many find it hard to believe that more people with income below 100% of the federal poverty level live in Johnson County than in Wyandotte County, 38,000 vs. 33,000.  Now, studies by the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and numerous articles, such as “Trouble in the Suburbs” by the Center for American Progress, confirm that rising suburban poverty is changing the landscape across the country.  They conclude that growing suburban poverty contradicts commonly held perceptions of suburbs, therefore we must change how we think about them.

While some tend to conclude that suburban poverty is “caused” by low-income people moving to the community, in Johnson County the number of poor grew almost two times the one-year population increase.  Three concurrent trends have combined to bring about this transformation of the suburbs:  downward mobility of the middle class over the past decade; recession-related fiscal challenges such as job loss, unemployment and underemployment; and to a smaller degree, low-income individuals and families moving to suburbs in search of what everyone wants – better job opportunities, safer neighborhoods and quality schools.  

Human service providers and advocates must start by educating their boards and other influential leaders about the changing nature of our community. And together, we must work to put in place programs and policies that can make a difference.  Blaming the poor will not change the reality of growing suburban poverty.

Census Data Proves Poverty Exists in Johnson County

When we met together at the Summit in June, we hadn’t yet seen the poverty numbers from the 2009 American Community Survey.  The dramatic increase in the county’s poverty rate from 4.4% to 7.1% is more evidence of the recession’s impact on Johnson County.  Johnson County added nearly 15,000 people to its poverty count – now at 38,000.  When compared to the other metro-area counties, the number of poor increased more than any other county.  And, the number in poverty now surpasses Wyandotte County.

At the same time poverty numbers were climbing, the median household income for 2009 in Johnson County fell by $4,400 (from $76,189 in 2008 to $71,766).  This drop was the largest of any county in the area.  Other troubling data show worker’s earnings dropped and more people were without health care.

The poverty and income data point to significant social service challenges.  But these are challenges that cannot be addressed by the social service sector alone.  What should we do?  The first step is to educate civic and elected leaders, as well the general public, that these challenges exist in Johnson County.

Human Service Summit: Growing Poverty

The trend most people at the Summit wanted to discuss was growing poverty — poverty in Johnson County is growing twice as fast as the national average for suburbs; people living in poverty are widely scattered geographically.  To people delivering social services in Johnson County this isn’t news.  But it is news to a majority of the county’s residents, including civic, business and political leaders.  How does an affluent community engage in a conversation about poverty? 

It seems that helping civic, business and political leaders understand the impact of poverty on our public schools may be a place to start.  Johnson County prides itself on its outstanding school system, and rightfully so.   But as more students live in low income families, can we expect the same level of overall academic achievement?   Research consistently shows that poor children are more likely to do worse on measures of school achievement than non-poor children are.  Also, poor children are twice as likely as non-poor children to have repeated a grade, to have been expelled or suspended from school, or to have dropped out of high school.  

One indicator of child poverty is enrollment in the National School Lunch Program.  Enrollment in the program tripled for every district during this decade.   Nearly 19,000 students, more than 1 in 5, were enrolled county-wide during the 2009-10 school year.  About 1 in 11 were enrolled in 2000.

There are strategies that can make a difference, but first it will take civic, business and political leaders who understand the consequences of doing nothing.

Human Service Summit: What Participants Said

It always takes a while to compile the notes from the small group discussions at the Summit.   While every group has the same set of questions to discuss, each group has its own dynamics which leads to a rich conversation but it can make it challenging to weave the threads together.  You’ll see from the summary that we tried to capture the main points, but most likely not everything that was discussed is covered.

What strikes me most about the conversations is that for the most part these are the same conversations that the social service community has been having for decades.  At the top of the list are concerns about low-wage jobs, access to health care, affordable housing, transportation options and funding for human service programs.  These are significant issues with no easy, or inexpensive, solution.   These are also issues that do not just affect the social service community – they are economic issues, as well.  Any substantial improvements in these conditions will require cross-sector efforts. 

What are your suggestions for how to begin the cross-sector dialogue that can lead to improved community conditions?

The Human Service Summit: The 3 Cs

To learn how organizations are adapting to current conditions and preparing for the future, participants at the UCS Human Service Summit were invited to write brief responses on post-it notes to two questions.  While no two organizations have the exact same challenges or the same response to similar circumstances, organizations do share the same commitment to deliver quality programs and produce positive outcomes for the people they serve. 

Nearly 150 responses from 43 entities were posted at this year’s Summit.  A number of responses mention increasing cooperation, coordination and collaboration (the 3 Cs).  While these approaches vary in level of intensity, they all require positive working relationships within and across organizations.  My experience at UCS has been that successful collaboration is fostered by personal relationships built on trust and mutual respect.  In today’s environment, with increased demands on time and reduced staff capacity, are human service providers building relationships?  Does social media help or hinder?  Are face-to-face conversations still taking place?  What are your thoughts about how organizations build and sustain the relationships that are essential to the 3 Cs?

The Human Service Summit Conversation Continues

From Karen Wulfkuhle, Executive Director

People who attend the UCS Human Service Summit tell us they value the networking and small group discussion; and many express an interest in continuing the conversation.  The introduction of the UCS Blog is to do just that – provide a virtual space to share what was said at the Summit and seek your reflections.  Over the next few months The Compass will feature discussion on the top trends considered at the Summit.  Your responses will advance the conversation and connect you to others with common interests.  To be a part of the ongoing conversation, sign up to receive alerts when there is a new posting.

Every year, when the Summit is over I experience a range of feelings – delighted that I have seen so many friends and colleagues, overwhelmed by the amount of data generated and requiring analysis, hopeful that the Summit can lead to new connections between people and organizations, and respect and admiration for the people who work every day to help our community’s most vulnerable residents.  But the overriding feeling is gratitude for the way that this community comes together to work cooperatively to improve human services.  What are your thoughts about your experience at this year’s Human Service Summit?