I need help

1 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

K. Steven Brown, Kilolo Kijakazi, Charmaine Runes, and Margery Austin Turner

February 2019

Racial and ethnic disparities figure prominently into much of the analysis conducted by

policy research organizations in the US. But too often our organizations give short shrift to

the centuries of subjugation, discrimination, exclusion, and injustice that have produced

these inequities.

If, as researchers, we aim to build knowledge that helps shape and advance solutions to the

challenges of blocked mobility and widening inequality, we must do better at explicitly examining the

structural and systemic forces at work. For many established research organizations, this is more easily

said than done. It requires scholars to learn things about our history and its lasting implications that

they may not already know. It requires changes to familiar ways of working. And it requires fresh

approaches to communicating findings to our intended audiences.

Over the past several years, the Urban Institute has committed itself to making these changes. We

see this goal—to rigorously address the structures and systems of racism in the content and

communication of our research—as an essential part of our broader diversity and inclusion efforts. The

current political climate creates a heightened sensitivity and sense of urgency, but we see this evolution

as essential to our mission over the long term. Urban is by no means alone in this endeavor; many other

policy analysis and research organizations have also embarked on this undertaking and have an interest

in sharing tools, strategies, and lessons learned along the way.

In November 2018, the Urban Institute hosted a roundtable discussion with 23 organizations

representing policy research, academia, and philanthropy to share approaches, insights, and lessons

from our respective efforts to confront structural racism in our research and policy analysis. This brief

discusses the rationale for these efforts at implementing institutional change; the range of challenges

and constraints facing different types of research organizations; and our experience to date with

DI VERSI T Y, EQ UI T Y, AND I NCL USI O N AT T HE URBAN I NST I T UT E

Confronting Structural Racism in Research and Policy Analysis Charting a Course for Policy Research Institutions

2 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

specific tools and strategies. We aim to advance understanding of and attention to structural racism in

the work of our own institution and in the larger field of policy research.

Recognizing the Pervasive Legacy of Racist Policies For nearly its entire history, the United States excluded people of color from its main pathways to

economic opportunity through explicit policy decisions. In Stamped from the Beginning, Ibram X. Kendi

argues that racism does not primarily stem from hate and ignorance, but that “racist policies have driven

the history of racist ideas in America” (Kendi 2017, 9). For generations, people of African descent lived

and died in bondage. Even after the Civil War and the abolishment of slavery, black people in the United

States were subjected to legalized forms of discrimination that restricted where they lived, if and where

they could attend school, and the kinds of jobs they could hold. And even with the constitutional right to

vote (granted to men with the 15th Amendment in 1870 and to women with the 19th Amendment in

1920), barriers to exercising those rights largely prevented citizens’ ability to change the oppressive

laws that obstructed their opportunities.

For example, the federal Home Owners Loan Corporation, established in 1933 as part of the New

Deal, created maps that were color-coded to indicate the desirability of neighborhoods. Race was a

significant factor in determining the color-coding of a neighborhood (Hillier 2005), with communities of

color designated as undesirable and color-coded red. This appraisal system, called redlining, was

adopted by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which provided mortgage insurance enabling

many Americans to buy homes. Redlining made it much more difficult and expensive for African

Americans to obtain loans and purchase homes. Between 1930 and 1960, African Americans received

less than 1 percent of the nation’s mortgages (Conley 1999). In addition to redlining, the FHA advocated

using restrictive covenants to maintain the racial segregation of neighborhoods. The FHA’s Underwriting

Manual stated, “if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be

occupied by the same social and racial classes” (Oliver and Shapiro 2006, 18). Because people were

unable to buy homes in the past, many families today have less wealth, 1 and schools are not much less

segregated than they were 50 years ago (Reardon and Owens 2014).

America’s history of discriminatory policies and institutional practices explains the deep disparities

in access to opportunities and in outcomes that we see today across social and economic domains. Court

cases were decided and laws were passed that outlawed these and other practices, but to paraphrase

Lyndon B. Johnson, who helped found the Urban Institute, these legal rights are the beginning of the

path to freedom, not the end. He goes on to say that “it is not enough just to open the gates of

opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.” 2 Our approach to

understanding current racial disparities is guided by an understanding that centuries of oppression,

legal discrimination, and sanctioned inequality have long tails that continue to shape where people live,

what opportunities they are exposed to, and how people engage with one another. The legacies of those

structures—if not the structures themselves—continue to have impacts today. We use the definition of

structural racism developed by the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change (2004):

C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS 3

a system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other

norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies

dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time.

Two examples highlight how structural racism operates in policy today. First, more than 50 years

after passage of the federal Fair Housing Act, America’s neighborhoods remain starkly segregated along

lines of race and ethnicity, and people of color are dramatically overrepresented in high-poverty census

tracts. By the late 20th century, after decades of discriminatory lending practices and redlining, civil

rights legislation and evolving constitutional jurisprudence prohibited overt forms of discrimination in

housing and lifted many formal barriers to residential integration. But they were quickly replaced by

subtler and ostensibly race-neutral methods to exclude people of color from predominantly white

neighborhoods. For example, exclusionary zoning policies make it difficult for lower-income residents to

live in many suburban communities. And while the incidence of housing discrimination has generally

declined, people of color looking for places to live are still told about fewer homes and apartments than

white people (Greene, Turner, and Gourevitch 2017).

A second example involves law enforcement policies that criminalize behaviors in a way that

disproportionately affects people of color. Federal guidelines impose substantially more severe

penalties for the use of crack than for powder cocaine, two forms of the same drug. Research has found

that crack is more likely to be used by socioeconomically disadvantaged members of society, among

which African Americans are disproportionately represented, and that African Americans are “at higher

risk for arrest and subject to [an] 18:1 sentencing disparity.” 3 This is an example of color-blind structural

racism, where a policy makes no reference to race but still has major disproportionate effects by race.

As Kendi argues, the differences in outcomes in these two examples, not to mention many others,

resulted from policy. Too often, however, public policy researchers ignore or overlook the structures

and systems that created and sustain inequality, focusing exclusively on individual choices and

behaviors as the main drivers of disparate outcomes. Improving public policy research requires

organizations to consider how this history of discriminatory policies affects the context, validity, and

implications of our work, and to make intentional change in how we address these racist legacies.

Navigating Institutional Choices and Constraints Policy research organizations take many institutional forms—from small, single-issue nonprofits to for-

profit firms with thousands of employees to policy centers within universities to policy research

organizations in the nation’s capital. Structural racism is undeniably relevant to the work of all these

organizations, no matter their size or type. But the challenges we face and the paths we take to more

effectively address structural racism vary widely. In particular, an organization’s primary mission, its

funding sources, and its size and internal structure are likely to shape the strategies it pursues to

explicitly address the realities of structural racism in the research and policy analysis it produces.

4 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

Organizational Mission

Every organization must give careful thought to how structural racism issues relate to its core mission

and the audiences it aims to inform and influence. Some may conclude that racial inequity and injustice

are core to their mission and that research on structural racism should take center stage. But even

research organizations with broader or less normative missions can and should find ways to accurately

and effectively analyze structural racism and its consequences.

Some organizations may explicitly focus their mission on advancing racial justice or overcoming

white supremacy. Many of these institutions target audiences that include grassroots organizations,

advocates, and social justice practitioners. These organizations can make their focus on structures and

systems explicit in their research products. They can hire people with expertise and commitment to

their mission and can expect their staff to make this work a top priority—putting them a step ahead of

organizations whose staff might not all have the same knowledge or commitment to advancing racial

justice. These organizations are also more likely to devote institutional resources to developing internal

training for staff members and to building capacity around these crucial issues.

ORGANIZATIONS WITH MISSIONS FOCUSED ON ADVANCING RACIAL JUSTICE

 PolicyLink “is a national research and action institute advancing racial and economic equity by Lifting Up What Works.”

 Kirwan Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity works “to create a just and inclusive society where all people and communities have opportunity to succeed.”

Many other long-established research organizations have broader missions than advancing racial

justice, but they can still decide to give structural racism explicit attention within a larger frame. These

institutions’ target audiences typically include elected officials, government agencies, and business

leaders, as well as on-the-ground practitioners and advocates. They can develop a structural racism–

focused program area or an important cross-cutting initiative within the broader scope of their research

analysis, also providing institutional legitimacy in the process. They can also make it a priority to hire

staff with relevant interests and expertise to lead in this area of study. In addition, staff with this

expertise can be encouraged to contribute to other work, since structural racism is pervasive across

research areas. Organizations with broader missions can also offer training, tools, and incentives to staff

interested in engaging with the conversation around advancing racial justice in their work.

C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS 5

ORGANIZATIONS WITH MISSIONS BROADER THAN, BUT INCLUSIVE OF, RACIAL JUSTICE

 The Brookings Institution’s mission is “to conduct in-depth research that leads to new ideas for solving problems facing society at the local, national and global level.”

 Abt Associates aims to be “an engine for social impact, fueled by caring, curiosity and cutting- edge research that moves people from vulnerability to security.”

 Mathematica “is dedicated to improving public well-being and reimagining the way the world gathers and uses data.”

The Urban Institute, founded in 1968 to “bring power through knowledge to solve the problems

that weigh heavily on the hearts and minds of America,” has chosen to elevate issues of racial injustice

and inequity as central to our broader mission. We seek to inform and support a wide variety of

audiences, including changemakers in government, philanthropy, business, advocacy, and practice. Our

Next50 initiative, which draws on our previous 50 years of work to inform priorities for our next 50,

focuses on advancing mobility and narrowing equity gaps. One of the big questions we want to tackle in

our future work is “What would it take to eliminate the policies, programs, and institutional practices

that impede racial equity?” We are committed to devoting resources to encouraging and supporting

steps to advance racial justice in our work, but we do not mandate this focus across all staff or projects.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) State Fiscal Policy division has been exploring

ways in which structural racism has affected their staff, how they do their work, and the landscape in

which they operate. They examine how race implicitly or explicitly impacts their decisionmaking from

the policy issues they choose to the research they conduct to the partners with whom they choose to

work. They are undertaking efforts to make these systemic barriers more transparent and to develop

strategies that will help staff identify their own assumptions and biases, analyze their decisions, and

choose to use a racial equity approach to the work. An example of such work is their seminal paper

Advancing Racial and Ethnic Equity with State Tax Policy (2018), which examines structural racism in

state tax policy. In addition, CBPP administers a state policy fellowship program with a focus on

candidates who have experience with communities that are underrepresented in state policy debates.

Funding Sources

The funding sources upon which an organization relies may either constrain or accelerate its ability to

make issues of structural racism explicit in its work. Some funders find the language of structural racism

too controversial or political and are unlikely to support work that puts the issue front and center. And

policy research organizations that compete for awards with strictly defined scope and focus face

limitations on their flexibility to explore these issues.

Despite these constraints, researchers have opportunities and responsibilities to identify and

describe the structures and systems that drive disparate outcomes, when these outcomes are

6 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

addressed by their work. As discussed further below, they can avoid data and methods mistakes that

obscure key drivers, avoid language that dehumanizes people, and publish separate products targeted

to audiences other than the original funder. These additional products may leverage supplemental funds

to dive deeper into structural racism in the work and examine its effects without the constraints

imposed by the original scope of work or funding source.

In contrast, some funders, particularly in the philanthropic world, have determined that structural

racism should be a central focus or lens for the organizations and work they support. To capitalize on

these funding sources, research institutions must first prove they have the capacity to delve into this

type of work and go beyond the superficial. Developing a robust evidence base around structural racism

and its effects is critical to attracting these funders, which will in turn allow organizations to dig more

deeply into the disparate effects of structures and systems in their future work. To win support from

these funders, organizations must also actively engage with communities of color to surface questions

and gather evidence. They must have an inclusive staff with expertise in structural barriers to

opportunity. And they must identify policy and practice reforms that stretch conventional thinking.

Many other funding organizations, including those in the philanthropic, government, and corporate

spaces, are exploring how they want to tackle the structural forces that sustain inequity and injustice.

Seeking funding from these sources provides organizations with the opportunity to work together with

a partner and learn how to best address these issues through research. Institutions seeking these

funding sources can expand their research areas to ask challenging, “outside the box” research

questions they want to investigate. They can also experiment with less conventional data sources and

methods and reach out to new audiences that may be unfamiliar with their work.

Size and Structure

Organizations’ size, structure, and internal culture play a central role in how they implement efforts to

better address structural racism. Differences in these characteristics do not excuse institutions from

taking steps to improve. Rather, they offer an opportunity for organizations to take advantage of their

unique strengths and capacities.

Small organizations with a tight-knit team structure may be especially well positioned to establish a

strong shared understanding of and approach to analysis of racial inequity and injustice. In these smaller

organizations, the leader is critical to setting the tone and focus for everyone. A smaller size makes it

easier for the entire staff to take training together to improve their awareness of these issues, and it

encourages close collaboration around how to advance lessons learned and new approaches. These

advantages can also apply to small internal teams within larger, more complex organizations.

Highly centralized organizations with top-down review and approval mechanisms may be able to

mandate that everyone adopt the lens of structural racism, apply appropriate data and analytic

methods, and adhere to language guidelines. They can require all staff to complete training that centers

around the disparate effects of structural racism. These organizations can also implement a centralized

C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS 7

review of proposals, work plans, research designs, and research products to ensure all work takes into

account, when applicable, a racial equity lens.

Many research organizations, however, are both large and decentralized and place a premium on

researcher independence rather than top-down direction. This poses challenges for adopting and

applying new ideas and approaches. Nonetheless, signals from leadership that they see this work as a

priority can be very powerful. These larger and more decentralized organizations can prioritize racial

equity in their work by celebrating researchers who are working on these issues, making connections

between researchers who might not otherwise know each other, offering voluntary tools and training to

advance awareness and adoption around racial justice, and providing internal financial support and

incentives to researchers who commit to prioritizing racial equity in their work.

Organizations also vary in the composition and diversity of their staffs. Many research

organizations set goals and track progress for diversity in staff and leadership. Having a diverse staff is

an important goal, and research has shown that increasing diversity can bring benefits in

communication, innovation, and productivity (Ellison and Mullin 2014; Gao and Zhang 2017). 4 Just as

important, a diverse staff brings different perspectives and sensitivities, which can improve how

organizations engage with and talk about particular populations, and a diverse staff accurately reflects

and represents the world in which we live and work. However, a staff that is less representative does

not prevent an institution from advancing a structural racism lens in their work. Tools like those listed

in this report can enable organizations to take concrete steps toward a better account of structural

disadvantage in their work. Additionally, developing this lens can provide opportunities for growth for

staff of color already in the organization and may be a draw to increase the diversity of staff through

hiring.

Tools for Moving Forward Progress may look different depending upon institutional choices and constraints, but all policy

research organizations can move forward with efforts to explicitly address the structures and systems

of racism by building understanding and awareness among staff members, reexamining data sources

and analytic methods, and improving communication strategies.

Boost Awareness and Learning Among Staff

Research organizations can build their internal capacity to produce rigorous research on racial

inequities and injustice by seeking external guidance, creating intentional spaces for reflection and

education, and embedding mechanisms that raise staff consciousness at each phase of the research

process—from proposal development to product dissemination. Many organizations have few staff with

the knowledge and expertise to effectively address structural racism in their work. Institutions should

build up their staff so people with this expertise work in each of the institutions’ policy domains. Tools

being tested to boost staff awareness and learning include the following:

8 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

 Structural racism speaker series: The Urban Institute invites outside experts to spark

discussion on structural racism and advance new lines of inquiry among researchers. These

“brown bag” seminars expose researchers to established and emerging frameworks, methods,

and data sources around structural racism while providing examples of how researchers can

contextualize research results. This speaker series also helps researchers broaden their

networks and foster new partnerships for future work.

 Structural racism blog post series: The Urban Institute’s Urban Wire invites staff at all levels,

including research assistants and analysts, to write blog posts that apply a structural racism lens

to research findings and policy developments. This approach has elevated structural racism as a

topic of discussion at Urban, and it encourages collaboration among researchers across

different domains and years of experience.

 Leveraging internal funding: Several policy research organizations dedicate flexible (internal)

resources to work around structural racism, including the staff time needed to organize,

facilitate, and debrief meetings, as well as to develop public-facing products.

 READ groups: The CBPP developed learning modules about racial inequity that are designed to

spark discussion among small groups of staff. These modules include books, articles, and videos

at the intersection of public policy, research, and structural racism. They are helpful resources

for staff committed to building their knowledge and improving their research, and they

encourage engagement and discussion among staff who might not have the opportunity to talk

about these issues otherwise.

 Research project checklist: The CBPP created a checklist of questions that prompt staff to

consider structural racism at each stage of a research project. The checklist encourages

researchers to examine each decision they make throughout the project, from choosing

populations of interest to data sources to background research to participant compensation to

the structure of the analysis. These questions prompt researchers to push themselves and think

deliberately about how structural racism may play a role in their work.

Improve Data Sources and Methods

Research organizations can take concrete steps to include people and perspectives that are left out of

standard research practices by improving the data sources upon which they rely, and to develop

analytic methods for rigorously measuring the structures and systems that sustain racial inequities. As

gatekeepers for what constitutes valid research, our institutions have the obligation to develop and

elevate data sources and methods that more accurately and respectfully represent marginalized

communities and more accurately document the barriers they face. These methods and data sources

also improve the rigor of our research and the relevance of our policy analysis:

 Cultivate community-engaged research methods: Researchers can better understand the

people they study and the realities they face by actively engaging with communities and

building on their knowledge and insights. Creating a collaborative, equitable learning

C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS 9

partnership requires researchers to include community members in multiple phases of

research, including study design, data collection, analysis, and dissemination.

 Devote resources to translation: Language barriers among survey respondents and research

partners can result in some populations being left out of studies. Research organizations should

include in their budgets to funders resources for translation services to ensure that everyone in

a study population is included and that their responses are accurately reflected.

 Compensate survey respondents: Time and expertise are valuable assets. Researchers can

acknowledge these contributions by paying survey respondents and community partners.

Financial remuneration may be most appropriate, but if this is not possible, alternative forms of

compensation, such as providing food or securing child care, should be offered.

 Reconsider race as a dummy variable: Researchers often use dummy variables to represent

race and ethnicity in multivariate analysis, but this practice implicitly assumes there is no

relationship between race and other explanatory variables. Instead of uncritically using dummy

variables, researchers should examine what role they think race actually plays in their model

and how best to test their hypotheses about its impact on particular outcomes. Examining these

assumptions may require researchers to recognize their own biases. Failing to account for the

fact that not everyone has access to the same assets or opportunities can result in misleading

findings about differences in outcomes.

“LIKE FISH WHO DON’T SEE WATER, ECONOMISTS DON’T SEE STRUCTURAL RACISM” (EMMONS 2018) 5

A standard approach in economics is to include race in the analytic equation as a “dummy variable”—a numeric variable used to represent subgroups of a sample. This approach makes the implicit assumption that individuals are alike in every way except for their race. Emmons and Rickets (2017) demonstrated the flaw in this assumption by testing two models for explaining the racial wealth gap. The first model used standard dummy variables for race. Its results suggested that differences in wealth were almost entirely explained by differences in education, employment, and other similar independent factors. The second model expressed the independent factors as deviations from the racial group average. This approach found that, although the independent factors were important, they did not explain away most of the wealth gap. In fact, the researchers concluded that over 70 percent of the racial wealth gap stems from structural factors that lead to families of color facing greater constraints.

This study was inspired by Darrick Hamilton’s critique of the dummy variable. His research (Darity, Hamilton et al. 2018; Hamilton and Darity 2017; Hamilton et al. 2015) has demonstrated that even when African Americans have made all the “right” choices, they have substantially less wealth than white people. White high school dropouts have more wealth, on average, than African Americans with a college degree (Darity et al. 2018). Unemployed white people have more wealth than African Americans who work full time. White homeowners possess $140,000 more in net worth than African American homeowners. And the net worth of single-parent white families is more than two times that of two- parent African American families.

1 0 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

Adopt Communication Guidelines and Engage Diverse Audiences

Research institutions can better steward their reach and influence by contextualizing data on

disparities with information on historic and current inequities, committing to using respectful and

inclusive language and images in their products, and by elevating marginalized voices and perspectives

in public events and outreach. Historically, researchers have perpetuated stereotypes about people of

color by using dehumanizing language and imagery. Organizations can dismantle this harmful legacy by

favoring meaningful change over the status quo:

 Establish communication guidelines: Urban Institute staff are creating guidance documents

that share the social and historical context of various phrases, labels, and racial categories;

provide examples of labels to use and not to use; encourage researchers to use labels preferred

by the communities they study; and offer other helpful resources. These guides aim to ensure

that all products consistently use language that conveys respect for the individuals and groups

studied, and avoid language that reinforces stereotypes about groups that have been

marginalized in society.

 Employ a principled image selection process: Researchers can be more intentional about the

images they attach to their reports, presentations, and blog posts. Images should be

representative of the research and avoid perpetuating stereotypes (for example, in an

evaluation of a federal program, the image should reflect the racial breakdown of that

program). Images should also show people in marginalized groups in contexts beyond those

solely about them being marginalized (for example, researchers should include images of black

people in reports about homeownership or career advancement, rather than just research

about poverty or joblessness).

 Implement event panel guidelines: Organizations can ensure their event planning and

outreach procedures explicitly address the importance of including diverse speakers and

reaching diverse audiences. The Urban Institute’s event guidelines prompt researchers and

communications staff to ask whether the proposed speakers and audience invitation lists are

diverse and whether they include the perspectives of people with lived experience in the topic

being discussed.

 Diversify products and dissemination strategies: Researchers can make their work more

accessible by publishing a variety of products—such as technical reports, briefs, blog posts,

podcasts, and infographics—that target different audiences. A lengthy research report might

not always be the best avenue to communicate findings, as shorter and more accessible options

often reach broader audiences. Researchers can also share their work with smaller, more

specialized news outlets to reach a more diverse audience, rather than targeting only elite

media outlets.

 Partner with advocacy organizations to take the work further: Research organizations can

develop robust partnerships with advocacy organizations to ensure their products are useful in

directly or indirectly informing and creating more equitable policy and programming.

C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS 1 1

 Host community data walks: Researchers can share key data and findings with the people

closest to the issues through community data walks (Murray, Falkenburger, and Saxena 2015).

These data walks aim to ensure the people most affected by the research have a robust

understanding of the data, to help inform better programming and policies to address the

strengths and needs of a community or population, and to inspire individual and collective

action among community agents.

DATA WALKS: COMMUNITY-CENTERED TOOLS TO SHARE DATA

During a data walk, stakeholders split up into small groups and rotate through “stations”—each one a visual and/or textual display of data that forms a narrative about the community that participants can confirm, critique, and complicate.

Data walks provide opportunities for researchers and community members to cocreate meaning and solutions based on community data; in other words, community members are not only research participants but also equal research partners.

Assessing Progress With these considerations and strategies in mind, one big question remains: How can we, as institutions,

hold ourselves accountable and determine whether these efforts are working? As research

organizations, our assessments of progress and decisions about next steps should be rooted in evidence.

We propose five basic indicators for researchers and policy analysts to assess their progress in

confronting structural racism in our work. Each organization would need to determine which of these

indicators are most aligned with its mission and goals and develop systems to create baseline measures,

track progress, and ensure accountability.

 Increasing numbers of staff will participate in efforts to learn about structural racism and apply

this lens in their research about issues of difference and disparities.

 Wider and more diverse audiences will read our work, attend our events, and find our work

relevant and useful.

 Audiences we typically engage will recognize the value of our work on structural racism and

find it relevant and enlightening.

 More experts of color will want to work for our organization and contribute to the bodies of

work we produce.

 Independent “audits” of the language and images in our published research products will find

improvements in respect, equity, and inclusion.

1 2 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

We would argue that no research organization has fully figured out how to effectively implement a

structural racism lens in their work and that all institutions interested in making their work more

equitable and impactful still have room to grow. As we move forward with these efforts, research

organizations should continue to share ideas and strategies and to seek the expertise of others inside

and outside our field who have made more progress.

Notes 1 Signe-Mary McKernan, Caroline Ratcliffe, C. Eugene Steuerle, Caleb Quakenbush, and Emma Kalish, “Nine

Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated),” Urban Institute, February 2015, http://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/.

2 Lyndon B. Johnson, “To Fulfill These Rights,” commencement address at Howard University, Washington, DC, June 4, 1965, transcript, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/commencement-address-at- howard-university-to-fulfill-these-rights/.

3 New York University, “Powder vs. Crack: NYU Study Identifies Arrest Risk Disparity for Cocaine Use,” news release, February 19, 2015, https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2015/february/-powder-vs- crack-nyu-study-identifies-arrest-risk-disparity-for-cocaine-use.html.

4 Phillips, Katherine W., “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” Scientific American, 1 October 1, 2014, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/.

5 William R. Emmons, 2018, unpublished transcript from the Structural Racism Roundtable at the Urban Institute, Washington, DC, November 7, 2018.

References and Recommended Readings Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. 2004. Structural Racism and Community Building. Washington,

DC: Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change.

Darity, William Jr., Darrick Hamilton, Mark Paul, Alan Aja, Anne Price, Antonio Moore, and Caterina Chiopris. 2018. What We Get Wrong About Closing the Racial Wealth Gap. Durham, NC: Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity; Oakland, CA: Insight Center for Community Economic Development.

“EE Framework.” Equitable Evaluation Initiative (EEI), https://www.equitableeval.org/ee-framework.

Ellison, Sara F., and Wallace P. Mullin. 2014. “Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 23 (2): 465–481.

Emmons, William R., and Lowell R. Rickets. 2017. “College Is Not Enough: Higher Education Does Not Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Wealth Gaps.” Review (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis) 99 (1): 7–39. https://doi.org/10.20955/r.2017.7-39.

Flynn, Andrea, Susan R. Holmberg, Dorian T. Warren, and Felicia J. Wong. 2017. The Hidden Rules of Race: Barriers to an Inclusive Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gao, Huasheng, and Wei Zhang. 2017. “Employment Nondiscrimination Acts and Corporate Innovation.” Management Science 63 (9): 2982–2999.

Greene, Solomon, Margery Austin Turner, and Ruth Gourevitch. 2017. “Racial Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Disparities.” Washington, DC: US Partnership on Mobility from Poverty.

Hamilton, Darrick, and William A. Darity, Jr. 2017. “The Political Economy of Education, Financial Literacy, and the Racial Wealth Gap.” Review (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis) 99 (1): 59–76. https://doi.org/10.20955/r.2017.59-76.

C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS 1 3

Hamilton, Darrick, William Darity, Jr., Anne E. Price, Vishnu Sridharan, and Rebecca Tippett. 2015. Umbrellas Don’t Make It Rain: Why Studying and Working Hard Isn’t Enough for Black Americans. New York: The New School; Durham, NC: Duke Center for Social Equity; Oakland, CA: Insight Center for Community Economic Development.

Kendi, Ibram X. 2017. Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. New York: Nation Books.

Leachman, M., Michael Mitchell, Nicholas Johnson, and Erica Williams. 2018. Advancing Racial Equity with State Tax Policy. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Murray, Brittany, Elsa Falkenburger, and Priya Saxena. 2015. Data Walks: An Innovative Way to Share Data with Communities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro. 2006. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Shapiro, Thomas M. 2017. Toxic Inequality: How America’s Wealth Gap Destroys Mobility, Deepens the Racial Divide, and Threatens Our Future. New York: Basic Books.

1 4 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

About the Authors K. Steven Brown is a research associate in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and

Population and the Research to Action Lab at the Urban Institute. His work covers

projects concerned with racial disparities in economic opportunity. His primary

research focuses on employment, examining racial and gender differences in career

pathways, barriers in access to work, and gaps in wages and earnings.

Kilolo Kijakazi is an Institute fellow at the Urban Institute, where she works with staff

to develop collaborative partnerships with organizations and individuals who

represent those most affected by the economic and social issues Urban addresses,

expand and strengthen Urban’s rigorous research agenda on issues affecting these

communities, effectively communicate the findings of Urban’s research to diverse

audiences, and recruit and retain more diverse research staff at all levels.

Charmaine Runes is a research analyst in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and

Population. Her work involves both quantitative and qualitative data and methods,

focusing on multigenerational antipoverty interventions that support and empower

disadvantaged youth and low-income working families. Other research interests

include immigrant integration and structural racism in public policy.

Margery Austin Turner is senior vice president for program planning and management

at the Urban Institute, where she leads efforts to frame and conduct a forward-looking

agenda of policy research. A nationally recognized expert on urban policy and

neighborhood issues, Turner has analyzed issues of residential location, racial and

ethnic discrimination and its contribution to neighborhood segregation and inequality,

and the role of housing policies in promoting residential mobility and location choice.

C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS 1 5

Acknowledgments This brief and the November convening with other research and policy organizations were supported by

a generous gift from Cheryl Cohen Effron. We are grateful to all our funders, who make it possible for

Urban to advance its mission.

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute,

its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings or the insights and

recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the Urban Institute’s funding principles is

available at urban.org/fundingprinciples.

We would like to thank all the roundtable participants for their thoughtful contributions to the

discussion and to this brief:

 Patrese Atine, American Indian Higher Education Consortium

 D. Crystal Byndloss, MDRC

 Martha Chavez, Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California Berkeley

 Ngina Chiteji, NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service

 Aixa Cintron-Velez, Russell Sage Foundation

 Melany De La Cruz, UCLA Asian American Studies Center

 William Emmons, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

 Nkechi Erondu, Jocelyn Fontaine, Lionel Foster, Leah Hendey, Nancy La Vigne, Alanna

McCargo, Marla McDaniel, Signe-Mary McKernan, Cameron Okeke, Adaeze Okoli, and Sarah

Rosen Wartell; Urban Institute

 Jessica Fulton, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies

 Darrick Hamilton, National Economists Association

 Waldo Johnson, University of Chicago

 Crystal Loud Hawk-Hedgepeth, American Indian College Fund

 Michael Mitchell and Erica Williams, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 Michelle Morse, Social Medicine Consortium

 Kantahyanee Murray, Annie E. Casey Foundation

 Kathryn Newcomer, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at George

Washington University

 Lynette Rawlings, The Policy Academies

 Martha Ross, Brookings Institution

 William Spriggs, Howard University

 Erik Stegman, The Aspen Institute

 Susan Sterett, University of Maryland, Baltimore County School of Public Policy

 Romie Tribble, Spelman College

 Janelle Wong, University of Maryland

1 6 C O N F R O N T IN G ST R UC T UR AL R AC ISM IN R E SE AR C H AN D PO LIC Y AN ALY SIS

ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE The nonprofit Urban Institute is a leading research organization dedicated to developing evidence-based insights that improve people’s lives and strengthen communities. For 50 years, Urban has been the trusted source for rigorous analysis of complex social and economic issues; strategic advice to policymakers, philanthropists, and practitioners; and new, promising ideas that expand opportunities for all. Our work inspires effective decisions that advance fairness and enhance the well-being of people and places.

Copyright © February 2019. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute.

2100 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037

www.urban.org