While public consideration of social equity pre-dates Minnowbrook (Blessett et al., 2019; Burnier, 2021), the field formally recognized social equity as its fourth pillar after the conference (Frederickson, 1971). The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA, 2000), Svara and Brunet (2004, 2005), and Johnson and Svara (2011) outlined a unified social equity framework along four dimensions: procedural fairness, access, quality, and outcomes. We build on this important work by offering a polycentric extension, which considers what social equity means when government programs are often place-based and delivered in an intergovernmental context with multiple decision-making units across spatial levels (e.g., state, city, neighborhood) simultaneously. Using the Community Development Block Grant as an example, we demonstrate the importance of careful consideration of geographic levels in the delivery of public goods for understanding the program's social equity implications. The polycentric framework can be a useful tool for evaluating the social equity of policies.

Many affordable housing policies are the domain of local governments. While subnational housing policies can be used to increase racial and economic segregation, they can also protect renters, and thus are not without controversy. Local affordable housing policies include inclusionary zoning, rent control, short-term rental regulation and source of income discrimination. Starting in the 1980s, states began to preempt these local laws, preventing their cities from adopting affordable housing policies. We ask why states choose to preempt one or more of these four affordable housing policies. Using a cross-sectional, time-series dataset of preemptions, we find evidence that more conservative legislatures are more likely to adopt preemptions, while more professional legislatures and states with higher rental rates and previous preemptions are less likely to preempt. Contrary to expectations, interest group density, electoral competition and policy diffusion are not significant predictors of preemption. For advocates and policymakers concerned with increasing affordable housing in their jurisdictions, these results raise unease about the ability to further an affordable housing agenda at the local level, particularly in more conservative political environments, suggesting instead that affordable housing may need to return to the purview of the federal government.

U.S. cities are increasingly adopting antieviction policies predicated on the belief that evictions have negative consequences for families and communities. Yet the nature and duration of many of these consequences are relatively unknown. We add to the literature on the consequences of evictions by assessing the enduring effects of eviction on the self-reported health of young adults. Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), we find evictions have both short-term (12 months) and medium-term (7–8 years) negative impacts on multiple measures of health. Individuals who experience an eviction are more likely to report being in poor general health or experiencing mental health concerns, even many years after an eviction. As state and local governments develop policies to reduce evictions, it is worth noting that any resulting decrease in evictions may have a positive impact on population health, making health professionals effective potential policymaking partners.

Economic development at the municipal level often necessitates that local governments make trade-offs between firm- and locality-based strategies. In recent decades, economic development researchers have described these efforts over time as exhibiting certain patterns and metaphors: as a series of waves, as embodying a type of lock-in effect, and as a policy layering process; however, the mechanisms behind these patterns remain unclear. This article draws upon 30 years of economic development policy decision making across the United States to understand what leads local governments to prioritize growth- or equity-oriented policies. We find that equity-enhancing economic development policies are more likely when local governments face less competitive pressure, have greater resource capacities, and experience greater intergovernmental involvement in the economic development planning process. Leveraging these factors can aid governments as they struggle to navigate a more sustainable path toward growth and equity.

American cities are creatures of their states, with states both granting and limiting the power of their cities. This relationship is characterized by how cooperative or competitive states are with cities in their legislation. Despite the recent attention given to state preemption of local laws, this is not a new phenomenon. Part of the confusion surrounding preemption is that there is no shared definition or understanding of its forms. The purpose of this article is to begin to create that shared conception. In doing so, we define preemption according to its historic origins as the use of coercive methods to substitute state priorities for local policymaking. We argue modern state preemption of local laws can be divided into four phases, each with their own policies and mechanisms. We show how preemption has changed over time, shifting the functional, legal, and political relationship between states and their cities. Together, these phases help assist policymakers and administrators in understanding the nature of state preemption, and thus how to create and implement local policies in an environment where the distribution of power between governments is competitive and changing.

Why renters choose to move likely plays a role in whether the outcomes of their mobility will be positive (e.g. labor market efficiency) or negative (e.g. lower student achievement). If we can determine why renters move, lawmakers can design housing policies to foster positive mobility and reduce negative mobility. The purpose of this paper is to build on prior models of renter mobility to develop a conceptual model that can be mapped to the various effects of mobility. Within the model, I identify reasons for (im)mobility that may be receptive to housing policy intervention. As an illustration of the model, I use a difference-in-difference-in-difference (DDD) model and data from the 1981–2014 March supplements of the Current Population Survey (IPUMS-CPS) to show how various landlord-tenant policies impact the frequency of renter mobility. I use the conceptual model to hypothesize the nature of the relationship between public policy and mobility. Results indicate policies regulating late fees and self-help remedies play a role in reducing renter mobility. While all policies tested here do not have a significant effect on renter mobility, the impact of some policies highlights the need for targeted, evidence-driven interventions.

COVID-19 is exposing a nexus between communities disproportionately suffering from underlying health conditions, policy-reinforced disparities, and susceptibility to the disease. As the virus spreads, policy responses will need to shift from focusing on surveillance and mitigation to recovery and prevention. Local governments, with their histories of mutual aid and familiarity with local communities, are capable of meeting these challenges. However, funding must flow in a flexible enough fashion for local governments to tailor their efforts to preserve vital services and rebuild local economies. The authors argue that the Community Development Block Grant and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant programs are mechanisms for providing funds in a manner that is adaptable to local context while also focusing on increasing social equity. Administrators must emphasize the fourth pillar of public administration—social equity—in framing government responses to the pandemic.

The current outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), has spurred a large governmental response from all levels of the U.S. intergovernmental system. The emergency and disaster response system of the United States is designed to be bottom-up, meaning responses are intended to begin at the local level with state and federal governments stepping in to assist with resources and oversight as needed (Rubin and Barbee 1985; Schneider 1995, 2008). The response to the current outbreak, however, has been something else entirely, as each level of government competes with the others over dwindling resources and the authority to respond to the crisis. We examine how the U.S. intergovernmental system of emergency response is designed, how state and local governments have responded to the COVID-19 crisis thus far, and how this crisis has further exposed tensions in the state-local intergovernmental system. We use the National League of Cities’ (2020) COVID-19 Local Action Tracker to examine city and state responses to the pandemic. We argue state-local intergovernmental response is associated with many issues related to intergovernmental relations broadly, particularly conflict about the “best” emergency services provider. This leads some states to prefer a local response with state support and other states to prefer a more uniform, state-mandated response enabled by state preemption of local actions. The latter has revealed an often-dormant means of state preemption of local ordinances: the executive order preemption. Accessible through the emergency powers afforded to U.S. governors, this type of preemption is uncommon because it is overshadowed by legislative and judicial preemptions. This article seeks to explore descriptively the prevalence of executive order preemptions and discuss the implications of these preemptions in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. These preemptions vary in their content, with some representing policy minimums, others maximums, and some a combination of the two. Yet all types of preemption have substantial effects on what local government administrators can do to respond to their constituency’s needs. Such constraints, when out of alignment with local needs, can be challenging in normal times but are potentially catastrophic in emergencies. Administrators will need to be creative in balancing responsiveness to their constituents within such a limiting policy environment.

Public policies are not static; rather, they change with the context and as consequences become known. We ask how city councils learn about the negative consequences of laws by evaluating the policy diffusion and decision-theoretic learning hypotheses using a case study of criminal activity nuisance ordinance repeals in several cities within one county. These laws as originally written designated properties as “nuisances” if emergency services were called too frequently, including in cases of domestic violence. The seven case cities repealed their laws so survivors of domestic violence would not risk a fine or eviction because they called for help. We argue neither theory is sufficient to explain the repeal of these laws and instead suggest a new variant of policy learning, the entrepreneur catalyzed learning hypothesis, to highlight the importance of policy entrepreneurs in facilitating policy learning and the repeal of unsuccessful laws at the city level.

Scholars preach congruence between the three Cs (concepts, context, and content) of public administration in order to keep the field relevant. The current context of public administration is embodied by diversity of thought. One such type of diversity is descriptive and symbolic representation of women. This research examines the initial socialization of many public administrators to the field by performing a content analysis of the syllabi of highly ranked MPA programs and evaluating what percentage of assigned authors are female and how the curriculum addresses gender diversity. On average, women write less than 20% of required readings and only 5% of courses have specific units on gender diversity. This suggests the content and concepts taught in the MPA classroom do not match the context of the field. The article provides strategies for instructors desiring to increase the alignment of the three Cs in their curriculum.

There are many federal, state, and local laws governing the landlord–tenant relationship. Yet scholars know little about their variety and what impact differences among jurisdictions have on renters and rental housing markets. This article examines state-level landlord–tenant policy approaches to determine whether there is significant policy variation and whether states illustrate identifiable policy types. Using cluster and discriminant analysis, this research creates a typology of landlord–tenant policy approaches, finding three distinctive approaches: protectionist, probusiness, and contradictory. This research indicates there is significant variation among state landlord–tenant statutory policies, although states’ laws generally reflect one of three philosophies. These results are important for future studies on rental housing because treating all state rental environments the same masks important differences in rental experiences across states. As an illustration, this article finds that renters in protectionist and contradictory states move significantly more than renters in probusiness states do. Furthermore, understanding where renters have more or less legal protection allows policymakers and advocates to focus their efforts on areas where assistance is most needed.

The housing choice voucher program was designed with two main goals in mind: to eliminate concentrations of poverty and the social problems it causes and to provide poor households with greater access to higher-opportunity neighborhoods. However, research suggests that voucher holders would like to move to higher-opportunity neighborhoods, but often are unable to do so. One of the most prominent reasons for this is that, in most cities and states, local law allows landlords to discriminate against potential tenants on the grounds of their “source of income” (SOI). This article reviews the literature on discrimination of voucher recipients and the potential for SOI antidiscrimination laws to mitigate some of these negative outcomes.

This paper examines the consequences of economic downturns for states’ redistributive politics. We track state policies from 1980 through 2010 and illustrate how economic downturns led states to adopt budget-balancing policies by suppressing both the increased spending on programs benefiting the poor otherwise expected under Democratic Party control and the tax cuts for the wealthy otherwise expected under Republican Party control. We also undertake a natural experiment case study—comparing the forty Democratic and Republican governors in office right before (2007–2008) and after (2009–2010) the onset of the Great Recession. We find that Republican governors were less likely to propose spending and increased calls for spending cuts; yet, no similar shift in tax proposals was evident with continued calls for tax cuts to the wealthy. Democratic governors exhibited a similar pattern, but were less responsive and more likely to maintain their earlier policy proposals even after a significant downturn in the national economy. Together, these findings highlight how economic and political conditions interact with one another to shape “who gets what, when, and how from government,” as well as clarify that we must ask and answer these questions separately for taxing and spending to capture the complex politics of redistribution.

Recognizing the health effects of nonhealth policies, scholars and others seeking to improve Americans’ health have advocated the implementation of a culture of health—which would call attention to and prioritize health as a key outcome of policy making across all levels of government and in the private sector. Adopting this “health-in-all-policies” lens, policy makers are paying increasing attention to health impacts as they debate policies in areas such as urban planning, housing, and transportation. Yet the health impacts of economic policies that shape the distribution of income and wealth are often overlooked. Pooling data from all fifty states for the period 1990–2010, we provide a broad portrait of how economic policies affect health. Overall, we found better health outcomes in states that enacted higher tax credits for the poor or higher minimum wage laws and in states without a right-to-work law that limits union power. Notably, these policies focus on increasing the incomes of low-income and working-class families, instead of on shaping the resources available to wealthier individuals. Incorporating these findings into a health-in-all-policies agenda will require leadership from the health sector, including a willingness to step into core and polarizing debates about redistribution.

Prior literature has emphasized demographic, economic, and political explanations for increasing income inequality in the United States, with little attention paid to the role of state-level policy. This is despite great variation across states in both the level of inequality and the rate at which it is rising. This paper asks whether differences in state policy choices can help explain this variation; specifically, we examined a range of state redistributive policies enacted between 1980 and 2005 and identified four common approaches likely to impact inequality: taxes on the wealthy, taxes on the poor, spending on the poor, and labor market policies. We used pooled cross-sectional time-series data and a fixed-effects model to assess the relationship between states’ use of each policy approach and two measures of market income inequality: the Gini coefficient and the income share of the top 1 percent. We find policies played a significant role in shaping income inequality in the states. For three of these four policy approaches, we found less inequality following expansions of state redistributive policy. Yet, for another, we identified the opposite pattern. These findings highlight the importance of state policy choices in shaping market inequality, and have implications for designing state policies to reduce income inequality since the success of these efforts depends on the policy approach used to redistribute income and wealth.

Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances (CANOs) are local laws found in thousands of cities throughout the country which penalize property owners if repeated incidents of criminal activity related to their property occur over a set period of time (typically, 12 months). Nearly 50 cities in Ohio have CANOs, including more than 20 in Northeast Ohio. Drawing on extensive public records from a sample of Northeast Ohio cities, this report offers a snapshot of CANOs and how they are being used. • CANOs disproportionately impact renters, people using housing vouchers, and people of color. • Race and class stereotypes surface in public discussions of CANOs, and are sometimes invoked to justify the establishment or enhancement of CANOs • CANOs are frequently applied beyond their scope to target minor, non-criminal behavior • Many cities across Ohio put survivors of domestic violence at heightened risk of eviction by defining domestic violence as a “nuisance activity”; in some cities, more than half of CANO letters are sent in response to domestic violence incidents • If emergency services are sent to a home in response to a call made to a suicide hotline, that property can be deemed a nuisance • Seeking medical assistance for someone experiencing a drug overdose crisis is a common reason that properties are placed on a nuisance list • It is often difficult or even impossible for a property owner or tenant to challenge a mistaken nuisance designation While the findings presented in this report center on Northeast Ohio, residents in the thousands of other cities with CANOs across the country may be experiencing similar impact. We encourage policymakers, researchers, and community stakeholders to use this report to inform deeper conversations on the implications of CANOs, and to expand research on the use and consequences of these laws.