(Series: Part 7 of 7)
Part 1: How Do We Make Youth Homelessness Effort Bipartisan? Part 2: America’s Biases Marginalize Youth, Drive Them to Homelessness
Part 3: Collective Decision-making Can Neutralize Politics of Fear
Part 4: So, How Does This Collective Decision-making Work? Part 5: Youth Homelessness Is a Symptom, Not a Cause
Part 6: To Work On Youth Homelessness, Brainstorming, Decision Analysis Strong Tools
There are policies and practices that have been proven to work for communities that embrace them. Adopting such measures need not be a politicized action. In fact, all major federal juvenile justice reforms have involved bipartisan support and legislators working together across the aisle.
(Series: Part 6 of 7)
Part 1: How Do We Make Youth Homelessness Effort Bipartisan? Part 2: America’s Biases Marginalize Youth, Drive Them to Homelessness
Part 3: Collective Decision-making Can Neutralize Politics of Fear
Part 4: So, How Does This Collective Decision-making Work? Part 5: Youth Homelessness Is a Symptom, Not a Cause
Generating alternatives is key to effective decision-making because it provides the decision-makers in a collective body with an array of choices from which to choose. The more alternatives, the better the odds of identifying the solution best suited to resolve the problem. Decision theorist Robin Hogarth describes this process as follows:
Imagination and creativity play key roles in judgement and choice.
(Series: Part 5 of 7)
Part 1: How Do We Make Youth Homelessness Effort Bipartisan? Part 2: America’s Biases Marginalize Youth, Drive Them to Homelessness
Part 3: Collective Decision-making Can Neutralize Politics of Fear
Part 4: So How Does This Collective Decision-making Work? Now that we have equalized the playing field among the political and ideological spectrum, let’s turn to two more groups of stakeholders that must be at the table and included in a governor’s executive order — advocacy groups and youth.
In New Mexico, for example, the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness must be at the table. They are the largest advocacy group with a statewide network of programs and shelters having been advocating the longest. They are rich with knowledge and experience of the problem and the means to go about approaching it, but they need the backbone and support of the various state actors who can contribute collectively to build a much stronger network as well as a more formidable statewide approach.
We described in the previous column how the approach is four-tiered, beginning with collaboration. Collaboration is a term that has been bantered about and unfortunately, in some circles, gotten a black eye. The truth is that there is a best practice to collaboration that many don’t follow, and so it fails. Not because the concept is bad; it’s the user who doesn’t know what they’re doing.
(Series: Part 3 of 7)
Part 1: How Do We Make Youth Homelessness Effort Bipartisan? Part 2: America’s Biases Marginalize Youth, Drive Them to Homelessness
Judge Teske first used collective decision-making beginning in 2003 to reform his local juvenile justice system, which has netted an 80% decline in juvenile arrests. Most striking, however, is how it was employed at the statewide level in the Georgia juvenile justice reform effort to net a 57% reduction in youth committed to state facilities, which resulted in the closure of three secured facilities.
Most striking is that juvenile arrests have declined 60% since 2008 and continued to fall following the enactment of the reforms.
The relevance of these outcomes is that they were influenced by reforms that are counterintuitive to the conservative majority in the Georgia legislature, and they were passed unanimously. This accomplishment was made possible using the collective decision-making approach that effectively depoliticized the policymaking process. Criminal justice reform is the best example of this because law and order issues are often politicized, especially by conservatives relying on a deterrence model of crime and punishment that emphasizes the severity of punishment (longer sentences) compared to the certainty of sentencing, which studies show are more effective.
The history of crime and punishment in America is replete with politicizing rhetoric, mostly from conservatives, to influence the emotions of voters using emotional campaign slogans that are not supported by empirical evidence.
Social psychology has found that someone may decide someone else's behavior has one of two causes: dispositional or situational. Dispositional attribution assigns the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic of a person — personality traits including attitudes, values and belief — rather than to outside forces. Situational attribution assigns cause of behavior to some situation or event outside a person's control rather than to some internal characteristic. Take, for example, those times when we feel compelled to explain a remark or conduct that offended someone. We tend to explain that our comment or act was influenced by something that happened earlier that day or what somebody else had said to deflect it from being seen as a flawed personality trait.
But this is where the two attribution causes can be difficult to assign.
