The Genoa Group
Turning Evidence into Action

 

The Problem 

​

The effectiveness and legitimacy of human-serving systems in the United States has never been more in question than during 2020 when a global pandemic as well as the historic and persistent police killings of black men and women have resulted in millions of protesters demanding change. Schools are unable to teach, hospitals under equipped to treat, businesses shuttered, more people living on the street, and urgent calls to defund the police and remove political leaders at all levels of government. Although this is an unprecedented collection of institutional failures occurring at the same time, in the past the typical response to any one of these problems would usually ignore the root cause of these problems, instead placing focus (and thereby blame) on the benefactors, victims, or perpetrators affected by the system’s failure.

 

For example, if schools fail to engage students that require additional support and those students act out, skip class, or otherwise “tune out”, the typical response is to punish the student through school detention, suspension, or expulsion rather than understand the driving forces behind the student’s disengagement and behind the school’s inability to engage the student. Similarly, if homicides or gang violence erupt in communities steeped in decades of social and economic exclusion, the response is to over police the area and engage in racial profiling that further traumatizes residents, or ignore the community with an attitude of “nothing works” allowing the violence to continue.

 

The fragile states approach, developed for use in low and middle income countries, shifts the responsibility for action away from vulnerable persons variously labeled as perpetrators, victims, or bystanders of violence toward the social systems and government structures that often lie at the root of community-based violence. It also relies heavily on citizen voice to identify problems and formulate solutions and cuts across different types of groups, from individuals in rural communities marginalized by place to individuals marginalized or oppressed by gender, race, ethnic, financial, sexual orientation, religion and other status characteristics. The result from this type of approach when used in middle- and low-income countries can produce a broad consensus of doubts, fears, and ideas for change across many different groups living in dissimilar contexts (e.g., urban, rural) but under the same institutional controls (e.g., schools, policing), pointing to the systemic root of the problems and solutions for reform.

 

The benefit of this approach is that rather than isolating systemic problems to one group that might serve as a flashpoint for one issue at one point in time (e.g., COVID-19 patients v a broken healthcare system more generally, BLM, v a broken CJ system more generally) the problem is assessed from an institutional root cause perspective, reducing the likelihood of sides being taken for and against one particular group (e.g. BLM), stalling progress on  needed reform.

 

What is a Fragile States Approach?

 

There are six institutional areas in a Fragile States assessment. For the purpose of an assessment in the United States, it may be prudent to combine the areas of courts and security into one construct of “criminal legal system”, meaning the 8 points of contact from police contact (up to arrest) through reentry from incarceration. Typically, the assessment is done using an in-person or phone-based cross-sectional survey tool supplemented with focus groups or interviews with representative segments of the study sample. USAID has a standard survey tool and protocol that can be adapted to study context. Baseline and endline assessments are typically separated by a 3-5 year period, depending on the nature of reforms or change in between periods.

 

1. Political

​

Effectiveness: Well-functioning political institutions and processes that ensure accountability and timely allocation of resources to address citizen needs.

​

Legitimacy: Political institutions and processes that are transparent, respect societal values, and do not favor particular groups.

 

2. Economic

         

Effectiveness: Economic institutions that provide for economic growth (including jobs), shield the economy from external shocks, and ensure adaptability to economic change.

           

Legitimacy: Equitable distribution of the benefits and costs of economic growth and change.

 

3. Security

           

Effectiveness: Provision of law enforcement services that secures borders and limits crime within communities.

​

Legitimacy: Law enforcement services that are provided equitably and without violation of civil rights.

​

4. Courts

 

Effectiveness: The independence of criminal and civil justice requires a set of detailed rules and procedures to ensure that a dispute will be treated in a neutral way, without biases in favor of any party.

​

Legitimacy: When citizens perceive the court system as having the right or the authority to make decisions and when its decisions are viewed as worthy of respect or obedience.

​

5. Educational

​

Effectiveness: Public institution that sets high standards and expectations for all students; fosters collaboration and communication between and among students, teachers, and stakeholders; implements and sustains a curriculum that is inclusive and culturally relevant; monitors learning and teaching that is adjusted based on frequent monitoring of student progress and needs.

 

Legitimacy: Prioritizes responsiveness to students’ needs, defines the possibilities for learning, implements a sociocultural perspective on socialization that centers equity, access, and citizenship. 

​

6. Social

 

Effectiveness: Provision of civil and public protections and social services, in particular to meet the special needs of vulnerable and minority groups.

​

Legitimacy: Prioritizes representation, diversity, and inclusion, especially for groups to practice customs, cultures, and beliefs