The Artifact


Table of ContentsIntroduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Listening to Kansans: Our Framework, Process and Methods ................................................... 3

Results: What We Heard .................................................................................................................... 6

Common Characteristics of Major Challenges ................................................................................. 6

Driving Forces .................................................................................................................................... 9

Civic Culture and Engagement: What Helps and What Hinders Us? .............................................. 12

The Usual and the Unusual Voices: A Civic Divide ...................................................................... 12

Qualities of the Kansas Character That Help or Hinder Civic Engagement ................................ 14

Qualities of Civic Engagement Itself ............................................................................................. 15

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 15

Appendix A: Specific Challenges .......................................................................................................... 16

1


IntroductionThe Kansas Leadership Center was launched with a $30 million grant from the Kansas Health Foundation, with the ambitious but exhilarating charge of cultivating civic leadership across Kansas. To the Foundation, the connection between vibrant civic health and more traditional notions of sound physical and mental health is a strong one: If civic leadership is enhanced, the Foundation believes Kansas communities naturally will become healthier places.

This notion has evolved over a decade within the Kansas Health Foundation. The idea that healthy, thriving communities are buoyed by social, economic, and structural “determinants of health” has been an undercurrent in health-related fields for decades. As Michael Marmot, a pioneer in noticing and defining social determinants of health, puts it, “Health is a manifestation of the way we organize society … and by asking about health in society, we’re asking about society itself.” At the Kansas Leadership Center, we pose questions about health in Kansas society, and thus about Kansas society itself, through the lens of civic leadership. What are the effects of civic leadership on the health of Kansas communities? What are its uniquely Kansan roots, and how do these roots influence its modern and evolving forms? And how, specifically, can intentional, widespread civic leadership be cultivated to make Kansas communities healthier places for current and future generations of Kansans? Because the Kansas Health Foundation grew out of the philanthropic arm of the Wesley Medical Center over 20 years ago, the Kansas Leadership Center’s funding ties together generations of Kansans. To the staff of the Kansas Leadership Center, the Foundation’s funding represents a gift – not to the Center itself, but rather from Kansans of the past to Kansans of the future.

As stewards of this gift, one of our first and most important tasks was to understand the civic landscape of Kansas and how our work might strengthen it. We did this by listening to many thoughtful people across the state. This document presents what we heard from them and explains how it shaped our thinking about the Kansas Leadership Center’s initiatives and contributions in the years to come. As a record of our earliest thinking and direction, it also represents the first deposit in our bank of intellectual capital – one that we hope to expand continuously over the years. The document is divided into two main parts: a description of our framework and process and an account of what we learned.

continued on page 2

2


continued from page 1

Although what we heard and learned profoundly influenced us, we also began this process with some core philosophies that were reinforced by what we heard. First, we started out viewing leadership as an activity, not a particular role or position. This means that all kinds of people can learn to exercise leadership and to do so more effectively – and that all Kansans can choose to exercise leadership in different times and areas of their lives, whether or not they (or others) label themselves “leaders.” We also strove to learn where we could make a unique difference in civic leadership – by partnering with others, without duplicating existing or planned efforts. Finally, we envisioned from the start that we would create sustainable, ongoing initiatives, rather than short-term programs. We want our efforts, like civic leadership itself, to take root, adapt to the unique contours and needs of Kansas, and flourish in the state’s rich prairie soil.

3


Listening to Kansans: Our Framework, Process and MethodsWhat influences the civic life of Kansans and how it is perceived? In individual and group interviews, we asked Kansans about three major components that interact in powerful ways to affect views of civic life. The first deals with how we frame and perceive major challenges or concerns – and what common characteristics these challenges share. The second covers driving forces – forces inside and outside the state over which we have relatively little control, but that affect our daily lives and our futures in profound ways. Finally, we asked about the different ways our civic culture in Kansas helps or hinders us as we move forward to address these challenges and forces.

We explored each of these major components through interviews with 20 subject matter experts in fields as diverse as economics and economic development, health, the environment, education (both higher education and K-12), politics, government, religion, demography, agriculture, rural and urban life, and history. The subject matter experts were chosen because of wisdom they had accumulated – often over a lifetime – studying the fields listed above, especially as they have unfolded in Kansas. We also sought out people known not only for their expertise, but also their objectivity. We also convened seven separate focus groups that in total included 90 Kansans from across the state: rural Kansans, urban Kansans, African-Americans, Latinos, members of the faith community, first-generation immigrants, and young professionals. We held these focus groups with two specific goals in mind: amplifying voices not traditionally heard and gaining perspectives that subject matter experts were unable to address. The subject matter experts and focus group participants responded to a set of open-ended questions about challenges, driving forces, and civic culture. (See the box on page 5 for a list of specific questions and their wording.) The interviews were recorded and transcribed, with the results rigorously and thoroughly analyzed. The results of the individual and focus group interviews

continued on page 4

Major challenges and their common characteristics.

Driving forces – those that influence us, but over which we feel little control.

Ways civic culture in Kansas helps or hinders us.

4


When you think about the future of Kansas, what concerns you the most?

What are the most important driving forces affecting the future of Kansas?

What in the civic culture of Kansas helps address the concerns you’ve identified?

What in the civic culture of Kansas hinders addressing these concerns?

What kinds of leadership capacities will Kansans need to best address these concerns and challenges?

What do you think the Kansas Leadership Center should be doing to develop these capacities?

From your perspective, are there any less predictable events that could radically alter the civic culture in Kansas?

Are there people we should be talking with to gather more information on these topics?

When you think of leadership development, are there people or institutions we should connect with who can continue to inform our work over time?

Is there something we should have asked, but didn’t?

Affordability

Increasing Recidivism & Incarceration

Increasing Crime in Urban Areas

Race Disparities in GraduationRates in Universities

Bureaucratic Constraints – e.g., NCLB

Higher Ed. Not linked to Community Needs

Increasing Drop-out Rate

Low Teachers Salaries

Impact of Immigration

Funding

Negative Attitudes About Immigration

Lack of Skills to Navigate Support Systems

Punitive vs. Proactive Responses

Limited Human Services Support• bilingual• easily accessible• understandable

Shift of Economic Prosperity• rural to suburban

Vulnerability of Key Industries• globalization• energy costs

Jobs & Workforce Development• prospective workforce shortage, failure to Integrate immigrants• mismatch of available skills & job needs• lack of attractive jobs,underemployment

Balancing Priorities• agriculture vindicators• economic vs. environment

Damage to Farm Environment

Lack of Green Mentality

Air & Water Pollution

Water

Lack of Focus On Prevention

Elder Care–lack of services in rural areas

Health System Reform–window of opportunity

Rising Costs Of Healthcare & Insurance

Racial Disparities In Health

Affordability

Figure B: Major ChallengesEconomyEducationCrimeHousingEnvironmentHealth &Healthcare

Shift of Economic Prosperity

Integrate immigrants

Balancing Priorities

Funding

Impact of Immigration

in Universities

Elder Care

Immigration

Limited Human Services Support

Systems

Capacity to In�uence/Control

Higher

for traditional industries

From other states

represent findings from qualitative research. Although the data collection and analysis followed a consistent, systematic process and yielded insights that will be tremendously useful to the Kansas Leadership Center, the findings do not compare with quantitative research results (like large-scale surveys or polls) that yield more definitive findings from a statistically representative sample (for example, “30% of Kansans are concerned about X or Y”).

Together, the subject matter experts and focus group participants identified 750 separate content points that helped us paint a compelling portrait of civic life in Kansas, described in greater detail below. A content point simply puts some fences or parameters around a different topic so we can list it individually and analyze it accordingly. For example, a respondent might say that inadequate funding for higher education represents a major concern and that in the current political environment, it would be difficult for anyone to significantly increase education funding. For analysis purposes, these are two separate content points: one about inadequate education funding, and another about the political or budgetary environment that limits responses to inadequate education funding. This becomes important when we look at the frequency with which different concerns, challenges, driving forces, and civic features of life in Kansas were mentioned.


continued on page 5

5


We classified responses into the various categories – challenges/concerns, driving forces, and features of civic life – even if the content points were offered in response to a different question. For example, someone might have mentioned a concern about the economic forces of globalization in response to an early general question about concerns and challenges. Then, in a subsequent question about driving forces, the topic of globalization surfaced again – this time, as an example of a concern or challenge over which the respondent believes we have relatively little control. In this instance, it would be listed as a content point under driving forces, not just challenges or concerns.

Placing content points into categories makes the analysis and interpretation more manageable, but does not fundamentally change the underlying content itself – nor the insights it yielded, as described on pages 7 and 10. By carefully cataloguing each content point, we tried to remain as faithful as possible to what we heard, and to absorb what we heard in its entirety, before jumping to conclusions, programmatic ideas, and responses prematurely.


6


Results: What We HeardCommon Characteristics of Major ChallengesSubject matter experts and focus group participants had no trouble identifying challenges and concerns. The challenges they identified – immigration, the economy, health and health care, education, the environment, crime, and housing – are important to our work because of the characteristics they share. (A more detailed list of the challenges and the reasons people gave for listing them in interviews and focus groups can be found in Appendix A.)

These common characteristics of challenges resonate for us, because they give us clues about why these challenges are so difficult to address. By the same token, they offer the tantalizing hope that by addressing the underlying characteristics of these challenges, we may make some lasting, constructive headway in addressing them.

continued on page 8

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR CHALLENGES

Complex, interconnected

Affect systems

Constant flux/change (moving target)

Polarizing, not unifying

Seemingly insurmountable; no clear way forward

Require hard choices, balancing priorities and resources

Require a long view and commitment

Affect many people, but don’t promote shared understanding

Different interests claim different (mutually exclusive) solutions

Reflect economic, cultural, and ethnic diversity

Can’t be solved unilaterally or by government alone

Invite short-term, shortsighted “Band-aid” solutions

Require adaptive work

7


FIGURE A: MAJOR CHALLENGESThis graph shows the types of major challenges identified by subject matter experts and focus group participants. (The size of the circles reflects the number of times each challenge was listed as a concern.)

HOUSINGAffordability

CRIMEIncreasing recidivism & incarceration

Increasing crime in urban areas

EDUCATIONRace disparities in universitygraduation rates

Bureaucratic constraints – e.g., NCLB

Higher ed. not linked to community needs

Increasing drop-out rate

Low teacher’s salaries

Impact of immigration

Funding

ECONOMY

Shift of economic prosperity• Rural to suburban

Vulnerability of key industries• Globalization• Energy costs

Jobs & workforce development• Prospective workforce shortage, failure to Integrate immigrants• Mismatch of available skills & job needs• Lack of attractive jobs,underemployment

Balancing priorities• Agriculture vindicators• Economic vs. environment

ENVIRONMENTDamage to farm environment

Lack of green mentality

Air & water pollution

Water

IMMIGRATION

Negative attitudes about immigration

Lack of skills to navigate support systems

Punitive vs. proactive responses

Limited human services support• Bilingual• Easily accessible• Understandable

HEALTH & HEALTH CARE

Lack of focus on prevention

Elder care – lack of services in rural areas

Health system reform – window of opportunity

Rising costs of health care & insurance

Racial disparities in health

Affordability

8


In figure A, we recognize that if we repeat this exercise a decade from now, the list of challenges and the sizes of the circles might change, just as they would have been different a decade or two in the past. It is the common characteristics of these challenges that make them relevant to civic leadership in Kansas, rather than the specific topics themselves.

So what common characteristics define these challenges? The challenges we heard about from Kansans are formidable because they are complex and interconnected, affecting entire systems. Many of these challenges appear to be in a constant state of flux, changing rapidly and giving them the appearance of moving (and thus even more challenging) targets. Even though these characteristics affect many people (including the broad middle of the population), they do not tend to promote a shared understanding of the issue at hand. Instead, they tend to be polarizing and to reflect the increasing – and, to many, increasingly threatening – economic, cultural, and ethnic diversity that Kansas (along with other states) is experiencing.

Because of these characteristics, major challenges are tough to address and may appear insurmountable. Lasting, constructive solutions to these challenges require hard choices about competing values, with compromises and common ground elusive. Priorities and resources have to be balanced among the competing, polarized factions that harden their positions over time (and that each have a strong allegiance to their own solution, to the exclusion of other ideas). Few of these challenges can be solved unilaterally by government (or, in fact, by any single player) and most require a daunting and extended commitment of time and energy (which is particularly unsuited to election cycles). The new ways of thinking and adaptive work in which solutions may be imbedded are threatening – especially to those who already think they have the answer. The temptation to apply quick fixes or “Band-Aids” to the symptoms of these challenges (rather than their root causes) is very alluring.


9


Driving ForcesWhat forces are on the minds of Kansans? We sorted what we heard in two ways: by the relative number of responses from the subject matter experts and focus group participants, and by the degree to which people felt Kansans have the capacity to influence or control these forces. Figure B, on page 10, shows how the driving forces array along these two dimensions. Although the number of responses illustrates how prevalent and close to the surface some concerns may be, the fact that a topic was cited less frequently does not make it is less important or relevant to our understanding of civic life in Kansas.

continued on page 11

Forces inside and outside Kansas over which we believe we have relatively littlecontrol, but that affect our daily lives and our futures in profound ways


10

RE

LA

TIV

EN

UM

BE

R O

FR

ES

PO

NS

ES

CAPACITYTO INFLUENCE/CONTROL

LOWER HIGHER

LO

WE

RH

IGH

ER

GLOBALIZATIONOF ECONOMY• Increased competition

for traditional industries• Loss of local control• Increased competition for

economic development from other states

INTERSECTION OF RELIGION & CIVIC LIFE• Divisive, polarizing vs.• Uniting, helping

NATURE OF THECIVIC CULTURE• Reactionary,

destructive vs.• Proactive,

constructive

OUTSIDE PERCEPTIONS OF KANSAS• Unattractive, intolerant,

closed vs.• Attractive and open

PUBLIC ATTITUDES ABOUT PROBLEMS& CHANGE• Complacency, loss

of hope, apathy vs.• Confidence, hope,

optimism

KANSAS RESPONSE TO TECHNOLOGY CHANGE• Resistant, little

support vs.• Creative, proactive,

supportive

KANSAS RESPONSE TO GLOBALIZATION• Reactive, denial vs.• Creative, proactive,

adaptive

IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING• Agriculture• Water

REGIONALIZATION OFKANSAS ECONOMY• Pockets of prosperity• Decline of rural towns• West to east• Rural to urban/suburban• Increasing gap

between haves and have-nots

STRENGTH,STABILITY OF NATIONAL ECONOMY

PRICE & AVAILABILITY OF ENERGY

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES• Aging population• Out-migration• Brain drain• Immigration

DIRECTION OFFEDERAL POLICY• Health care• Education• Transportation• Immigration

FIGURE B: DRIVING FORCES

11


In sheer number of responses, economic globalization tops the list, with its specter of increased international competition for Kansas, traditionally strong industries (including aviation). Some respondents sensed that many Kansans feel buffeted by the forces of globalization. Increasingly intense competition from other states for economic development resources (both human and financial) ranked as another notable concern.

Respondents also frequently cited demographic changes as a concern, including the aging of the population (a particularly acute trend in Kansas), the migration of people (especially young people) out of the state and the “brain drain” this represents, and different aspects of immigration (discussed in greater detail in Appendix A). Subject matter experts and focus group participants also frequently noted the effects of outsiders’ perceptions of Kansas – for better or worse.

Respondents noted the different and sometimes opposing gravitational pulls in the civic culture of Kansas (discussed in greater detail below) as a driving force in and of itself. On the one hand, this history includes reactionary or destructive instincts, while on the other it reflects a constructive pragmatism for which Kansas also is known. Related to this were different views of prevailing public attitudes about addressing problems and embracing or considering changes from the ways of the past or business as usual. Again, respondents saw two contrasting trends: confidence, hope, and optimism that could lead to creative solutions but that at times is dampened by a blend of complacency, hopelessness, and apathy. The way Kansas responds to technological change and innovation also showed up frequently on the list of driving forces – again, with a contrast between elements of our civic culture that resist technology change and fail to support it, and a more creative, proactive, or supportive stance. Similar views held for Kansans’ responses to globalization – a contrast between those who see a state in denial versus those who are seeking creative and adaptive responses.

In the middle tier of frequently cited driving forces were the strength and stability of the national economy as well as the regionalization of the Kansas economy. This latter category included many concerns about forces that have built up for decades, such as the disparities between geographic regions (west and east, rural and urban/suburban) yielding pockets of prosperity across the state, interspersed with the decline of rural towns – and widening the gap between haves and have-nots. Kansans also feel relatively little influence or control over the directions that federal policy takes (and often dictates to states) in health care, education, transportation, and immigration. Closer to home, respondents sometimes cited the intersection of religion and civic life as a divisive and polarizing factor, and other times as a uniting and helpful one. Two driving forces cited less frequently than others are the impact of global warming on agriculture and water supplies, as well as the cost and availability of energy.


12


Civic Culture and Engagement:What Helps and What Hinders Us?The Usual and the Unusual Voices: A Civic DivideFrom both subject matter experts and focus group participants, we heard about a split in civic culture between the “usual” voices – elected, business, and nonprofit officials; philanthropy specialists; and interest groups – and the far less vocal “unusual” voices – the silent and broad middle, as well as members of minority groups.

Because they hold positions of authority and power, the “usual” voices tend to dominate debate, but they also tend to see the civic realm as a win-or-lose, zero-sum game, pitting “us” versus “them” in a combative and divisive battle. This familiar default strategy for leadership can prove very effective in securing resources, but it often comes at a cost. Concerns quickly become parochial, positions become entrenched and unyielding, the usual voices become proxies for (and thus crowd out) the unusual, and considerable “spin” clouds the issues.

The “unusual” voices, on the other hand, tend to be unengaged, complacent, and apathetic – unwilling or unable to enter the polarizing fray already filled with the often-strident voices of some of the “usual” voices described above. The behavior of some in positions of power erodes trust and respect for elected officials and experts, fueling a general disillusionment with the public sphere and the processes it requires for participation. Members of minority groups and the broad middle remain silent not only because they feel disillusioned, but also because they often lack the skills and confidence to engage in the public arena and may see few roles or possibilities for participation, even if they were so inclined.

Both the usual and the unusual voices – the entire civic culture, in fact – suffers from this divide. Social capital – a sense of trust and reciprocity – erodes. Groups lose the ability to generate a shared vision and common ground, and with it the ability to set priorities and to address large, complex issues like the major challenges outlined in the appendix.

13


FIGURE C: CIVIC CULTURE

CONSEQUENCES• Loss of social capital• Inability to address

large, complex issues• Inability to create

shared visions and find common ground

• Inability to set priorities

DYNAMIC OF “USUAL” VOICES• The dominant voices • Win, lose, zero-sum• Combative “us” vs. “them”• Parochial• Ideologically driven• “Battle of experts”• “Spinning” the issues

THE “UNUSUAL” VOICES• The “broad middle”• Minorities

THE “USUAL” VOICES• Elected officials• Business officials• Non-profit officials

- advocates- agencies/service providers

• Philanthropy• Interest groups

DYNAMIC OF “UNUSUAL” VOICES• Unengaged• Complacent & apathetic, loss of hope(?)• Disillusioned with public process• Lack of trust, respect for elected

leaders & experts• Lack of skills to engage• Minorities perceive few roles,

possibilities for participation

14


Qualities of the Kansas Character That Help or Hinder Civic EngagementWhat qualities define the state’s civic engagement landscape? On the hindrance side of the ledger, according to respondents, lies a Kansan variant of denial: aversion to conflict, scapegoating, and waiting until a crisis before taking action. “Kansans rise to the occasion,” said one interviewee, “but they tend to wait until there’s a crisis to do that.”

Some see in Kansans a lack of aspiration – what one interviewee described as an attitude of “We’re average – and proud of it!” Another commented, “Kansas’s highest aspiration is to be in the 75th percentile; we’re satisfied if we’re in the 50th. We’re suspicious of anything that would take us to the top – that’s way too risky. We will only do it if it’s been done before, and that’s both a blessing and a curse.” As this respondent noted, Kansans also demonstrate a fear of and a resistance to change, making them reluctant to try something new or risky. “But we’ve always done it this way” often serves as a way to prematurely (and convincingly) end a discussion about a different course of action.

Among minority and poor Kansans, respondents (including some representing these groups) see a debilitating learned helplessness that also stands in the way of civic engagement and innovation.

Many of these hindrances, though, have a more positive flip side. The aversion to conflict, while a hindrance in many situations, also carries a silver lining: an even-handed and respectful tone that permeates public life, for the most part. The resistance to change represents a practical, tempered conservatism – an attitude that protects people and communities from risky and potentially wasteful schemes.

In general, Kansas has a long history of civic leadership and a rich populist heritage with substantial self-sufficient and egalitarian streaks. The harsh prairie conditions and farm heritage created a strong and widely shared work ethic, along with a willingness to help a neighbor in need.

As the Iowa-born historian Carl L. Becker noted in his admiring 1910 essay about Kansas and Kansans, the state’s residents have a proud history of distilling American individualism and idealism into a uniquely Kansan form. “That liberty and equality are compatible terms is, at all events, an unquestioned faith in Kansas,” he wrote. “The belief in equality, however, is not so


“Kansas’s highest aspiration is to be in the 75th percentile; we’re satisfied if we’re in the 50th.”

15


much the belief that all men are equal as the conviction that it is the business of society to establish conditions that will make them so. And this notion, so far from being inconsistent with the pronounced individualism that prevails there, is the natural result of it.”

Qualities of Civic Engagement ItselfRespondents noted that some of the characteristics that hinder civic engagement reflect aspects of modern society. These include the rights of individuals overshadowing collective responsibilities, busy lives that leave little time for civic activities, and few logistical supports (such as child care and transportation) that might encourage greater participation. Even those willing to make the time and effort to participate in civic life may lack access to credible information and the skills to deploy it. Within Kansas, people who are interested in leadership development may find opportunities concentrated in just a few parts of the state and not as widely accessible as they could be. Focus group participants observed that recent immigrants face language barriers and a lack of leadership within immigrant groups; which makes assimilation into communities difficult.

The characteristics that promote civic engagement, on the other hand, do have a Kansas flavor. Graduates of leadership programs such as the Kansas Health Foundation’s Kansas Community Leadership Institute, Kansas Health Foundation Fellows, and Leadership Kansas foster continuing ties among alumni. The growth of community foundations across the state has brought the leadership and civic engagement of community members to the fore, as has general community-building and other types of collaboration. The leadership programs that exist across the state may not be as geographically widespread as some would prefer, but many are strong programs nonetheless. Finally, a great deal of untapped leadership potential could be harnessed among a broader age span that actively includes seniors and youth.


ConclusionThe portrait of civic leadership in Kansas that this document represents is really more of a background sketch, or even an impressionist painting – with many of the colors, lines, and definition still to come. It captures the insights of a cross-section of Kansans at this particular moment in time, balancing deep concern about fundamental challenges with optimism that there are better ways to address them.

The Kansas Leadership Center’s civic leadership initiatives are shaped by what we heard – and will be influenced by what we hear in the future as we continue our ongoing conversation with Kansans. Through these initiatives, we hope to contribute – and make it possible for other Kansans to contribute – to the creation of an aspiration of making Kansas the best possible place to live.

16


Appendix A: Specific ChallengesThis appendix provides additional detail about the reasons subject matter experts and focus group participants gave for listing the major challenges discussed earlier.

The challenges posed by immigration illustrate the common characteristics described on page 6. Immigration is a deeply polarizing issue across the country, with little consensus on possible solutions. The work ethic and relatively low cost of immigrant labor makes immigrants indispensable to many Kansas businesses and industries, yet immigrants encounter difficulty assimilating because of cultural misunderstandings and language barriers. Many recent immigrants lack the skills to navigate existing support systems, and others feel that these systems do not provide as much accessibility in terms of bilingual/bicultural and other features as they could. Negative attitudes and resentment coexist with compassion and reliance on this growing labor force, fueling both punitive and proactive responses.

Yet some respondents expressed a vision of opportunity within this difficult and divisive issue. Those respondents saw benefits of embracing a growing immigrant population from an economic development and population growth perspective.

Respondents view economic trends – national, regional, and state – as major challenges as well. These overlap considerably with the driving forces described in greater detail on page 10, especially in the sense that Kansans feel buffeted by economic forces over which they perceive little control or influence, making the problems and trade-offs seem insurmountable. Economic forces include the shift in economic prosperity from rural, agriculture-based economies to more suburban settings, and the vulnerability of key state industries (agriculture, aviation) to the dual threats of globalization and rising energy costs. Imbedded in these challenges is the common need to balance competing priorities – for example, between agriculture and industry, or between economic development and concern for the environment. Another economic vulnerability is the projected Kansas workforce. Respondents foresee workforce shortages in many industries, with a mismatch between the skills that workers have and those that industry requires – and lost opportunities if the state fails to integrate immigrants. The lack of attractive jobs, in turn, feeds underemployment and some of the demographic issues cited on page 9 in the section on driving forces, such as young people leaving the state.


Immigration

The Economy

Health and Health Care

Education

The Environment

Crime

Housing

17


Like immigration and the economy, the national issues of health and health care have strong regional and state impacts – and many of the common characteristics described earlier. Decades in the making, the challenges in health and health care include the rising costs of providing care and health insurance coverage, leaving many without access to basic care – let alone preventive care. In the language of common characteristics, health care is very much a system (albeit a broken one), with complex and interconnected pieces. Solutions will likely require some hard choices about either rationing health care itself so that more people will have access to it, or continuing to exclude large segments of the population from insurance coverage and access.

Another concern is the system’s focus on treatment rather than prevention. In rural areas, the lack of services for seniors does not reflect their proportion of the population; throughout the state, racial disparities in health persist and grow, as they do nationally. Still, despite these formidable challenges, some respondents see a window of opportunity in the prospects for reform of the health care financing and delivery systems.

Education could be a factor in strengthening the workforce and attracting economic development, but many respondents worry that the education system currently fails to meet these challenges. Some respondents pointed to concerns regarding low teacher salaries on a national scale and pockets of low funding for education, as well as bureaucratic constraints (particularly federal No Child Left Behind requirements) hampering the state’s ability to field a first-rate education system. Some respondents worried about increased high school drop-out rates and racial disparities in university graduation rates. Higher education, some feel, grows increasingly distant from the needs of communities, perpetuating these disparities.

The challenges posed by environmental change include the impending scarcity of water (one respondent predicted future wars over water, not oil), polluted air and water, resulting damage to the farm environment, and the lack of a “green” mentality to address these threats. Some respondents noted that Kansans (along with their counterparts in other states) are woefully unprepared for the implications of energy conservation – such as less driving, less air-conditioning, and a general decline in the amenities and creature comforts to which we have all become accustomed.

Smaller numbers of people cited the challenges of increasing crime rates in urban areas and increasing rates of recidivism and incarceration, as well as a lack of affordable housing, putting the American dream of home ownership further and further out of reach.


The Artifact

Documents

Transcript of The Artifact