"Objective" to "Authentic": Historical Comparison of How Private Organizations Use Racialized Evidence

Introduction: This paper weaves together two disparate conversations: the influence of non-governmental organizations in public life and the role of racialized evidence in the social service sector. To examine the throughline between these two literatures, we compare public reports from two non-governmental organizations published almost a century apart. In the historical analysis we address the following question: “Within their given historical context, how do non-governmental organizations engage racialized evidence in public facing reports?”

Method: To interrogate how non-governmental organizations mobilize racialized evidence, we conducted a critical discourse analysis of two public facing reports. The first report was published in 1924 by the Public Education Association of the City of New York, a volunteer organization that networked with the Board of Education to shape programs targeting “truancy” and “youth crime.” The second report was published in 2019 by Chicago Beyond, an active philanthropic organization that invests in programs focused on “education” and “youth safety.” We approached the reports as forms of public speech, where organizations made use of evidence to create and disseminate an argument that reinforced their vision of social change as well as their role in change work. Our historical comparison of two reports published by non-governmental organizations focused on youth-related programs in the Upper Midwest and Northeast strengthens the construct validity of our findings by allowing us to contrast the role of evidence rather than the role of place, setting of practice, or organizational form.

Results: Three findings emerged: 1) both reports followed a similar pattern of using racialized evidence to assert organizational legitimacy, 2) both organizations used racialized evidence to associate themselves with particular ideas, and 3) public reports continues to be a salient performance for non-governmental organizations. The organizations used the reports to foster an organizational identity of being on the cutting edge of social change work by associating themselves with particular racialized ideas about evidence. In 1924, the idea being put forth was professionalized school social work, a new white woman dominated movement evaluated with experimental and quasi-experimental data. The report positioned this evidence as an objective measurement of school social work’s value. In contrast, the Chicago Beyond 2019 report stated that randomized controlled trials (RCT) were inauthentic forms of evidence. In doing so, they positioned themselves as experts guiding other organizations on how to move away from “insufficient understanding” of communities and programs. Although “objectivity” and “authenticity” are defined and wielded differently across the reports, both are racialized notions that protect the role of the non-governmental organization in public life. Lastly, despite being published almost a century apart, it is notable that the “public report” remained a salient performance for both these organizations.

Conclusion: The historical comparison extends existing knowledge about how non-governmental organizations shape public life. In an effort to protect authority, organizations may leverage racialized evidence as a means of associating themselves with particular ideas. This provides important insights for mezzo-level social work practice, as practitioners must contend with racialization of evidence and its relationship with organizational authority.