This space will hold information about data collected or compiled regarding SNAP’s EDI work. Currently, this page hosts a snapshot of our EDI journey so far, the results of The Global Diversity & Inclusion Benchmark (GDIB) that the EDI Council assessed throughout 2021 and the Better Health Together Health Equity survey our staff took at the end of 2019. In Fall 2022, SNAP staff re-took this assessment to see our progress as an agency. Results pending.
Check out our EDI journey so far by viewing the document below:
GLOBAL DIVERSITY & INCLUSION BENCHMARK (GDIB) ASSESSMENT
The GDIB is an 80-page assessment document created and distributed by the Centre for Global Inclusion. This assessment helps organizations like SNAP determine strategy and measure progress in fostering EDI
Throughout 2021, the EDI Council has been working through the 14 categories within the GDIB and assessing SNAP against its measurable components in order to determine a baseline of where SNAP is across 14 organizational metrics.
A few things to note:
I
The 14 categories assessed within the GDIB
– EDI Vision, Strategy, and Business Case
– Leadership and Accountability
– EDI Structure and Implementation
– Recruitment, Retention, Development, and Advancement
– Benefits, Work-Life Integration, and Flexibility
– Job Design, Classification, and Compensation
– EDI Learning and Education
– Assessment, Measurement, and Research
– EDI Communications
– Connection EDI and Sustainability
– Community, Government Relations, and Social Responsibility
– Products and Services Development
– Marketing and Customer Service
– Supplier Diversity
II
How the categories are assessed
Each category is judged across five potential levels. The five levels are:
LEVEL 1: Inactive: No EDI work has begun; diversity and a culture of inclusion are not part of organizational goals.
LEVEL 2: Reactive: A compliance mindset; actions are taken primarily to comply with relevant laws and social pressures.
LEVEL 3: Proactive: A clear awareness of the value of EDI; starting to implement EDI systemically.
LEVEL 4: Progressive: Implementing EDI systemically; showing improved results and outcomes.
LEVEL 5: Best Practice: Demonstrating current best practices in EDI, exemplary for other organizations globally.
Within each category, there are bifurcated levels. For example: In Section 13: Marketing and Customer Service, there are the five levels, but within each level, there are specific goals. Each assessment begins with the inactive level; for Section 13, you have the following two criteria:
13.19: Customer service, distribution, and communications consistently ignore differences in customer needs
13.18: Advertising and publicity may perpetuate stereotypes and nothing is done to counter them.
Assuming the EDI council assessed SNAP to be above this point, the council would move up the rubric to “Reactive” and read and assess according to that criteria.
It is also worth noting that the EDI Council discussed and assessed the categories subjectively, as GDIB criteria is primarily subjective. The council worked hard to build consensus, listen to all perspectives, and arrive at an average amendable by all members. That said, we also recognize that others’ subjective analysis may differ from what the council determined; we welcome that feedback to inform our future action plans!
III
What the assessment means
Bear in mind that the GDIB at this point is intended for two primary purposes:
1. Act as a Baseline. We will readdress the GDIB at a later date to see how EDI-guided strategic actions have impacted the agency according to the GDIB.
2. Guide Strategic Planning. The GDIB gives the agency a chance to view our EDI strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This data is being used to determine the next steps the council will take to deliberately improve our agency’s EDI standing.
All of this is to say: Having a relatively low rating in a particular area does not need to be a source of shame. We are early in our journey, and it makes sense that our agency has work to do in various areas as we grow and improve.
IV
Our Results
The GDIB Assessment results show that SNAP has varying degrees of strengths and opportunities, depending on the category assessed. In no category did SNAP fall at the lowest level “Inactive,” nor did SNAP ever fall at the highest level of “Best Practice.” This means that SNAP is at least in some way working on each GDIB category, while no one category is free from a need for improvement.
| CATEGORY | LEVEL 1: INACTIVE | LEVEL 2: REACTIVE | LEVEL 3: PROACTIVE | LEVEL 4: PROGRESSIVE | LEVEL 5: BEST PRACTICES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDI Vision, Strategy, and Business Case | Level 1.12.5 | ||||
| Leadership and Accountability | Level 2.13 | ||||
| EDI Structure and Implementation | Level 3.6.5 | ||||
| Recruitment, Retention, Development, and Advancement | Level 4.14.5 | ||||
| Benefits, Work-Life Integration, and Flexibility | Level 5.6 | ||||
| Job Design, Classification, and Compensation | Level 6.6 | ||||
| EDI Learning and Education | Level 7.15.5 | ||||
| Assessment, Measurement, and Research | Level 8.14 | ||||
| EDI Communications | Level 9.11 | ||||
| Connection EDI and Sustainability | Level 10.11.5 | ||||
| Community, Government Relations, and Social Responsibility | Level 11.10 | ||||
| Products and Services Development | Level 12.13 | ||||
| Marketing and Customer Service | Level 13.13 | ||||
| Supplier Diversity | Level 14.18 |
As this chart indicates, our highest areas fell into the progressive category, indicating that these categories are the closest to best practices. In most instances, SNAP was at least proactive; however, there are three key exceptions:
– EDI Learning and Education
– Assessment, Measurement, and Research
– Supplier Diversity
The EDI Council has opted to focus on these three areas to inform our first strategic action steps. The objective of focusing on these three categories is to more quickly ensure that the agency is at least proactive in every EDI Category. From that point, we can focus further on categories that may have the largest agency-wide impact. Furthermore, each of the categories tend to build on one another. By moving from “reactive” to “proactive” in our lowest-scoring categories, comes the possibility that other metrics will naturally move forward in the process as well.
IV
Documents
You can access the full 80 pages of the GDIB by downloading the file below:
We encourage you to read the booklet to learn additional context and see what is needed for SNAP to be considered “Best Practice” in each category. This document may be viewed as somewhat “aspirational,” in that the scoring criteria elucidates what EDI within an agency looks like when operating from an optimal level.
Still have questions? We encourage that too! You can reach out via our anonymous EDI form:
BETTER HEALTH TOGETHER HEALTH EQUITY ASSESSMENT
You may remember that a year and a half ago, SNAP staff took a health equity assessment through Better Health Together (BHT). This survey asked a series of questions asking for our perceptions on SNAP’s commitment to equity in areas including program design, HR, data, and personal understanding of equity.
Before delving into the survey results, here are a few important items to note:
BACKGROUND
- Better Health Together (BHT) worked with over 80 organizations in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho
- This survey was intended to find a way to support equity work and commit to opportunities for growth
- The vision of this survey is: “Where every person can achieve maximum health potential, regardless of their identity, environment, or experiences
- This is meant merely as a baseline; low scores in any area(s) only expose areas of opportunity- not failures.
HEALTH EQUITY = EQUITY
This survey’s title indicates that it is capturing our assessment of health equity within the agency. We can use the terms “health equity” and “equity” interchangeably.
Why?
Social Determinants of Health. Social Determinants of Health is defined as: Conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and play that affect a wide range of health and quality-of-life risks and outcomes. (Source: CDC).
Here are some examples of Social Determinants of Health:
Income & Social Status | Social Support Networks | Education & Literacy | Employment/Working Conditions | Social Environments | Physical Environments | Personal Health Practices & Coping Skills | Healthy Child Development | Biology & Genetic Endowment | Health Services | Gender | Culture
When you review these different determinants, you will note that so much of these factors are a part of the work that SNAP is already doing. For the sake of clarity, most references to “health equity” will simply be referenced as “equity.”
INTERPRETING THE RESULTS
When you review these results, pay attention to 75%.
According to BHT, once an agency has over 75% of the agency strongly agreeing or disagreeing, that idea is likely to be held as an organizational norm. This is because that is the threshold by which you can consider there to be a critical mass.
Between 51% and 74% of agreement, staff may be leaning in a direction, but the idea is not likely to be observed as an organizational norm. In short, our ultimate goal is to reach critical mass.
PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
SNAP performed quite well by way of participation.
For reference: BHT administered this survey to 3,833 people across 81 organizations. The average rate of people who complete the survey all the way through is 76%.
By contrast, at SNAP, 110 people took the assessment, and of those, 95% completed the survey all the way through! This gives us confidence that the data is representative of our staff’s beliefs.
RESULTS
You may find the full results by following the download link below. Below, you will find images from the assessment, along with some areas to note when interpreting this data.
Organizational Commitment to Equity: This section identifies areas of success and opportunity. For one, we see that we have reached critical mass on items 3, 4, and 5. Conversely, we have a big area of opportunity on item 7, where there’s almost critical mass in feeling like the agency does not have enough resources to implement equity goals.
Equity in Program Design: There are several areas in which our agency has reached critical mass to likely consider some of these items as organizational norms. We can possibly have an easy ‘win’ by focusing on item 11, which is right at the cusp of becoming an organizational norm. Items 15 and 16 identify large areas for growth by integrating more community input and lived experience into program design.
Equity in HR: Note that this section is quite short compared to other sections in this assessment. Very often, there is a tendency to conflate equity work with HR, but in reality, this is only a small piece of the EDI pie.
Equity in Data: There are several opportunities in this section. Important to note, however, is that the EDI Council is launching a Client Advisory Council, which would seek to provide a solution to item 27, as well as several items within program design.
Personal Understanding of Equity: Perhaps most interesting about this section may be found when you compare items 34 vs. 35 and 36 vs. 37. A nearly critical mass of staff personally feel comfortable discussing race, gender, and sexuality- but people perceive far fewer of their coworkers as sharing this same comfort level. This is a huge opportunity for managers to encourage dialogue, questions, and/or use of the anonymous EDI form.
Training: This list reveals organizational opportunities for training. For example, there is a critical mass of individuals who have received training on poverty, but 0% received training on Recovery Model. This is helping to guide training and education produced by the EDI committee. For example, at the time of this assessment, only 14% received training on Tribal Sovereignty/Local Native American History, though nearly all staff members have since received this training when Margo Hill presented at our Spring All Staff. This is a helpful guide moving forward.
If you have any questions, concerns, or ideas based on this information (or anything EDI-related), please feel free to reach out to a member of the EDI council who you trust, or utilize the Anonymous EDI form.