I read and skim a lot of reports. Some are reviewed here on The Curated Bookshelf. Some turn out to not be that relevant. And some have bits and pieces that are interesting, falling a bit in between.

Pew Research Center produces a prodigious amount of high-quality reports, and here are snapshot review of three fairly recent ones that I found of enough interest to flag (two briefly, one at more length). 

"Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues." Pew Research Center, January 2019.

First, if you don't know who Generation Z is, it comprises a new generation ages 14 to 22 … the generation that comes after the Millennials. It is shaping up to be the most diverse and well-educated generation yet (until, of course, the generation that comes after them!). Overall, their attitudes are fairly similar to Millennials in that, compared to older generations, they tend to be more liberal … at least for now. As they grow fully into adulthood, attitudes can shift. What I think is most important to museums is that both non-Hispanic whites AND Gen Z Republicans specifically are more progressive on racial and ethnic issues and on climate change than their older counterparts, which I personally view with hope.


"What Americans Know About Science." Pew Research Center, March 2019.

Science, just like many things, is political. Climate change, vaccines, the age of Earth … whether one believes science is real or that theories are up for debate (thus clearly not understanding what science means by the word "theory"). As usual, Pew Research Center is unafraid to delve into political issues and looked at what Americans know about science, and then ran their filters and cross tabs to look for variations. Of interest to us is that science knowledge isn't steady. One would think that those with more education score better on a test of science knowledge (they do), but men outperform women, and whites score better than blacks and Hispanics … even after controlling for educational attainment. Meanwhile, political persuasion doesn't seem to matter when it comes to science knowledge, but it does come into play in terms of how people apply science to the world. If you are dealing with the public on science issues, you should read the full report.


"Where Americans Find Meaning in Life." Pew Research Center, November 2018
​
We talk about how visitors find meaning in museums. But most people don't visit museums, and those that do are visiting a handful of times a year, not every week. So how do Americans find meaning in their day-to-day lives? And can that give us better insight to how they find meaning in museums?
​
Unsurprisingly, family comes out tops for finding meaning in life. But of interest to museums is how activities and hobbies rank, as well as learning.

The learning finding makes a lot of sense, given my work that shows that somewhere around 5 - 10% of the population is highly curious and finds joy in learning … as well as the 10% or so of Americans who visit museums 3 or more times/year. While these two groups are not exactly the same, the point is there is likely a high degree of overlap and the sizes make sense.

As Pew points out, different groups of Americans finds meaning in different places. Educational attainment drove some key differences, as those with higher education were more likely to mention friends, good health, hobbies, travel, and most crucially, learning … things that those who are less socioeconomically privileged may not always have the resources to enjoy. 
​
​There are important differences by  other factors such as religion, race and ethnicity, and political persuasion. Some are more relevant to museums than others (though educational attainment seems to be the strongest factor for us). But bottom line, meaning is found in emotional attachments, whether family, religion, or friends, and in how we live our fullest lives. Museums can help with both. 


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Young adults are not monolithic. They present a variety of attitudes and behaviors. They are also more ethnically and racially diverse than older generations … a forerunner of the dramatic demographic change taking place (and leading to likely minority majority status by 2045). As museums strive to be more inclusive, and since young adults are more likely to visit museums than older adults, it pays to know this audience's attitudes on race.

What you need to know: It is, well, disheartening. Even among young adults there are ongoing, gaping divides between the attitudes of whites and those of people of color. This report highlights them, including:

• Young adults of color are significantly more likely than whites to think racism is a significant problem today.
• White Millennials are slightly more likely to say the Black Lives Matter movement is full of racists and totally invalid than to say they have a lot of good ideas. (More hopefully, however, white Millennials were still nearly 5 times more likely to say the Black Lives Matter movement has lots of good ideas (19%) than the alt-right movement (4%).)
• A majority of white Millennials see Confederate symbols through the lens of Southern pride, and nearly two-thirds oppose removing Confederate statues and symbols. Unsurprisingly, the majority of young adults of color feel rather differently.
• Millennial Trump voters are significantly more likely to feel that whites are economically losing ground compared to other racial and ethnic groups, including in the workplace and in college admissions.
• White Millennials were significantly less likely to include race/ethnicity as a major identifier of themselves than people of color (the overwhelming majority of whom listed it as their #1 identifier, over gender, economic class, etc.). This reminds me once again that only whites have the luxury of forgetting about the color of their skin in our American society.

Discrimination against whites.

I recently shared that research from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found 55% of white Americans thought whites experience discrimination. GenForward asked a similar question, and found 48% of white Millennials think discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against people of color.

Yep. Half of white Millennials think they are just as discriminated against as people of color. That is only seven percentage points lower than the American topline results, so while it is better than what older Americans think, it isn't a huge shift.

(Interestingly, a quarter of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinxs agreed that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against people of color. I find this result a bit dumbfounding.)

Other findings

There are, however, some more positive signs. Awareness of racial challenges and disparities appear to have increased among whites between July 2017 and September 2017 (a two-month period that included Charlottesville and other racial demonstrations). It is unclear, however, if that is a blip or sustained.

Additionally, the survey asked respondents what they thought the best way to make racial progress was. About a fifth of respondents said "organizing in communities," a number that was fairly consistent across race and ethnicity. Whites were similarly likely to say "community service and volunteering." Voting and non-violent protests also came up as good pathways. 

Implications for museums: Like I shared when reviewing "Discrimination in America," many whites are not as open to conversations and actions that promote inclusion and equity as we would hope. Thus, museums promoting a more inclusive interpretation should do so with awareness and preparation for white pushback … even among younger visitors. This is work that we must do, and anticipating that pushback strengthens our work, allowing us to push forward steadily. Because that's the goal: ongoing progress, not reactive pushes forwards and then similar retreats. 

Methodology comment: It is clear that the designers of the agenda had a hypothesis they wanted to test, and the survey instrument reflects that agenda, which is an anti-racism, progressive one (it included rather specific questions about Donald Trump and his purported racism, for example). This doesn't make the research bad, so long as the questions are presented neutrally and the results fairly. But it also makes this work easier to criticize if one were of the opinion, say, that whites face just as much (if not more) discrimination than people of color. Thus, when critiquing research, including studies you like or even my studies, instrument design is something to be mindful of and assess as necessary.

Read or skip? If you are deep in the weeds of inclusive practice, yes, read it. This will give you more nuance. If you have to pick one to read, I'd go for "Discrimination in America." This supplements that work nicely.
And if you have a Confederate symbol controversy raging or brewing in your community, the questions on those very things will undoubtedly be helpful (go to pages 20-22).
​

Full citation: "The 'Woke' Generation? Millennial Attitudes on Race in the US." genFORWARD. October 2017.  

Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Back when I was a museum director, I remember being told that your budget is your mission. That is, how resources are spent reflect the mission and values of an organization. Thus, what the United States spends via federal expenditures children (in this case) also reflects to some degree on our values as an American society. I picked this up to see if we are moving in a future-oriented direction, investing children … or not.

Given that those over 65 are likely to outnumber minor children by about 2045, I'll be honest and say I am not too hopeful for child welfare. Not that we shouldn't spend on the care of seniors (we should), but more that I don't think the high costs of senior care should come at the expense of children.

What it is: An analysis of federal expenditures on children from 1960 to 2017, and projections to 2028. It is a decent primer for what is actually spent where.

Key findings: Federal spending on children relative to GDP is expected to decline over every major category (health, education, income, security, etc.), and children's share of the budget is projected to drop from 9.4% to 6.9%. This decline is largely due to increased spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (45% of budget, excluding spending on children; it is expected to hit 50% by 2028), and interest payments on the debt (the latter of which will actually exceed spending on children by 2020).

Federal expenditures for children consist primarily of healthcare (Medicaid, CHIP, etc.), tax exemptions and credits to families, nutritional benefits, and income security. Low-income children receive 61% of all federal expenditures for children.

Education receives <10% of federal expenditures for children. States, in the aggregate, spend nearly twice as much on children than the federal government, and the bulk of their expenditures are for education. Indeed, states and local government provide 93% of governmental expenditures on child education. That being said, the 7% spent by the federal government is projected to decline steeply.

Implications for museums: First, and this isn't a museum implication but a societal implication, we as a country have essentially decided that investing in children isn't where we should focus. I find that troubling for many reasons (which you likely share).

This report also portends a troubling future for programs that are deemed more expendable in the budget. As the population ages, and funding becomes tighter as Social Security and Medicare obligations increase (as well as other, new challenges that come with an aging population), any program that is deemed remotely expendable, rightly or wrongly, is likely to face greater scrutiny (at best) and even elimination. I fear the battles over IMLS, NEH, and NEA are only beginning.
​
Additionally, budget constraints will likely ripple out to states and local governments. When federal dollars only reach so far, state and local governments will then be forced to conduct their own assessments and reallocations to make up gaps in childhood care and education, care for seniors, and perhaps for infrastructure and other basic needs. That may mean trouble for line items deemed more expendable, such as state parks, municipal museums, and arts and humanities funding.

Lest I leave you depressed and pessimistic, however, the future doesn't have to mean absolute doom and gloom for museums if museums are proactively part of the solution. That means, when it comes to children, being truly indispensable to child development and welfare. While some well-educated museum-going parents may be prepared to say that now, when push comes to shove I doubt museums will make the cut unless we actually are indispensable to all children, providing measurable, positive impacts on those children and society. Even then, while it would give museums an opportunity compete effectively for funding, my reading of this report indicates funding opportunities will still likely be from private sources.

Let's also consider seniors. As their numbers grow, so will their health and social needs … but increasing evidence shows that cultural engagement (including museums) can help maintain well-being, decreasing healthcare costs. That gives museums an opening to develop positive impacts for individual seniors while also providing pragmatic cost-saving solutions for health spending. If, of course, we are savvy about what we do, measure the impact, and make the case.

Read or skip? The executive summary is excellent. Otherwise, skip, unless you are planning on advocating directly on this issue. The full report really gets into the weeds of budgetary policy (example: how the Budget Control Act of 2011 affected spending on children).

Full citation: "Kids' Share 2018: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2017 and Future Projections." Urban Institute. July 2018.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Hispanics and Latinos are the second-fastest growing minority group in America (after Asian Americans), and the largest, and youngest, minority group. If museums are going to thrive in the future, they have to adapt to meet the needs of a broader swath of Americans; Hispanics and Latinos have historically been underserved by museums.

Best thing in report: A chart showing how how different racial and ethnic populations follow news topics. (See below.)

Two findings in this chart particularly fascinate me:

1 - That whites are far more interested in local town or city news than African Americans or Hispanics. It makes me wonder if there are barriers to connecting with a local community that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to feel. And if so, what can we do about it? Lots of questions here.

2 - That Hispanics are more interested in science and technology than whites, with African Americans significantly less interested. That seems like a great opportunity for museums to tap into (as well as work to be done).

Why I picked it up:  Demographics is destiny, right?  Well, not necessarily.  But understanding how the population is shifting is rather important to long-term planning in museums. Additionally, this book is grounded in research by the Pew Research Center, one of my most trusted sources on major societal shifts in America.

What you need to know:  Our population is aging rapidly, and as more people live longer, shifts in resources that already disproportionately help seniors (possibly at the expense of children) will only be exacerbated.  If we want our society to thrive long-term, we need to think long and hard about this resource allocation. Additionally, Americans are sorting themselves in ways that align with political persuasion. 

Implications for museums: 

1. Aging population.  With a rapidly aging population, there may be opportunities to reach more seniors in meaningful ways, providing cognitive and social stimulation that promotes healthy aging (and are cost-effective in the long-term to society).  Larger museums may want to add an educator that specializes in senior learning and engagement, while smaller ones will certainly want to stay on top of research that helps them with this audience as well.  On the flip side, however, if museums cannot position themselves as vital to senior health, sources of funding may disappear as resources are reallocated. 
2. Childhood shifts.  Poverty is disproportionately affecting families with young children, and children in the US have a harder time achieving economic stability than in other developed nations.  Consider how museums and other informal learning organizations can serve these children more effectively, particularly out of the classroom. 
3. Societal sorting, aka "The Big Sort".  The self-sorting we do as a society, even if not intentional, likely isn't the best thing for our country or our communities. What are the places in a community that truly bring people together to trade ideas?  Can museums, and libraries, be places of cohesion?  Is that our mission?  Why or why not?  More questions than answers for this one.

Read or skip?  Skip.  If you really need hard, national data to back a project you are working on go straight to the Pew Research Center's excellent website or the ultimate source, the US Census Bureau (though they field different, yet complementary, research). 


Running synopsis (for those who want the real meat):

Chapter 1 - Political Tribes

Overall thesis that Americans are "sorting themselves - by ideology, age, race, ethnicity, wealth, gender, education, religion, immigrant status, neighborhood - into silos that align with their [political] party affiliation" (p. 2).  Through Pew Research Center's questions, they can place respondents on a liberal-to-conservative continuum and then look for differences in societal perceptions, etc.  States that conservatives value "teaching children religious values and obedience, while liberals are more inclined to stress tolerance, empathy, creativity, and curiosity."  On some of these factors, the difference between "consistent liberals" and "consistent conservatives" is enormous.  But individuals of all political persuasions tend to value responsibility, independence, hard work, and good manners (p. 9).  Concludes that conservatives are slightly more siloed than liberals, and that people seek out places to live that generally align with their political ideology.

My response:  Interesting.  Are there people who actively choose to not silo themselves?  Who are they?  And do they actually take action, or are they really just as siloed as everyone else? Is anyone willing to admit that the silos are OK?  (Not that they are, just curious who might think they are good.) 

With the huge differences in opinion on some of the values they tested, does that affect museum visitation?  Are there differences in perceptions of museums, and visitation rates, based on political persuasion?  If yes, does it matter? If not, how interesting.  And should we find out?  I have mixed feelings about fielding this work because it could be incredibly useful, but it could also be incendiary given the polarity of our political climate. 


Chapter 2 - Demographic Destinies

Three facts jumped out at me from this chapter.
​

1. "A teenager has less chance of being raised by both biological parents in America than anywhere else in the world" (p. 34). 
2. The market for adult diapers in Japan exceeds that for baby diapers (pp. 35 - 37).
3. Children in Canada and Europe are statistically more likely to reach upper socio-economic status (SES) than children in the US (p. 39).

My response:  I have nothing to say on the teenagers thing except I am shocked.  That is just stunning. 

As the US population ages, how will we deal with the significant shifts in resources?  The population of seniors will likely exceed that of children in just over 20 years. Will museums begin to have specialists in senior learning who work alongside school program educators?  And how can museums help promote healthy aging, especially cognitively?

Finally, what can museums (and other informal learning organizations) do to help children from lower SES households achieve more?  I bet a lot. 


Chapter 5 - Battle of the Ages?

As our population ages, and entitlement programs have changed, we have become a country that supports seniors, but possibly at the expense of children.  Programs like Social Security and Medicare have done much to provide a stable quality-of-life baseline for seniors (and seniors were the cohort least affected by the Great Recession), but has that been at the expense of children?  Currently, "the federal government now spends about $6 per capita on programs for seniors for every $1 it spends per capita on programs for children" (p. 79) and young adults with children are the poorest age cohort in America. 

My response: Given that children do outnumber seniors by quite a bit now (23% of population vs. 15%, though this is changing quickly), the disparity is rather significant.  Even taking into account that senior healthcare costs are more than children's educational costs. What will this mean, long-term, for children? For society?  (Also, see my comments from chapter 2; this book was a bit repetitive!)


Chapter 9 - Whither Marriage?

Discussed in fair detail decreasing marriage rates, especially among those with less education, with marriage now perceived as a capstone, not as part of a one's path to adult stability.  That is, one is not "marriageable" until one has economic prospects.  Thus, those with more education are marrying at higher rates than those with less education.  And since marriage in and of itself tends to support greater economic stability and prosperity, it is a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Meanwhile, single motherhood has increased as marriage rates decrease.

Shifts in parenting philosophies are also discussed.  Generation X parents have gained a reputation for being engaged parents who are a bit prone to helicopter behavior.  Yet they may be outpaced by Millennials:  52% of Millennials say being a good parent is "one of the most important things in life" compared with only 42% of Generation Xers when they were the same age (p. 146). 

Finally, a warning sign for economic and social vulnerability among Baby Boomers as they age: one in three are single (p. 152).

My response:  If leading indicators are that Millennials are going to be even more engaged parents, what does that mean for museums that primarily serve children and their caregivers?  Can children's museums give us a preview? 


Chapter 10 - Nones on the Rise

Generally, a discussion of how the US population is gradually growing less religious, with younger adults in particular less likely to have any religious affiliation.  But two things jumped out from this chapter:
​

1. "Numerous studies indicate that people tend to report going to church more often than they really do" (p. 164).
2. "Americans do not generally become more affiliated [with] religion as they move through the life cycle from young adulthood to middle age and retirement.  Rather, the percentage of people in each generation who are religiously affiliated has remained stable, or decreased slightly, as that generation has aged" (p. 166).

My response:  So let's pick these two things apart. 

First, over-reporting.  In a survey, people often like to present a "face" that is more positive than reality.  It isn't necessarily intentional, but trying to present well, even to anonymous survey analysts.  Thus, this finding that people over-report going to church.  My hunch?  People over-report their museum visitation too.  Actual results should thus always be either taken with a grain of salt or adjusted to compensate for this (and that adjustment should be duly noted).

Second, the fallacy that as people grow older they will "return" or "grow into" something.  Cultural organizations that primarily serve older audiences may count on this too much, assuming (for example) that the Boomers will flock to their offerings once they retire.  Well, some Boomers are 70 now and have these organizations begun to see audience growth?  Most have not.  If the groundwork isn't laid early and often, why should those audiences miraculously appear? 


Chapter 13 - Empty Cradle, Gray World

The world's population is aging, and while Japan may be at one extreme, and the US on that pathway, this is a worldwide issue.  According to UN estimates, the worldwide population of children under 15 will only grow by 10% by midcentury … but the global population of seniors (65+) will nearly triple (p. 211).  What kind of resource allocation will be necessary with that shift?  And have elected officials, here and abroad, put off the "day of reckoning" that this generational inequity has created, with programs for the young being neglected in order to continue the current social safety net for ever-more seniors? 

My response: Fascinating to see the global numbers. But does this have to be an either/or?  How can we make it a both/and?  If it is an either/or, the ramifications for neglecting the young may be devastating.



My final response:  The book was rather heavy overall on the generational shifts, especially aging and discussions of resource allocation.  Makes it a fascinating read, with lots of numbers to back up the case … but it also was a challenging read because it was repetitive and unwieldy.  Not for the faint-of-data-heart. 


Full citation:  

Taylor, Paul.  The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown. New York: Public Affairs, 2015.



Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.