In the spring of 1968, student activism left a significant imprint on the University of Washington soil. Members of the Black Student Union organized to demand greater representation of minority students on campus and tailored support services such as tutoring and advising. Through their activism developed the Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity (OMA/D) and later the Instructional Center, (IC) the academic branch of the Equal Opportunity Program (EOP). Since its creation, the IC has worked to increase the graduation and retention rates of EOP students. In this project we explore the academic, social and psychological impact of the Instructional Center on EOP and non-EOP students alike. Our project uses both qualitative and quantitative research based on a comprehensive student survey and an analysis of current data that highlight GPA, retention and graduation rates of both IC and non-IC students at the University of Washington. The survey inquires about many aspects of student success, including a comparison of quality of service before and after the recent implementation of state budget cuts. Ultimately, we expect to find that the Instructional Center is an indispensable resource for under-represented populations (particularly those of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math majors) on campus that is critical to their success. We intend to use this research as a catalyst for campus-wide awareness and student engagement in the hopes that our project will promote partnership between students who use the IC and administrators of both the OMA/D and the University of Washington at large to find ways to ensure that the quality of service is not compromised by state budget cuts.

Latinos are the largest and fastest-growing majority in Washington State, but over the past thirty years they have been systematically underrepresented in local office. This research focuses on city council and school board races across the ten counties which have the largest Latino populations, and the resulting report is the first to document the severe history of Latino underrepresentation in Washington. Through the same surname analysis used by the Department of Justice in its investigations of racially polarized voting, we analyzed the precinct-by-precint electoral results and found that Latino candidates are routinely defeated by non-Latino candidates. Previous studies have demonstrated that at-large elections - which are used in more than 90% of Washington's local races - tend to dilute minority votes and depress minority representation when minority candidates run against majority candidates. We found that Latinos win far less than half of their races against non-Latinos, suggesting that the extensive use of at-large elections has been combined with racially motivated voting patterns to systematically deny Latino candidates local office. Through interviews with Latino leaders and prominent members of various communities in Yakima County, we also found that Latino communites face more than just structural barriers to effective political participation and proportional representation. Our findings strongly suggest that the Revised Code of Washington ought to be amended to allow local jurisdictions to move away from at-large elections, that local jurisdictions should strive to provide more bilingual services, and that community organizations ought to prioritize the cultivation of local Latino leaders. This report was written as part of the State of the State for Washington Latinos project, which is an ongoing community-based research program at Whitman College. Our research was conducted in partnership with the National Voting Rights Advocacy Initiative.

 As the number of persons living in the United States with permanent criminal records rapidly increases, finding stable and affordable housing for ex-offenders and their families becomes exceedingly difficult. In the interest of promoting and protecting public safety, complete exclusion of those with criminal histories from the both the workforce and public housing has proven to be ineffective. While housing and employment are fundamental in preventing recidivism, those with criminal backgrounds face inevitable obstacles. Nevertheless, landlords and other officials of public and subsidized housing programs have a legitimate interest in ensuring the safety and well being of their residents. An evaluation of Seattle Housing Authority’s use of criminal history in determining which applicants to exclude from its various housing programs is thus necessary to address this conflict. By analyzing both the eviction notices and denial letters of housing applicants, our research aims to examine how criminal history impacts both potential and current residents, as well as determine whether the policies and subsequent actions of Seattle Housing Authority are consistent with the ultimate goal of providing secure housing for those in need. Through these findings we will develop policy recommendations that encompass a comprehensive understanding of the problem, while considering the legal, ethical, and social consequences of excluding applicants with criminal histories.

There is a dearth of evidence-based parenting programs for caregivers of teens in the child welfare system. This is especially troubling considering the increased challenges facing foster teens including early initiation of sexual activity, and higher incidence of drug use, and school drop out. The current research project is an effort to help fill this resource gap through adapting Staying Connected with Your Teen, an evidence-based parenting program originally designed for use with families not involved in the Child Welfare System. Previous research demonstrates the original program’s effectiveness in reducing risky sexual behavior, substance use, and violence among teens. The current adaptation research is guided by the ADAPT-ITT model, originally developed to balance the needs of cultural adaptation with implementation fidelity for efficacious HIV interventions. Building off of the previous research on Staying Connected through utilization of the ADAPT-ITT model, focus groups were held to determine necessary program adaptations. I worked with other researchers to organize and facilitate 9 focus groups (n=9) in two Washington Children’s Administration (CA) regions: 3 each with former foster youth aged 18-21 (n=20), foster caregivers (n=16), and CA staff (n=27). Using a conventional content analysis approach, I worked with other researchers to identify codes and primary themes in the focus group transcripts. The dominant theme that emerged was the lack of genuine connection between caregivers and foster youth due to frequent placement changes, caregivers’ tendency to “other” foster youth, and difficulty parenting youth from diverse backgrounds. To address these barriers to connection, I drafted program adaptations and augmentations focused on developing a connection between foster youth and their caregivers, providing opportunities for meaningful interaction, and assisting youth in gaining necessary life skills. Further testing of these adaptations is currently in progress. This presentation will describe the focus group process, data analysis, and subsequent adaptations made.

This study focuses on how the global efforts of a politically active and increasingly visible movement of adult autistic activists are challenging the common framing of autism and shifting the contemporary autism debate. Common representations throughout the autism field contextualize the autistic experience through diagnostic categories of difference, constructed primarily by psychologists, neurologists, educators, and service providers. These characterizations are determined through observational criteria such as delayed communication, repetitive physical behaviors, and marked deficits in social skills. While the deficit mindset dominates the media and the public perception of autism, there is a lack of attention and research on how the social impact of these ‘perspectives from the outside’ influence the lived experience of autistic adults. This work counters the hegemonic deficit interpretation by investigating the multiple meanings of autism, and studying whether politicized tensions over autistic representations—and misrepresentations— influence public conversations surrounding service delivery, treatment design, and provisions of care. Drawing on qualitative cultural research methods including narrative, textual and image analysis, as well as ethnographic field notes, this study critically analyzes the lived experience of adult autistics and their efforts to re-humanize public assumptions about autism while living in a society, they suggest, that stigmatizes their experience as emotionally isolated, socially deficient, and mentally diseased. I analyze the socio-political discourse of autism and the conflicting representations put forth by medical professionals, mainstream media, institutions, scholars, and—autistics. These contradictory interpretations produce a cultural system of difference engaged in debate over autistic autonomy, self-determination, and justice. To critically engage this ‘culture war’ this inquiry considers who has the right to speak for the autistic community? Whose values are characterized as authentic by the public? Finally, this investigation asks, can autistics redefine autism and how will this definition reframe their position in political discussions about them?