The challenge of delivering integrated support to military veterans has long frustrated policymakers and service providers. Veterans navigate fragmented systems, cycling through disconnected health, employment, and social service agencies. This fragmentation not only imposes administrative burdens but also compromises care quality and undermines outcomes for those who served.
Melvin J. Oshomegie, serving as a summer intern with the Harvard Growth Lab through Arrowhead Centre in New Mexico, brought his policy analysis skills to bear on this persistent problem. His work developing a feasibility assessment for a proposed New Mexico State Veterans Center represents a practical application of principles he had explored throughout his career: the importance of evidence-based decision-making, the value of stakeholder engagement, and the potential for well-designed infrastructure to drive both economic and social outcomes.
The proposed veterans center would integrate health services, employment support, and community programming within a single facility—an approach meant to reduce coordination burdens on veterans while improving service delivery efficiency. Oshomegie’s feasibility analysis projected that the center could improve access to care for over 10,000 veterans across the region while creating approximately 120 permanent jobs through direct employment and induced economic activity.
His assessment methodology combined quantitative modeling with qualitative stakeholder consultation. Working with veterans service organizations, healthcare providers, and state officials, he gathered data on current service utilization patterns, identified gaps in existing delivery systems, and projected demand for integrated services. This participatory approach ensured that design reflected actual veteran needs rather than merely institutional preferences.
The economic impact analysis drew on techniques Oshomegie had refined through earlier infrastructure research, tracing both direct employment effects and broader spillovers through local supply chains. Beyond immediate job creation, his analysis highlighted longer-term benefits: healthier veterans participating more fully in the workforce, reduced strain on emergency services, and strengthened social capital through community programming.
What distinguished his work was attention to sustainability and implementation realism. Rather than simply advocating for the center, his feasibility report candidly assessed operational risks, funding challenges, and coordination requirements. This balanced approach—enthusiastic about potential benefits yet clear-eyed about obstacles—reflected intellectual maturity and practical wisdom developed through years navigating complex organizational and policy environments.
Simultaneously, Oshomegie led efforts to redesign a former call center facility into mixed-use space supporting food entrepreneurship and small business development. This project, transforming 35,000 square feet of underutilized property into commercial kitchen and office facilities, illustrated principles he had explored in earlier urban development research: how thoughtful infrastructure investment can catalyze economic activity, how stakeholder engagement shapes project success, and how physical spaces influence social and economic possibilities.
His work on state parks economic impact analysis further demonstrated his ability to translate analytical skills into policy-relevant insights. By quantifying the economic value generated by New Mexico’s park system—visitor spending, employment, ecosystem services—he provided evidence that helped secure legislative commitments to sustain operations and protect ranger jobs. This research illustrated how seemingly “soft” benefits of public goods, when rigorously quantified and clearly communicated, can influence budget allocation decisions even in constrained fiscal environments.
These projects marked a transition for Oshomegie: from advising corporate clients on policy risks and strategic positioning, to directly shaping public policy through applied economic analysis. Yet thematic continuity remained evident. Whether evaluating tax reforms in Nigeria, assessing infrastructure projects, or designing veterans services in New Mexico, his approach emphasized evidence-based decision-making, stakeholder engagement, careful attention to implementation constraints, and conviction that analytical rigor can improve public outcomes. His summer work at the Growth Lab suggested how these sensibilities might apply in the U.S. policy context, translating skills honed internationally to address domestic challenges.
