Ever imagine if the historic Albina community had never been sundered by demolition and the construction of Emmanuel Hospital, Interstate 5 and the Veteran's Memorial Coliseum? The Albina Vision Trust is taking imagination a step further, planning a longterm restoration of Lower Albina as a place for Portlanders to live, play and work.
The Portland Tribune explores the Albina Vision Trust, and the work of Meyer's CIO, Rukaiyah Adams, to turn vision into reality:
The Albina Vision is far from a master plan, but only because it's in the early stages: it's in its third year of work for a 50-year vision. Rukaiyah Adams, chief information officer of the Meyer Memorial Trust, is chair of the Albina Vision Trust, the nonprofit that was created to shepherd a community-centered development vision for the area that used to be known as Lower Albina. The Albina Vision Trust intends the community to be a stand-alone place to live, work and play.
"We want the neighborhood to include community spaces. It has to be viable, we want affordable living, and by affordable we mean not just a few mandated units of housing in a community where people who live in those units can't afford to eat or get their hair cut in their own neighborhood. We'd like to curate development so that there's a diversity of options for people of different income levels," Adams said. "It'll have housing, commercial space, creative space and here's the deal: it's almost 90 acres of a blank slate other than the Moda Center and Coliseum, it's really open, believe it or not. There virtually is no residential housing there now."
Read more of this in-depth look at the Albina plan here.
Marcelo Bonta, a Philanthropy Northwest Momentum Fellow who works in Meyer's Healthy Environment portfolio, will speak at the opening plenary in October at the GoGreen Conference in Portland, sharing his perspective of the community’s victories and challenges in sustainability over the last 10 years
Marcelo sat down with conference organizers to answer questions about the field:
GoGreen:When you think back on the last 10 years, what do you think of as the biggest win for our community in terms of sustainability?
Marcelo: The biggest win is that equity is becoming a core component of sustainability. Sustainability would not have survived for the long term without equity.
Here are some reasons why equity is so important:
Demographics have shifted and will continue to shift as we are becoming a more racially diverse society. Our nation will be over 50% people of color within the next 25 years.
Communities of color and low-income communities contribute least to climate change and environmental degradation but are most impacted.
Polls and surveys demonstrate that communities of color support sustainability, climate change solutions, and environmental protection at higher rates than whites.
Check out more of Marcelo's answers in the full interview here.
The casual re-emergence of bald-faced and deadly racial bigotry, here in Oregon just months ago and most recently in Charlottesville, is a drum beat, a persistent reminder that white supremacy and racism are resurgent across the country. It may sound trite, but watching shield- and torch-carrying white supremacists incite, maim and kill their fellow Americans kind of puts a pin on the timeline. It is well past time for all of us who believe in the values of justice and inclusion to, at the very least, stand up and use our voices against white supremacy, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and the structures in our society that oppress people of color.
There is no other just alternative. Hate is not normal. That’s the conversation white people should be having with our families, our neighbors, our co-workers, our co-worshipers, our elected officials and within our broader communities. In this extreme moment, we have to be unrelenting in our condemnation and intolerance for any and all forms of racism, hateful messaging and bigotry.
In The 360 Group’s work as executive search consultants to foundations and nonprofits, we know that transparency around compensation is a perennially thorny issue, especially for observers outside the sector. I thought I would share some thoughts about how we approach compensation transparency, particularly in light of our efforts to make diversity and equity a priority in our work.
For a bit of background: I launched The 360 Group 13 years ago, specifically with an eye on making the sector more diverse, more contemporary, and better prepared to address a whole new set of challenges in this complicated era. Our view is that more diverse teams — and more diversity in leadership — maximize the variety of perspectives that organizations need to be successful and effective. Countless studies have demonstrated the power of diversity in groups and teams, only emboldening our firm’s mission and theory of change. Diversity in groups can also make what can be challenging work a hell of a lot more fun.
Beyond compensation, then, our goal is to extend our reach and that of our clients’ to identify people from all backgrounds and walks of life for leadership opportunities. To do that, we want to reduce barriers for candidates, rather than build them up (and those barriers can be completely artificial). Our charge is to understand organizations well and identify candidates who can lead them and have the desire to do so with passion, heart and values.
At The 360 Group, our decisions about compensation for a given position are guided by market comparables and the skills and value of a candidate. We do not tie executive compensation to salary history. We know that women and people of color are represented in just a fraction of leadership roles — across every sector. To build that leadership bank, especially in senior positions, we seek out candidate pools of devoted (and often underpaid) nonprofit professionals as well as highly-paid executives. The salary one has earned shouldn’t dictate the salary one may earn. That is our philosophy and commitment in this work.
Sometimes, we field the question: why not post a salary range for the CEO role? Our answer comes from the heart: we don’t want otherwise fabulous people to self-select out. To be truly committed to equity (which we are), creating even the perception of obstacles runs at cross-purposes to acting in equity. For better or worse, in the philanthropic field, salaries and compensation packages are all over the map. That is why we rely on independent market analyses and our compensation expert colleagues to inform ranges for our client organizations. So if a role is valued at between, say, $300,000 and $500,000, the person who is ultimately selected will be compensated in that range — regardless of whether they have earned a fraction of that amount or orders of magnitude more. That is equity in compensation, a practice we have relied on from the inception of our firm, and just one important ingredient in our efforts to bring diversity and equity to our sector.
A persistent education opportunity gap exists with regard to race, economics, disability and geography. Unfortunately, efforts over the years to address disparities have offered limited relief as the gap stubbornly continued its decades-long growth. Despite evidence of the need for educational equity for Oregon’s most marginalized communities, ill-informed and damaging myths have penetrated our collective consciousness, excusing us from the systems-impact work necessary to ensure meaningful public education for all.
In partnership with Dr. Ann Curry-Stevens, Meyer’s Equitable Education portfolio aims to call out, and debunk, the incessant myths that function as barriers to equitable education in Oregon. This blog is intended to provoke both thought and action, offering an opportunity to look beyond common myths and re-imagine an education system rich in opportunity. It represents the beginning of a “myth-busting” series that will be shared regularly through portfolio newsletters and blog posts.
The idea that racism is over is an insidious myth.
Shockingly, just 16 percent of white Americans believe that there is considerable racial discrimination. Although it’s undeniable that we’ve made significant progress in civil rights, racism shows up in a variety of damaging ways. For example, according to a study, white Americans believe children of color feel less pain than white children. Such thinking isn’t evident among 5-year-olds, whose compassion hasn’t narrowed yet, though racial preference for white friends shows up that early. Additionally, white people judge black children to be older than they are, more dangerous and less innocent and also think lighter skinned people are “more intelligent, competent, trustworthy and reliable than their darker-skinned peers.” In Oregon schools, these realities show up in disproportionate discipline among students of color, increasing barriers to graduation.
Although today’s racism isn’t always easy to spot like in the past (e.g., slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, denial of citizenship, forced movement into residential schools, refusal to grant voting privileges, legal denial of housing, segregation of public services and “separate yet equal” education), it is alive and well. The progress we’ve made as a society has fallen drastically short of equity between people of color and whites. Research shows stark inequality in nearly every social and life indicator: education, income, wealth, home ownership, health, the justice system, the child welfare system, employment systems, higher education and many more. Some believe these inequalities exist as unfortunate historical remnants of a bygone era; the evidence, however, suggests something altogether different. Inequality is substantial and hasn’t budged; in many cases, it’s getting worse.
In education, racism shows up in public policy, too. Early learning opportunities based on who can afford it, do greater harm to children of color who disproportionately experience poverty. Children of color enter kindergarten already behind their white peers. And when public investment in education fails to keep pace with need, resulting in cuts to activities, curriculum and teachers, who manages to maintain a well-rounded education? Those who can afford it. Again, this leaves behind students in poor communities, often students of color. Whose histories are in the curriculum and whose are ignored or given little attention? Does our educator workforce reflect the vibrant diversity of Oregon students? These forms of racism exist not by intention (harm is meant), but by impact (harm is done).
One barrier to progress in equitable education is that advocates must continually make the case that racism exists, that it is pervasive and that it limits the academic progress of students of color. One writer put it this way: “If Americans assume racism is less of a problem [after Obama], then misperception may make it tough to get resources.”
A crucial action in debunking the “post-race” myth is to inform Oregonians about the type and depth of racial disparities that exist in our schools and the education system as a whole. Ask hard questions about patterns that create disparities and be prepared for the uncomfortable realization that the ideas, strategies, programs and institutions that we support, may actually be a part of the problem.
Another crucial action is to understand that as students of color in Oregon face deep, racialized challenges, white students are granted benefits that result from being white, instead of the result of effort or intelligence. This is a result of long-standing and deeply embedded racial hierarchies, with whites benefitting while people of color face barriers to equal progress. For example, which students do the teachers get to know, which names do they learn to pronounce correctly and which students are encouraged more? Research tells us that white teachers (who make up 90 percent of Oregon’s educator workforce) do a better job at teaching white students. For those not deeply engaged in education equity, this may be surprising. However, it also presents an opportunity to better understand the damaging effects of racism and the importance of unpacking privilege.
Racism can best be defeated when we notice it, acknowledge it and get to work on changing it. It’s a long, tough road, but the need is urgent and the future prosperity of our state depends on it. Let’s get to work.
I welcome your thoughts on this series of myths and myth-busting.
Matt Morton, director of Meyer's Equitable Education portfolio, interviewed Edgar Villanueva, Vice President of Programs and Advocacy at the Schott Foundation for Public Education and board chair of Native Americans in Philanthropy.
They sat down together at the Native Americans in Philanthropy Summit in Los Angeles in May for a dialogue on equity, education, affinity groups and impact.
Matt Morton:
I was inspired by your recent article, “Sit In It,” which ran in the Huffington Post. You say “To achieve equity, philanthropies must make space for deeply troubling conversations, and keep having them.” So I’m really curious about that, embracing that discomfort, particularly in philanthropy. Talk with me about embracing discomfort when working toward equity in your work at the Schott Foundation and Native Americans in Philanthropy. What are some of the barriers you see, working in philanthropy, that have acted as barriers to authentic equity work?
Edgar Villanueva:
I’m pushing the philanthropic sector to have uncomfortable conversations that consider the origin of our work, the wealth to do this work—the source of the money. What I’ve found is that there are some great foundations that have really come to terms with how this wealth was accumulated—for the most part because of privilege—and in many cases, it was earned on the backs of people of color. Therefore, philanthropy must acknowledge that, apologize for that history, and be earnest in the equitable distribution of the wealth through our grantmaking strategies. Our priority is returning these resources to the communities from whence they came.
We must also acknowledge that private philanthropy exists in this country because of our tax system, which benefits the wealthy. Philanthropic dollars would have gone into the public trust; however, because of the tax benefits, there’s the opportunity for wealthy individuals or families to start their own foundations. However, if trustees and those who start foundations appreciate that the purpose of the funding is to benefit the public (and not money that is intended to preserve a family's legacy of wealth), it really results in a different kind of grantmaking strategy.
Take, for example, the Northwest Area Foundation in Minneapolis. They acknowledged that their money was made from the railroad business. Its founder built railroad tracks from Minneapolis all the way to the West Coast. As a result, several Native communities were negatively affected by the accumulation of that wealth. So now the foundation is very intentional about Native Nations in that region as a form of undoing the harm caused to those communities.
Matt Morton:
Yeah, 40 percent of their grantmaking is reserved for investment in tribal communities.
Edgar Villanueva:
Exactly. The wealth of that region is rooted in Native lands and communities, and the foundation committed to both acknowledging and honoring that history. That’s why they’ve devoted 40 percent of new grant dollars to Native-led organizations working to advance economic, social, and cultural prosperity in the region.
As another example, I’ve been talking with the leadership of the NoVo Foundation, who are getting a lot of things right in terms of truly listening to people impacted by disparities. They are designing a grantmaking strategy that truly reflects what they’ve heard. Often in the past, philanthropy used focus groups to say that they listened and then put out a grantmaking strategy that is really only what they thought should happen in the community. But if you read what Peter and Jennifer Buffett have written about NoVo and their approach to philanthropy, you will see that they have a profound awareness of their privilege, and they’ve also gone through a lot of reflection on their end to decolonize their thinking about wealth and giving. It really shows up in their grantmaking practices. NoVo is very committed to gender and racial justice, and they have an Indigenous communities portfolio. They are investing significant money into communities of color. So I think those who hold power and privilege at the top of these foundations have a responsibility to say, “Okay, because of the historical context that provided the opportunity for me to have these resources, it is my duty then to pay it back in a way that is respectful and supportive of those communities that had a part in generating this wealth but did not benefit from it.”
Matt Morton:
So, you’ve served on the board of Native Americans in Philanthropy for a number of years, and you were recently elected chair. What are your thoughts on philanthropic “affinity” groups and the role they play in philanthropy nationwide?
Edgar Villanueva:
I see great value in affinity groups. One critique that I have of philanthropy is that we love to talk, process, and intellectualize a lot. I could spend all of my time every day just talking to other funders, and there are numerous affinity groups to facilitate those connections. I think we have to assess which networks are providing value in pushing our work forward, those that are creating spaces for collaborative investment opportunities. The lens that I use is this: if being a part of this group is going to result in more money or move more resources to the communities that I care about, then I’m interested in being a part of it and trying to make that happen. I am interested in ongoing learning about issues. However, I operate with a sense of urgency and action so participating in networks that align with those values work best for me.
Identity-based affinity groups are important for a number of reasons. They provide support and networking opportunities for people of color and other marginalized communities in this field. This can be a difficult sector to work in if you come from a marginalized community. Those groups also provide critical education and information about various communities within the field. And they create opportunities for us to advocate and mobilize resources in a way that presents leveraging opportunities that we might not have otherwise.
I’m convinced that there is more money being invested in communities of color today because of the leadership of affinity groups who are pushing for it.
Matt Morton:
So it sounds like it’s a real balance between the significant need of representation of communities of color, marginalized communities and underrepresented communities in philanthropy with the sort of intellectual circling that happens in philanthropy, the tendency in this field to, “let’s talk it to death because we have that privilege. We have that opportunity to.”
Edgar Villanueva:
Absolutely. And it’s really important. If you’re Native like me, most of us are probably the only Natives in our organizations, seeing that there are only about 25 Natives that work in institutional philanthropy across the U.S. Native Americans in Philanthropy provides a platform for us to connect with one another, to amplify issues in our community and to be able to really advocate for investment in our communities in a way that we would not be able to do individually.
These kind of affinity groups are also providing a seat at the table and providing a platform for collective advocacy for increased philanthropic investment and advancing equity across the field.
Matt Morton:
Sometimes it’s very clear that people don’t understand what equity is and they confuse it with equality. So, because your foundation is focused on equitable education, I wondered if you’d explain in that context of education, what is the difference between equity and equality?
Edgar Villanueva:
I come from a public health background and started working health philanthropy, and I went in thinking that people who are trained in public health have a basic understanding of equity, right? We were trained in the social determinates of health, so we understand that race and ethnicity matter, where you live matters, your income level matters. All these social conditions are indicators that will likely determine your ability to live a healthy life.
Education is very different, even within philanthropy. Often race/ethnicity is something that is not talked about. Because education is a right that every child has in this country, people make assumptions that all kids are getting the same quality of education. We know this is not the case because schools in low-wealth communities, many serving kids of color, are grossly under-resourced, which leads to all kinds of problems in the system. The decisions that are made around education are very personal. And it’s very hard for someone to compromise or make a decision that may not be in the best interests of their child for the sake of the greater good.
In the past, philanthropic and advocacy work in education was often described through an “achievement gap” frame, which is really a negative narrative about how people of color are not achieving. Schott, early on, began to promote a frame around the opportunity gap versus the achievement gap. It’s not that kids of color are unable to achieve at the same level as other kids, but there’s an opportunity gap because kids are not starting in the same place due to the injustices that exist in the system and in community.
There are also other factors impacting kids of color outside of their classroom, like the ability of their parents to earn a living wage in their community or access to health care, in addition to the opportunity to learn.
The simple way to think about equity versus equality is to ask where are we starting from? You know if all things were equal at the very beginning of the start then applying the same amount of resources, programming, and intervention for everyone would be just fine. But you have to understand that a lot of kids of color are showing up in schools from day one with a lot of disadvantages that have to be compensated for in order for them to be on the same playing field as other kids.
Matt Morton:
One of the things that we’ve done at Meyer over the last year or so is to work hard to create that shared definition of equitable education and when we talk about our vision for equitable education we say we’re working towards “ensuring meaningful public education for all.”
You’ve already defined what equity in education means to you, but in a world where we have all of these competing definitions, why do you think it matters that we actually have a common definition, whether within a foundation or within a sector?
Edgar Villanueva:
Language is a start but we have to deconstruct and dig into what we mean by equity and what we mean by education for all. We often say, “we believe all kids should have access to a high-quality education.” But who doesn’t believe that all kids should have a high-quality education? If you really want to dig deep into equity, it’s important to be more explicit.
Equity is a major buzzword right now in the field, but many are still figuring out how to operationalize it. Equity has been on the marquee for some big conferences. But I think that equity and conversations about race, gender, homophobia, all of those things have to be really explicit. Otherwise it just kind of gets lost in foundation-talk. I think that boys and girls of color in education are in many ways, the canary in the coalmine. Denying educational opportunities for kids of color demonstrates the inequities that exist in our system that ultimately will end up hurting all kids. If we’re not really investing in the places where the deepest hurt is, the result is, all kids are not going to be lifted up.
Matt Morton:
There’s a lot of stuff there that you said, and all resonates with me but a couple specifically that I want to call out. One is Dr. john a. powell and this Targeted Universalism approach. When we talked about “all kids,” it becomes a majority strategy, and that majority strategy continues to leave out those kids that have already been marginalized and left out. So really designing a targeted strategy around the students in education who have been historically underserved and marginalized becomes essential. One of the ways we’ve done that at Meyer within Equitable Education is that we’ve specifically called out our priority populations because, well frankly, equity is our title, and data can very accurately tell us those students who have experienced the opportunity gap.
So we’ve identified underserved communities: students of color, students living in poverty, students who are english language learners, those with disabilities and those who are first-generation college going; because we see compounding issues across all of those different categories, when you see students of color, you oftentimes also see students in poverty. When you look at your immigrant and refugee community, who are often of color, also in poverty, also learning English as a second language, and you tend to have compounding barriers to a positive, meaningful education.
So I really appreciate your commentary. For me, someone who is new in philanthropy still, it feels good that I have someone like you who, with your background in education and healthcare, is echoing the things that we’ve been focusing on over this last year while building our portfolio.
The other thing too I should mention, I think I shared this with you: We were invited to join an education funders group. I’m interested engaging with that group and, selfishly, I want to see more resources from those national funders find their way to Oregon. But certainly, if, in our little way we can start to drive the conversation around how we invest philanthropic dollars in public education, particularly in public education for our priority populations, I think that would be a huge win.
Edgar Villanueva:
Yes it would! And I would add two things.
In philanthropy data is very important. In 2006, Schott published our very first 50-State Report on Public Education and Black Males. It’s also known as the “Black Boys Report,” which has state-by-state analysis of academic achievement through a race and gender lens.
We consider the Black Boys Report to be a significant contribution to supporting a new conversation in the country about disparities for black boys. Schott was instrumental in starting the conversation within philanthropy that then snowballed to become the Executives’ Alliance that focuses on boys and men of color within philanthropy, which then influenced the launch of My Brother’s Keeper. We feel very proud that a relatively small foundation was successful in leveraging increased investment in the field as a result of compelling data and Schott’s philanthropic advocacy.
Data is critical in driving resource allocation decisions. I was just talking yesterday with someone who works at a health foundation that has a strong focus on equity. She ran a report of their investment data to have a better analysis of who they were funding. She wanted to understand how many of their grantees were led by people of color with the assumption that if grantee organizations are led by people of color and are working in communities of color, the foundation was going to get to some greater parity in its investments. She found that the majority of the foundation’s funding was going to white-led institutional organizations. When she presented that data to her colleagues—she being one of the only persons of color working in this organization—she was personally attacked. She was called “righteous” and then there was justification made to not fund groups (led by people of color) because, “they don’t have the capacity” or “there are plenty of white-led groups that do really good work.” So there are still barriers, even with clear data. If we’re not cautious and very intentional, I think we can justify our way out of not doing the right thing even when we’re presented with the truth.
I appreciate the shared vision for equity that exists between Schott and Meyer. I first heard about the work that you were doing when I lived in Seattle. You have been very explicit about what you’re trying to do, and intentional, and a lot of that has been championed by the leadership of the foundation, which I think is very, very important. More often than not, I see a program officer, a person of color, or someone else within an organization who really “gets it.” They are trying to push things forward in the right direction, and it’s like moving a boulder up the hill when you don’t have the backing of the board and the leadership. I know that your CEO has been very open and honest about what needed to happen at the foundation and was very intentional about recruitment and hiring and the direction of the foundation. Your transparency is so helpful for others to see and understand. It’s okay if you don’t know, or you don’t have all the answers. We all can learn and do better. I appreciate that about you all.
Matt Morton:
Thank you for saying that, it really means a lot, and I would agree, it’s one of the reasons why Meyer attracted me away from the community work that I was doing.
So one of the first questions I asked you was about “leaning in” or “sitting in” it, you know, being uncomfortable. You mentioned the organizations that have done that tend to have a different way of grantmaking, and that grantmaking is focused on actually responding in a way that is reflective of what the communities are seeking versus what the philanthropic organization thinks the communities want. So there was an article recently about how the education sector should reach out to communities to better engage students and their families.
Within Meyer’s Equitable Education portfolio, we really put a lot of stock in the importance of community self-determination, recognizing community expertise and agency to determine the most effective strategies to increase student achievement. How we define it within community is that the community are experts of their own experience. How do you see that approach? Or, have you seen that approach positively impact outcomes in your work with historically underserved communities? And the reason why I’m asking, I should say, because I think this will, as we invest more in this way, within the Equitable Education portfolio, for example, the more scrutiny will be placed on it if we don’t see immediate return on investment. So I’m looking to you, is this a nice thing to say, or is this something we can actually demonstrate? This self-determination works, community-driven solutions work, does it work better than the “white savior” mentality that philanthropy often has: go in, drop the solution, then leave.
Edgar Villanueva:
It begins with our values. Are we seeking to really understand equity and to do the hard, sometime uncomfortable work of changing our internal systems and practices to reflect our understanding? At Schott, we truly believe that change is best achieved when the community’s impacted by injustices are significantly engaged as the leaders. Communities must lead with solutions. The majority of our investments support community-based movement-building organizations. We support activism by students, parents, and teachers who are putting external demands on school districts, on states, and at the federal level to bring about systemic and policy change to advance an equal opportunity to learn for all students.
In terms of having a return on investment, if you believe and lead with that value— that it’s critical that student voice, parent voice be at the table—there has to be resources provided to get them there. In most cases they’re not automatically invited in. Schott's funding has supported creating space for student voice and parent voice to be heard.
For example, in Mississippi, Schott supports an organization called Southern Echo. Southern Echo was successful in creating parent councils around the state. Now significant decisions that are being made by the districts are mandated to engage parents from these councils in decisions that impact education. And that’s a good thing. Some parents may not be engaged because they don’t feel empowered or invited to the table. If you create and support these mechanisms for engagement, for them to not just be at the table but for their voice and their solutions to be meaningful contributions to the decisions that are being made, you see positive outcomes.
Of course, we measure success too. Schott Foundation is a public foundation, which means that we raise money and rely on donors to support our programs. Articulating outcomes is important. Consider this about movement-building. If a movement can be built, then you can measure how it’s growing, how it’s being built, if it’s getting larger. Is the constituent base growing? Are the number of people engaged in public education growing? And what are the systemic and policies wins that came about from the groups that we’re supporting? How many people were impacted by those wins? At Schott, we track these types of indicators. We know that there is higher return on investment on grants made for advocacy versus programs.
Where you have to exercise some caution, is that ROI is not always about a policy win. We don’t win all the time and when we do, implementation is a whole different issue. There are other measures of success that must be considered. In some ways, I’m grappling with this, as are many grantees who are required to report on their advocacy efforts. I am looking at policy and system wins, and I am looking at the impact of the reach and the capacity of our grantees. Again, evaluation of this work comes back to our values set. I don’t believe in my years in this work that we would have seen so much progressive policy change without the demand for it from communities. So investing in that community demand and power is imperative, even if it’s hard to measure.
Matt Morton:
Yeah. You know, I really, appreciate that, in fact, let me just take a minute to tell you what we’ve kind of experienced here. So we have three goals within Equitable Education; the first one is building a unified movement around equitable education. The second is around systems and policy change, because we recognize that there are organizations better equipped to be engaged in community, and we recognize organizations are better equipped in that direct policy and systems change work. And then the third goal is around increasing student achievement for priority populations. So we recently had 163 eligible applications that came in. A good 70 percent of those landed in goal three and 30 percent landed in the first two goals. With the first goal, movement building, I think we got maybe a total of 12 applications. And what that really told me was that the system, the two plus decades of disinvestment in public education in Oregon, has driven all of our community-based organizations, our service providers, nonprofit and otherwise, into this space of backfilling public education.
So now we’re very early in the process of reviewing proposals and making recommendations for consideration, but I’m already thinking we have a lot of work to do to prepare organizations to have authentic relationships with communities where they can start to do the organizing, engagement and movement building before they’re even ready to accept resources for those purposes.
Edgar Villanueva:
I’ve been a part of funding the progressive movement for some time, mostly supporting multi-issue work. When I was at the Marguerite Casey Foundation, we didn’t have a lot of grantees with an education focus. Most of the groups that were doing educational organizing were multi-issue, so it was a part of their platform. They might have been organizing around minimum wage, economic justice, and education. There are a handful of national education-focused coalitions, and a lot of organizing is done by labor. The movement is growing.
At Schott, I have a pretty good sense of the national landscape. I know the national networks who are doing education justice work and again, it’s a pretty small universe compared with the worker’s rights movement, for example. There’s also a dynamic of unions that comes into play. I do believe that post-election, education has absolutely been elevated as an issue of concern to the public. People who have not been paying attention to education or have focused on other issues are now prioritizing the fight for public education. For example, People’s Action is one of the largest base-building organizations in the country. They are very powerful with a massive membership base that covers most of the country. They were a grantee of mine when I was at Marguerite Casey Foundation. At that time, they were primarily focused on economic justice and immigration. They are now talking about public education too. The past several e-mails I’ve received from them have been about the education budget, so I think there is an awakening in the broader progressive movement about what’s happening in education and the need to organize around it. If you truly believe that public education is the last mainstay of our democracy and how our democracy is threatened by privatization, then you have a lot of cause to be alarmed right now.
Matt Morton:
Thank you. So there’s one more question; I mentioned our Equitable Education portfolio, this is our first annual funding opportunity. We received 163 eligible applications requesting about $22 million. Over the next three years, we have $7.8 million that we can commit. Out the door this year: $5.2 million. I just wanted to know, do you have any advice for us as we prioritize our investments for impact?
Edgar Villanueva:
Yes. A couple things to think about: being new at Meyer and this portfolio being pretty fresh, having an open call may be helpful because you get a sense of the landscape. Over time, however, I would think about a way to narrow down the number of applications I was reviewing, perhaps by invitation only, or to have very specific types of RFPs or ROIs. This is a growing trend. There are ways to be very transparent about the process, and I’ve found that grantees appreciate not applying if they’re not really a fit.
Put a priority on funding groups that are working with communities of color. My first “yes” pile would automatically be groups that are working with communities of color, that are led by people of color. But you can’t necessarily apply the same criteria across the board . This is where a lot of these groups lose out, because if you have blanket selection criteria, such as budget size, then you may automatically be cutting out grassroots groups led by people of color.
It’s okay to give those proposals special treatment. That is equity - it’s special treatment and special consideration. One of the first steps I’d make is to try to find a way to say “yes” even if those applications are missing a budget attachments, or you have to do some follow-up to get more information. That is the work that is required to make sure those groups have access to resources. They may not have a development director who’s going to submit a well-written perfect application. We must be willing to do the work to support the success of their proposals.
Matt Morton:
Thank you. This is precisely the message I’ve delivered to my team as we’ve been reviewing these. We want to create a fair system but with the recognition that, in fact, equity compels us to look at things in a way that may not be, to address things in a way that may not be, to respond to things in a way that may not be what we expect or what we’ve been doing in the past.
You touched on something else, where we sort of “white-splain” the reasons why organizations aren’t sophisticated and the reasons why we don’t fund them because they don’t fit into this nice, pretty package that we expect to see. I think that's been one of the bigger challenges that we have faced organizationally, and as a sector, as equity has been attempted. To operationalize equity often means that, all of a sudden, it just doesn’t look the same. It’s hard, and it’s messy, and it takes more time and with the concern of the risk involved. And philanthropy isn’t known for its risk taking generally.
Edgar Villanueva:
Right. In philanthropy, we’ve learned to find ways to say “no.” On one hand, a lot of foundations aren’t clear what they want to say “yes” to, so it’s just easier to say “no” to a lot of things.
Matt Morton:
Right.
Edgar Villanueva:
And then be really clear about what you want to say “yes” to and then that would guide you into being more transparent about it in the future.
It’s easy to create sweeping criteria to cut things out because of the large number of proposals to read. And you must exercise the understanding that what is reflected in this proposal is not necessarily reality. Anyone can hire an amazing grant writer to write a proposal. Many times, I’ve seen beautifully written proposals that do not reflect the real impact. You have to take the proposal with a grain of salt.
Proposals are just another step in the approval process. For me, other parts include the community knowledge that you have, and that’s great because you’re a place-based funder, so you know what’s going on and where some impact could be, just from the context of things. You might get some other information from a site visit. All of these information sources should be put into the soup that leads to finding a way to “yes” and “no” and not putting too much weight on a piece of paper, that we don’t know who wrote, or if someone is just so busy doing the work that they just don’t have the right tools and abilities to articulate it in a proposal.
Schott funds almost all small, grassroots organizations and when I tell you that I’ve had to sit on the phone and help type a proposal for people because they’re driving across the rural South or wherever and they don’t have time, it’s true. By any means necessary to support the right work. We don’t want our complicated process to prevent us from funding amazing work on the ground.
Meyer’s Healthy Environment Portfolio supports efforts to change the status quo so that the benefits of a healthy environment reach all our communities, particularly those that experience disparities. To advance this vision, there must be greater alignment among the interests, campaigns and priorities of advocates and organizations. We also believe that the voices of marginalized and most negatively impacted communities must play a leadership role in defining solutions because we all benefit when those most impacted benefit. Together, alignment and community voice will allow us to be successful with larger social and environmental change in the future.
Using that lens, we recently caught up with four 2016 grantee partners who were active in the recent legislative session.
Here’s what they said when we asked: In what ways, if any, did Oregon’s environmental movement become more aligned to advance change for a just, sustainable future and/or safeguard core environmental protections?
OPAL is dedicated to bringing meaningful engagement of the most impacted communities to processes that weren’t designed with our participation in mind. Throughout numerous campaigns at the local, regional and state level, we have learned that without our involvement in the crafting, implementation and evaluation of programs and policies, our communities become an afterthought or at times even a bargaining chip. This legislative session gave us opportunities to call out wedge issues (rejecting the antiquated jobs vs. environment frame with the climate jobs bill), build across movements (housing and land use advocates testifying in support of transit investments) and address historic harms with the mainstream environmental movement.
One area where we experienced strong collaboration was with the Youth Transit Bill, which would have allowed for local school districts to utilize existing public transit service in their school catchment area to provide transportation to educational and other education-enhancing services through a bus pass valid throughout the school year. While we had signs of progress throughout the session of both grassroots and legislative support, the bill ultimately did not succeed this session. We will continue to engage within our movement to bring about this change at the state, local and regional level.
Some environmental groups — namely Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon League of Conservation Voters and Climate Solutions — supported the Coalition of Communities of Color lobby day this session, providing volunteers and staff support for the day and to lobby. OEC also joined NAACP’s lobby day to support passage of the racial profile bill.
OPAL was a key member of the Transportation for Oregon’s Future Coalition. We worked with OPAL to develop the low-income provisions of the electric vehicle rebates. The coalition of groups worked together well and stayed focused on the collective priorities of the coalition.
I see new energy and commitment from environmental organizations to link environment and social justice issues. Beyond Toxics has long been advocating for using a justice lens for all environmental work, so it’s exciting to witness a growing understanding about connections between environmental harm and unequitable impacts on vulnerable Oregonians. It was really heartening for me to be in the state capitol working on issues as varied as clean energy, pollinator protection, correcting inequities in our judicial system, clean drinking water and herbicide pollution in rural communities.
For example, we’re not only talking about clean energy itself and how much fossil fuel we're going to use, but we were simultaneously talking about making sure that clean energy economy provides good jobs for those who have traditionally not benefited from energy policy. So we stood hand in hand with the NAACP and helped them deliver their clean energy and jobs report which we are a co-sponsor of. And we worked hard to promote the clean energy and clean energy jobs bill. These coalitions are bringing new life, I think, to the environmental movement and helping us be better partners with social justice movements.
While working to reduce carbon emissions from transportation, the environmental movement is increasingly embracing a social justice framework for policy decisions. In the campaign to increase funding for transit, many environmental and community leaders worked together to ensure that the transportation funding package requires potential recipients of transit funding to identify how they will address concerns of low income communities in their plans to spend the money. This additional policy requirement is one small example of the growing partnerships among community-based groups to align environmental goals with the goals of people experiencing negative disparities.
The leaders also reflected on session highlights. The following are excerpts from their responses focusing on the highlights they shared that include environmental benefit as well as benefits to most impacted communities.
Gerik:
The transportation funding package includes a record investment, over $10 million per year, in new Safe Routes to School improvements in the 1-mile radius of schools for kids to get to and from school safely. The impact will be greater in low-income communities due to a reduced funding match requirement for school districts eligible for federal Title I assistance where over 50 percent of students are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches.
Lisa:
We helped introduce Senate Bill 892, which would have served rural communities by requiring that they receive advance notice about any kind of aerial pesticide spray in their vicinity. At this point in time in Oregon, there are few legal protections for people who live next to agricultural or timber lands that are sprayed. Oregon state agencies don’t monitor pesticide drift; enforcement of drift incidences is pretty minimal and is very much slanted in favor of the industry. So Oregonians who live in rural areas are really at a disadvantage.
While this bill didn’t pass, all the media that was generated around Oregonians in rural areas being harmed by aerial herbicide spray drifts pushed the Department of Forestry to improve their electronic Spray Notification System. So even though it's not the advance warning we were looking for, at least now the department of forestry has created a system where you can learn about pending sprays coming up near your property three to six months out. It's an improvement, it's a step in the right direction. Rural voices are now being heard because we've brought this issue to the legislature two sessions in a row, which puts pressure on the department of forestry to address this issue.
In addition, we helped craft Senate Bill 995, the Toxics Right-to-Know bill. Very much an environmental justice issue, SB 995 would require industry to provide very exact information about how many pounds of toxic chemicals are polluting the air in neighborhoods and communities. This bill also didn't pass, however, because of exposing this issue, the Department of Environmental Quality is now requiring the worst polluters to submit a toxics inventory to the state agency. Even though it doesn't make the detailed toxics release information public, for the first time ever in the history of our state, our air protection agency is collecting data on what actually goes up into the air from smokestacks.
Huy:
We advocated for explicit language regarding how transit districts will use the new funds generated by the transportation package. That includes submitting a plan in advance of receiving the funds explaining how transit providers will meet the needs of low income riders. Mechanisms include increasing the frequency of bus service in communities with a high percentage of low-income households, expanding bus routes and service, improving frequency and reliability of connections between transit providers (a key win for rural Oregonians), and fulfilling Bus Riders Unite’s local advocacy for a low-income fare (Low Income Fare Equity or LIFE) by suggesting implementation of reduced fare programs.
Another related win was the passage of Senate Bill 357 and House Bill 2777, advancing transit justice and racial justice to impacted people. SB 357 changes the level of penalties transit riders receive when utilizing their only mode of transportation. HB 2777 takes certain violations out of criminal court and lets transit agencies levy fines directly, preventing many instances of first contact with law enforcement. OPAL will continue to push for such policies to go further and not penalize individuals in our communities who depend on public transit for the crime of being poor.
Andrea:
The transportation package includes the largest statewide investment — $103 million per year — in public transit that Oregon has ever seen, including support for transit for rural Oregon and benefits for low-income commuters that included $12 million for rebates on fares for low-income TriMet riders. It means more choices to get around and makes it easier for seniors to get to medical appointments and maintain their independence. Plus expanding public transit service reduces pollution.
These are only a few examples where broader alliances worked collaboratively and successfully to advance environmental and social justice priorities during the session. There are numerous other examples, including many that represent incremental progress for legislative action in future sessions. Also there were many missed opportunities and disappointments and, overall, advocates who care deeply about a healthy environment felt like the session fell far short of what was possible.
The Meyer Healthy Environment team appreciates the vision, hard work and creativity of our grantee partners and the many other organizations that contributed to the policy successes that were accomplished this session and the groundwork laid for future wins and larger-scale change.
— Jill
Click here to read the full text of our interviews with Lisa, Huy, Gerik and Andrea
Salsa, tango, the running man, Highland jig: These were a few dance styles offered by the audience at the annual CONNECT conference in Pendleton in May. I began my keynote speech by asking the audience to shout out their favorite dance style in popcorn fashion.
The title of my talk was “Dancing with JEDI: Creating a Just, Equitable, Diverse and Inclusive Environmental Movement.” Why dance? Because no one approach to justice, equity, diversity and inclusion fits all. Challenges around justice, equity, diversity and inclusion are unique to the situation and people involved and require different, creative approaches to succeed. When working with individuals, groups and communities, the diversity of ways of operating are just as diverse as the numerous ways of executing the multitude of dance styles.
The crowd was mainly people from land trusts, soil and water conservation districts, watershed councils, and government agencies across rural Oregon. The questions that brought us together: What does equity look like for organizations working in rural communities and how is equity applied to the work?
Meyer’s definition of equity is “the existence of conditions where all people can reach their full potential.” In our grantmaking, this means supporting organizations and efforts that provide positive outcomes for communities facing disparities. Some of those communities the Healthy Environmental portfolio has explicitly identified are, but not limited to, low-income communities, tribes and indigenous communities, communities of color, refugees, and immigrants. The two populations most commonly discussed in my interactions with rural environmental organizations are communities of color and low-income communities, so I focused on these communities as I shared equity concepts that day in Pendleton.
Racial and ethnic equity
“Equity doesn’t apply here.”
“There are no people of color where we live.”
“We are not racially diverse.”
These are a few of the statements I’ve heard when discussing racial equity in rural Oregon. They’re often wrong.
The notion that there are not people of color in rural Oregon is simply false. On the contrary, plenty of people of color reside in communities across the state’s vast rural areas. According to the 2016 U.S. Census Bureau estimate, five of the six Oregon counties with the highest percentages of people of color are rural. Morrow, Jefferson, Malheur, Hood River and Umatilla counties range from 34 percent to 41 percent people of color. In the few regions where people of color make up less than 10 percent of the population, communities of color are extremely marginalized and need support now more than ever.
(Note: The U.S. Census Bureau often shares data for two similar sounding racial categories: “White alone” and “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.” “White alone” includes Hispanics who identify as white. Those who identify as “Hispanic or Latino,” which is treated as an ethnic category in the U.S. census data, are asked to identify a race, which may be “White alone," “Black or African American alone," “American Indian and Alaska Native alone," “Asian alone," “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone," or “Two or More Races”. Meyer focuses on the “White Non-Hispanic or Latino” population, which is often a much lower percentage — by up to 30 percentage points than the “White alone” category. For example, in Malheur County, 92.1 percent of the population identifies as “White alone” while just 61.6 percent identified as “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.” If misinterpreted, this data can mislead even the well-intentioned.)
Socioeconomic equity
The Healthy Environment portfolio frequently receives applications from rural organizations that identify support for low-income communities without mentioning how low-income communities are included and benefiting from their work or how the perspective of low-income communities has shaped the project plan. Since equity outcomes are most effectively accomplished through intention and purpose, we seek a deliberate approach to serving and providing value for communities facing disparities. In other words, we seek a clear demonstration of how low-income communities benefit because of the organization’s work. For example, are those below the poverty line receiving jobs or other economic benefits because of the organization’s work? Are low-income communities directly receiving the environmental benefits of the organization’s work?
Working in partnership
Meyer’s mission is to “work with and invest in organizations, communities, ideas and efforts that contribute to a flourishing and equitable Oregon.” Simply put, we are here to partner with and support organizations in both grantmaking and non-grantmaking capacities. This past spring, Meyer’s Healthy Environment portfolio hosted two webinars featuring rural organizations, Lomakatsi Restoration Project,Maxville Heritage Interpretive Center, and Rogue Climate, that included equitable approaches to their work. We also presented at a conference focused on water resources planning efforts in regions around Oregon where the idea of identifying and addressing “voice gaps” in community engagement and collaborative efforts was an approach to include equity. These non-grantmaking activities provided us with crucial opportunities to have in-depth conversations about equity with rural organizations.
Furthermore, we encourage organizations to meet with us to discuss how equity fits or might fit into their work. I recently met with an executive director of an organization based in eastern Oregon. Initially, he did not believe that equity applied to his work. As he shared the activities of his organization, we realized that he may be addressing socioeconomic equity, such as creating jobs and reducing the poverty rate in his county. The executive director left to explore these connections as he prepares an application for Meyer’s 2018 annual grant cycle.
As I closed my keynote speech in Pendleton, I shared an Emma Goldman quote, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution,” which can be interpreted “to be a part of your crucial work, you need to let me dance the way I like to dance.” Meyer’s Healthy Environment team is committed to partnering with rural organizations so that all of our communities prosper, dancing and moving in our own dance style, creating, together, an Oregon that is flourishing and equitable for all.
I’m often asked what I’m seeing from my seat at Meyer since I have somewhat of a bird’s-eye view of the ecosystem of nonprofits working for a healthy environment across the state. So, I thought I would share a few recent observations with an aspiration of helping support further development of the diverse and inclusive movement we need to ensure the long-term health of our communities and the environment.
Top of mind is the current political climate and how it’s affecting organizations working for a healthy environment. I’m also mindful of Meyer’s equity lens, which we apply to all our work, and our responsibility to be transparent about what we are learning and seeing. Together these provide the backdrop for my observations.
1. Many organizations are feeling strained, but they are also resilient and building strength
With basic environmental protections, action on climate change and public lands protection in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and a polluter-friendly U.S. Congress in place, many organizations working for a healthy environment are stepping up their defensive efforts or joining forces with others to protect key environmental protections and recent gains. In some cases, groups have had to shift priorities to do more rapid response work, which has increased stress and also affected funding needs and direction.
Organizations of color and other organizations whose core constituents are “frontline communities” — those that experience oppression and disparities based on one or more identities — and who also work on environmental issues are doubly strained. However, they are also doubling down on resistance. In the face of attacks by the Trump administration and rising hate crimes, they are drawing upon their resiliency and organizing experience to support their communities and advance larger goals for change.
At the same time, many organizations have experienced a post-election surge in individual contributions, which is providing some of the unrestricted resources they need to help navigate the new political environment and shift priorities. In addition, some funders have deployed new flexible resources to help address these needs. We recognize the need for more sustained and flexible support.
Because of Oregon’s current political leadership, we’re hearing from national environmental partners who see the opportunity to bring new capacity to Oregon for positive work, particularly focused on climate and clean energy. This means that Oregon may get a boost in capacity to support current policy efforts and help develop strategies for success that could be replicated elsewhere.
2. Partnerships between mainstream environmental organizations and organizations led by frontline communities are increasing, but most appear to be focused on transactional vs. transformational change.
When I reflect on specific on-the-ground projects that we are learning about through our annual funding opportunity, I’m seeing more mutually beneficial transactional work and some seeds of transformational change. I distinguish “mutually beneficial transactional work” from “transactional work” in that the former is actually positive and beneficial to both partners, versus the latter, which is extractive and has negative impact on the underserved communities and the organization serving them. One-off mutually beneficial transactional work can produce wins for both parties, but these partnerships do not alter the fundamental form or function of the existing power structure, institutions or systems that define how things work. These systems are fundamentally flawed in that they are built on a power structure that consistently privileges certain groups over others.
Mutually beneficial transactional work can be a useful first step in advancing change but must evolve into change efforts that aim for transformation. Transformational change requires a greater investment and will on the part of all partners. It requires a willingness and commitment to altering the fundamental power structures and relationships in society and creating new systems built upon principles of organizational sustainability and equity.
3. Organizations are beginning to look for ways to deepen and expand their collaborative work.
In response to the tense and rapidly changing political environment, I’ve heard about and participated in a number of convenings of organizational leaders that share the common theme of building relationships to lay groundwork for new and deeper collaboration. Environmental justice and social justice organizations, tribal organizations, other groups serving frontline communities and funders have been most active in these conversations.
A modest number of Oregon’s mainstream environmental organizations have been engaged in these discussions as well. However, many environmental groups have not yet been invited to participate at these tables because their relationships with organizations serving frontline communities are only emerging. I would like to help support the appropriate next steps to broaden the tables that have emerged and foster deeper relationships to move beyond tactical and transactional work toward transformational, movement-scale efforts.
I believe that more strategic convening can help unify and align efforts, strengthen channels of communication between organizations and build alliances for larger social and environmental change in the future.
4. Environmentalists are joining protests against racism and working to develop more inclusive, equitable and diverse organizations.
Although we’ve seen some recent missteps and there is still far to go to build an anti-racist environmental movement in Oregon, we are seeing a growing number of examples of mainstream environmental organizations taking action to protest racism and act as allies to people of color, immigrants and refugees and others being threatened in the current climate. Some environmental groups have joined forces with social justice groups and others to defend Oregon against anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim policies and ballot measures. They have engaged their members at rallies for immigrant rights, spoken up against attempts to link anti-immigrant actions to an environmental protection agenda and collaborated in other advocacy efforts. This is important progress, and we hope to support more action like this.
We are also seeing a growing number of organizations seeking support for efforts to deepen their understanding of diversity, equity and inclusion as well as make strategic changes in how their organizations operate. We are committed to nurturing this external and internal work for the long-term and aim to look for ways to stimulate efforts that can lead to deeper progress.
The four reflections I offer here are among the observations that have continued to surface over the past months. The Healthy Environment team is proud and honored to help support and be a part of the creative, persistent and powerful ways that organizations are working to protect the environment so that all of Oregon’s diverse communities benefit equitably. This work is not easy and it will continue to evolve from where we are today to where we hope to be in the future. Please continue to share with us the challenges you face, the opportunities you see and ideas you have for how we can work together for an equitable and flourishing Oregon.
Soon after the 2016 presidential election, many of us began wondering how the changed political landscape would impact our work. A number of Meyer grantees, including those in the Building Community portfolio, raised real concerns and questions about how this new reality would affect, among other things, our civil liberties, immigrants’ rights, the rights of LGBTQ people, equity and justice. As a direct result, Meyer added two new tools to our real-time response kit: rapid response grantmaking, and the Oregon Immigrant and Refugee Funders Collaborative.
In an effort to take stock of how changing realities are impacting the work related to social justice, Meyer recently helped organize and participated in an event called “Strengthening Action for Justice.” The event focused on how the changed political environment is likely to impact our work and identified shared values and ways we can support each other moving forward.
More than 60 participants representing 30 community organizing and advocacy groups and a dozen funders attended the May 25 event in Portland. Extra efforts were also made to support the participation of key representatives from rural communities, and some traveled from as far away as Ontario in eastern Oregon. In some respects, the meeting was experimental. The planning group included both funders and community groups, and though there were some specific recommendations that came out of the conversation, the main objective was to create a space for folks to learn from each other.
Through the process of designing and carrying out the meeting, participants named and affirmed shared values, identified root causes of challenges, and began thinking about how to leverage the strengths of both philanthropic and community-based organizations. Through discussion on root causes, participants began to think more broadly than their own organization, consider possibilities for alignment and move beyond the symptoms of problems.
Impacts of the changed political environment
A pre-meeting survey as well as discussion revealed that the current environment has raised levels of fear: fear of deportation, hate crimes and harassment and concern about losing health care and other key services that disproportionately impact marginalized communities. Quickly shifting policy changes have also forced many community-based and philanthropic organizations to respond rapidly (e.g., keeping up with potential changes in Medicaid, providing Know Your Rights* education) and in a way that is often reactive rather than proactive. For all, a sense of urgency has created the challenge of balancing existing work while also responding to immediate and, in many cases, unforeseen needs. (*Know Your Rights refers to programs that provide community members with critical information on their legal rights in a number of areas including civil liberties, housing, education, immigration status, etc.)
When asked to identify the root causes to many of the current and anticipated challenges of operating in this political environment, the group noted the prominence of racism and xenophobia. Other, and often related, causes included disenfranchisement of communities of color, concentration of wealth and power, misinformation and lack of cross-community communication.
Looking forward
The pre-meeting survey and discussion also provided insights on shared beliefs and values. Some of these included the importance of cross-sector collaboration, dismantling systems of oppression, working toward racial equity, the need for organizational sustainability and the commitment to authentic community engagement.
Recognizing that community and philanthropic organizations can learn from each other, participants also talked about how these two sectors could work together effectively. Along these lines, a number of suggestions related to increased communication, cross-sector (community and philanthropic) conversation and finding ways to engage in direct action.
Some specific recommendations included:
Focusing together on shared goals — Convenings like Strengthening Action for Justice hold the potential to proactively identify short- and long-term solutions on topics tied to justice and equity.
Collaboration — Efforts that build understanding, shared language and collective power are crucial in this political climate. This work might involve activities such as collaborations with government and public officials or focus on specific issues such as fair access to housing or public education.
Investments in capacity — Any efforts to improve organizing capacity would be helpful. This might include helping participants interpret changes in policy (e.g., new IRS rules), providing access to specific forms of technical assistance such as legal expertise, and providing general operating support funding.
Investments in justice organizing — the changed political environment has increased interest in organizing individuals and communities for collective action, many felt it is crucial to direct new energy and in a way that connects it with justice movements that have been deeply engaged in this work over time.
A focus on rural communities — Recognizing that many communities are feeling anxious about unpredictable federal and state policy shifts, the group felt that rural communities may be particularly vulnerable. With this in mind, participants in the meeting felt that a specific focus on rural communities was warranted.
Tracking social services alongside social change — Organizations that provide some form of direct service can be powerful voices for highlighting broader/more systemic issues and root causes. In this climate, both services and organizing are needed to address immediate issues and mobilize people for larger change.
Though the outcome of this meeting will continue to unfold, the timeliness of this type of dialogue was evident the very next day, when three men sought to disrupt an Islamophobic attack on a MAX train in Portland. Two people were killed and another sustained serious injury, but the incident reminded us that bias actions and injustice must be confronted strongly and directly. For those who have been working on these issues for years, it brought home the importance of continued commitment to the shared values identified in meetings like Strengthening Action for Justice.
— Dahnesh
(Special thanks to Western States Center, meeting coordinator Katie Sawicki and the Collins Foundation for their work to make this meeting possible.)
