2011 PolicyLink Equity Summit
For the past few months, as a part of my work with Nexus Community Partners, I’ve been helping to coordinate the Minnesota Delegation to the 2011 PolicyLink Equity Summit in Detroit. The conference was this past week and I am reflecting on what was a tremendous experience.
This is my second PolicyLink Equity Summit, and I can say hands down it is one of the best conferences/national gatherings that I have attended. The first Equity Summit I attended was in 2008. My experience then was timely as it gave me a new vision for what was possible in my career and community.
As a delegation we believe that working together, a diverse group of passionate people will achieve equity for the Twin Cities and beyond. You can learn more about our shared delegation experience at www.equitynowmn.org. Here’s some other quick facts as well.
WE ARE BIG. Our delegation was over 150 people strong, the largest delegation in attendance (by far) at the Equity Summit.
WE ARE DIVERSE. We are suburban, urban and rural. We are cross sector and cross-cultural. We care about a variety of issues from education and housing, to transportation, health and jobs.
WE ARE ENGAGED. Our delegation is focused on moving from learning to action. Thus far we have hosted two convenings, one in late September and one last week, with each gathering attended by about 100 delegation members. The energy in the room is high. The conversations have been rich. And the excitement for the future is obvious.
I am excited about my leadership role in this process and the possibility of working with this diverse, excited, large group of leaders around equity issues facing our region.
And as a random side note, four delegations were invited to give final remarks at the closing town hall to end the Summit. I was chosen to represent the Minnesota delegation. It was an honor and quite fun! My thoughts were captured below.
Filed under: Neeraj | Leave a Comment
InCommons is currently partnering with Ashoka on a project to better understand how leaders unleash and sustain problem-solving communities. As a part of their exploratory research project, I was asked to participate in an interview. I’ve included some description of their project and process below.
*The Knowledge Path (also known as the Discovery Process) is the Changemakers method of capturing information from social entrepreneurs and experts, and then incorporating it into learning products (like the Discovery Framework) and tools. This process applies the unique Ashoka and Changemakers lens of innovation, social impact, and sustainability, exploring where the field is stuck to determine new opportunities for innovation and impact.
**The Changemakers Discovery Framework (DF) is an analysis tool designed to better understand the nature of social innovation. It uncovers patterns of what works in the field, what solutions are missing, and it illuminates ideas about how change is happening. The Changemakers approach is a unique vision that reflects Ashoka’s three decades of work with social entrepreneurs around the world. Rather than searching for a silver bullet, we rely on understanding how solutions work together within a global context to effect change. It takes into consideration the actionable components of a problem (which we call barriers) and the varied solutions (which we call design principles) required to maximize social impact and galvanize innovation.
Here are some of my reflections from my interview:
ONE
I really appreciate the approach this project is taking. While deductive methods traditionally begin with a hypothesis and then seek examples that prove or disprove it, the Changemakers Discovery process begins with the work of innovators and practitioners, exploring actual solutions to social problems in the world. Using these real world examples, the analysis examines why they succeed and how cross-cutting patterns can then drive new innovations and sector-transformation. This approach is a different way of thinking about systems change —one that values practice over theory and on-the-ground invention over academic analysis.
TWO
In many ways the approach they are using, is a bit similar to how I see the work of my Bush Fellowship. I am in some ways starting with a hypothesis, in that I firmly believe that building social capital can lead to building stronger, healthier, more equitable communities. And while I am spending these first few months in the world of books and research, my main thrust will be later on as I explore “real world models” of where and how communities are building social capital as a strategy to strengthen neighborhood revitalization efforts.
THREE
Through my interview I became aware of where I currently feel strong in my knowledge and where I feel weak. I think the time I’ve spent researching social capital theory has been valuable and important. I’ve developed new language, understanding and expertise about this field of study and practice. At the same time I am aware of my need to dig back “down” into community and learn from the actual solutions and strategies practitioners are implementing locally and nationally. I have a few more books to read, notes to take and blogs to write at the theory level, but my interview today excited me about the on the ground work left to be done.
FOUR
Near the end of our conversation I had a bit of a revelation in my own head. I’m not sure I have fully thought it out yet, but it goes something like this…
A good solution to the wrong problem is a bit of a waste of time.
How we define a problem, or our belief about what causes a problem, shapes our approach to solving it.
For example, what if I told you that 3 out of 5 African American Men between the ages of 18-35 are currently connected to some form of our judicial/criminal justice system (I made this stat up). If you were tasked with “solving” this problem, I’m sure there are many approaches you might take, but at the minimum part of your analysis would have to be looking at the ‘system’ that is grabbing so many young men of color, and the people themselves. Where you put your emphasis might say something about how you see the problem.
What I’m saying is this, and I know it is obvious, but how you define a problem is directly related to the strategies you put in place to solve them. Right?
All of this to say, that when it comes to the work that I do, and looking at my own community of North Minneapolis, I think it would be worthwhile to engage people in a serious conversation about how we, as a community, got to where we are right now. And in this process, I think we need to take account and responsibility for the intentional racialized decisions and policies that were put in place decades ago that continues to impact our community today. I guess I’m wondering if had a more shared analysis of where we’ve been, and how we got here, it might help us in developing solutions that can effectively take us into a new future.
Does that make sense? Maybe I’ll have to explore this more somehow in a later post.
Filed under: Neeraj | 2 Comments
Last week (10/24 – 10/26) I attended the Neighborhood Funders Group conference in New Mexico. The Neighborhood Funders Group is a membership association of grant making institutions whose mission is to strengthen the capacity of organized philanthropy to understand and support community-based efforts to organize and improve the economic and social fabric of low-income urban neighborhoods and rural communities. Each year their conference provides information, learning opportunities, and other professional development activities to their national membership, and encourages the support of policies and practices that advance economic and social justice.
This year’s conference theme was Advancing Community Power through Culture, Equity and Justice and included an array of regional and national leaders speaking to this theme. I had a few key takeaways from my time there.
1) The demographics of our country are changing. Fast. And as the birth rates of US-born residents continue to decline and the Baby Boom generation retires, immigrants and their children are critical to U.S. economic vitality and global competitiveness.
2) Together with longtime residents, newcomers can contribute to solving community challenges and help address long-standing social issues like poverty and racial inequalities.
3) To effectively create an agenda that is focused on building healthier, more equitable communities, we will need to intensify the debate around equity, race, access, and civic engagement.
4) This changing landscape requires philanthropy to develop multi-faceted approaches, supported and sustained by many diverse stakeholders.
5) We will especially need to create pathways and opportunities for the experiences and voices of all community members to participate in the discussions that lead to the development of successful solutions.
6) As we move into 2012, we must remember that the challenges facing Americans are felt even more acutely among our most vulnerable communities; often communities of color.
7) Issues of education, incarceration, immigration, environment, health, employment, and housing will be center stage.
8 ) In what will undoubtedly continue to be a difficult political, social and, economic environment, communities across the country will continue to fight to maintain a voice in the democratic process while developing new strategies geared towards advancing their collective power.
9) Along with new investments in our physical and community infrastructures, coalition building and the adoption of new, more inclusive frames for moving forward policy agendas will be needed.
10) Changing demographics will require more inclusive, authentic, and united progressive coalitions that build power and alliances amongst diverse stakeholders.
11) If we are to be successful, the voices of those most impacted need to be better included in planning and decision-making process.
Filed under: Neeraj | 1 Comment
Changing change
When I applied for the Bush Fellowship, I spent a portion of my application speaking to my frustration about traditional models of problem solving and their lack of efficacy in getting to the root of our toughest challenges. I’m not sure we know even know how to define problems, let alone solve them. I’m unconvinced that the way we go about trying to solve tough problems will really achieve the long lasting results we need.
We are a results minded, action oriented, problem solving type of people who find a significant amount of identity from solving problems. First we identify a need, then search for solutions, establish goals, bring others on board, implement, then when it doesn’t work, start again from the beginning. The essence of these steps is the belief that the way to make a difference in the world is to define problem and needs and then recommend actions to solve those needs.
We limit our effectiveness by putting out a defined destination (vision) and then assume it can be reached in a linear path from where we are today.
And while this approach does actually work for many things, rarely does it work well in human systems or when the desire is to create something new. Problem solving can make things better, but it doesn’t change the nature of the things.
If we really want to see positive change in our communities we will have to move away from our traditional models, and instead shift the entire umbrella under which problem solving, investment and social and community action now takes place.
Peter Block in his book, Community, says this, “The challenge for community building is this: While visions, plans and committed top leadership are important, even essential, no clear vision, nor detailed plan, nor committed group leaders have the power to bring this image of the future into existence without the continued engagement and involvement of citizens. In most instances, citizen engagement ends when the plan is in place. The implementation is put into the hands of the professionals. In concept, the master plan provides some parameters for development and the use of space, but in real life it is usually a call to let the arguing begin. For all its utility, it rarely builds interdependence or strengthens the social fabric of a place.”
To me, one of the missing ingredients to successful community building is the inclusion and authentic engagement of the residents in a community. To shift the paradigm that Block speaks to above, we will need to discover and create the means for engaging residents in ways that bring new possibility into being. More and more, I am convinced that what gives the most power to communal possibility is the imagination and authorship of the residents inside of a community.
Real change is an organic and relational process that starts from the bottom up, not the top down. With this in mind, the role of leaders then is not to be an authority from on high, but instead leaders must be focus on creating structures and experiences that bring residents together to identify and solve their own issues.
In our traditional model of problem solving scale and speed are king as we work hard to push fast to a preordained destination (vision) sacrificing along the way the connections, relationships and engagement between people. We must choose depth over speed and relationships over scale, recognizing that real communal transformation is almost always, local, customized, unfolding and emergent.
We will also have to adjust our traditional notions of what constitutes action. Defining a vision, crafting a strategy and handing out a to-do list to individual actors is a too narrow view of action. We must define action more broadly.
Again, Peter Block in his book Community, asks these important questions as we think about what is or is not action.
Would a meeting be worthwhile if we simply strengthened our relationship?
Would a meeting be worthwhile if we learned something new?
Suppose in a meeting we simply stated our requests of each other and what we were willing to offer each other. Would that justify our time together?
Or, in the gathering, what if we only discussed the gifts we wanted to bring to bear on the concern that brought us tog ether. Would that be an outcome we value?
Saying yes to these questions significantly widens the spectrum for which we can undertake our traditional problem solving techniques.
All of this is not an argument against the need for us to solve problems in our community, but comes from my sense that what we need right now is a larger shift in the context of how this work happens in community more broadly.
To say it the most cheesy way I can imagine, I’m wondering if what I’m really talking about here is an analysis that says, “we need to change the way we make change”.
Filed under: Neeraj | Leave a Comment
Same problem. Different age.
Today Ezra had a problem.
After spending some time in the basement building a bed and house for a few of his stuffed animals, he went upstairs to fetch some other supplies. While he was gone, Koen destroyed everything he had been diligently working on. Sad, angry and frustrated, he yelled at his brother and swatted him on the back. Which in turn made Koen angrier and he continued his destruction uninterrupted by Ezra’s pleas (screams) to stop.
Now the back story to this little event was that while building his creation, Ezra consistently excluded Koen from participating, relegating him to a simple assistant, with little control or ownership of the creation. This was Ezra’s work, not Koen’s, and I am pretty sure Koen knew and felt that every step of the way. In fact, that’s pretty much how it goes down in our house. Most days when Ezra is playing, or creating or doing whatever, he doesn’t include his brother. Sure sometimes they are side-by-side, or even playing together, but they are rarely working together. Ezra is in charge, controlling the situation and giving instructions. It is his rules and Koen’s job is to follow. Because of Koen’s personality, most of the time this is okay, and Ezra’s bossiness turns out to be more frustrating for me, than Koen himself!
But then, like today, there are those times when Koen will not take it anymore. And so he destroys, he breaks and he revolts.
I tried talking to Ezra about cooperation and sharing, but then switched gears and bluntly stated, “Koen feels no connection or ownership in that work, you exclude him, and so when you turn your back he breaks it. I’m not surprised.” Ezra gives me a blank stare, then goes on to tell me to leave him alone. He’s clearly in no mood for a rational discussion about the real problem we’re all facing here.
But I choose to continue, asking him, “Instead, what if you brought him in? What if you made him a part of the decision making? What if his ideas were incorporated into the work? What if you had to listen to him sometimes? What if you shifted the project from being about what you’re doing alone, to what you’re doing together?” No response from Ezra, minus some yelling, so I continue, “Do you think he might be less willing to break something that he helped build together with you, something that he feels a part of, rather than something he watched you build alone?”
I know for a fact (and I’m thinking you guessed this as well) that this message did not stick with Ezra. But I do know that I will try again. Think of the possibilities if I could teach him the value of including his brother in meaningful ways, so that they are working with each other rather than against each other. And could you imagine, what if I could teach him that what they are able to create together might be better and more fun than anything he could alone? Or if I could help him see that they each have different strengths and talents that could compliment and strengthen the other. Oh somebody get me a parenting award, because that would be radical.
Of course then there is the scary reality of how difficult this will be, given the fact that we as adults are equally as bad at this as children.
What if in our own problem solving, and community building, we practiced sharing power, developing collective leadership, valuing our differences and working together for the common good?
I’m thinking that if we could teach adults this, it would be even more radical than teaching our kids!
Filed under: Neeraj | 5 Comments
Recent Entries
Categories
- Neeraj (31)
- Uncategorized (5)
