Daily Archives: June 22, 2022

Although the idea of participatory grantmaking is relatively new, community-driven giving practices have been around for a long time, including the mutual aid networks established by Black communities in the United States centuries ago. Authentic participation and aligning grantmaking with the needs and aspirations of communities are cornerstones of this approach to philanthropy. But what does this model look like in practice? SSIR publisher Michael Gordon Voss speaks with Maria De La Cruz, president of Headwaters Foundation for Justice, Irene Wong, director of The David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and Mary Jovanovich, senior manager for relationship management at Schwab Charitable about a participatory approach to grantmaking.

(Scroll further down the page for a full transcript of the discussion.)

After you listen:

Download the Schwab Charitable Giving Guideto understand how to maximize your charitable giving.

Learn about using Schwab Charitables donor-advised fund to extend your generosity beyond the United States and make a difference almost anywhere in the world.

Explore giving even more to charity by using appreciated non-cash assets held for more than one year, such as publicly-traded securities, real estate, or private business interests.

* * *

MICHAEL GORDON VOSS: Welcome to the fourth season of Giving With Impact, an original podcast series from Stanford Social Innovation Review, developed with the support of Schwab Charitable. Im your host, Michael Gordon Voss, publisher of SSIR. In this series, we strive to create a collaborative space for leading voices from across the philanthropic ecosystem to engage in both practical and aspirational conversations around relevant topics at the heart of achieving more effective philanthropy.

If youre a frequent listener of this podcast or have attended any of our SSIR conferences, you probably know that one of the maxims about social innovation that I believe strongly is the one that states the most affected are the most effectivethat those who are closest to the problems are often the ones with the greatest insights into what needs to occur to address them. In many ways, this is the ethos behind the idea of participatory grantmaking. Participatory grantmaking encompasses a range of models and methods. At its core, this approach to funding cedes decision-making power about grants to the very communities impacted by funding decisions. As with so many other sectors, the philanthropic sector has seen a heightened demand for greater accountability and transparency, with people wanting greater voice in the decisions affecting their communities. But as with any other approach, what does this strategy look like in action? And what can we learn about our individual approach as donors from organizations that have adopted a participatory grantmaking strategy?

To help me unpack these questions and share their learnings and insights about participatory grantmaking, were joined by two remarkable organizational leaders.

Maria De La Cruz, is the president of the Headwaters Foundation for Justice, a Minneapolis-based grantmaking organization, dedicated to amplifying the power of community to advance equity and justice by investing in grassroots organizations across Minnesota. Maria leads HFJs fundraising, leadership development, and grantmaking strategies, in addition to serving as co-chair on the impact-driven philanthropy collaborative and on the design team for Freedom Funders. Maria earned her bachelors degree at Metropolitan State University and her masters degree and Juris Doctorate at Hamline University. Her years of experience came from working at organizations like TakeAction Minnesota, and OutFront Minnesota.

Also joining us is Irene Wong, founding director of the local grantmaking program at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, where she oversees investments to community groups in five counties here in the Bay Area, which totaled over $25 million last year. Irene has over two decades of community leadership and philanthropic experience, and has worked for corporate, community, and family foundations, including serving as the inaugural Executive Director and CEO of eBay Foundation, building the first-ever corporate services practice at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and managing a diverse portfolio of grants as a program officer for the MetLife Foundation in New York City. Irene holds a BA from the University of California at Berkeley and an MPA from Columbia University. Shes a frequent speaker on philanthropic giving in the Bay Area.

In addition to our other two guests, were joined once again by Mary Jovanovich, Senior Manager for Relationship Management at Schwab Charitable. Mary joined Schwab Charitable in 2015, and has more than 10 years experience with Charles Schwab & Company. Mary is involved as a board member with Dress for Success Indianapolis, and also serves on both the boards of the Integrating Women Leadership Foundation and Indiana Wesley Universitys Alumni Group. Maria Irene, Mary, thank you all for joining me today and helping us learn about this approach to funding.

Lets get started.

Mary, let me ask you to start us off on todays conversation.

MARY JOVANOVICH: Sure. Thanks, Michael. I would be happy to. For a lot of our listeners, the idea of participatory grantmaking may be new, but community-driven giving practices have been around for a long time, including the mutual aid networks established by Black communities in the US, centuries ago. The ability to have authentic participation and deep trust conversations, and really knowing the community and being responsive to communitys needs, as you mentioned, are cornerstones of this approach. Im really looking forward to hearing how our guests today are putting this strategy into action, and I know we will learn a lot in the next 20 minutes.

MICHAEL: Im sure that we will, Mary. So with that in mind, lets bring in Maria and Irene.

Maria, before we get started talking in earnest about our topic, would you tell us a bit about Headwaters Foundation for Justice?

MARIA DELACRUZ: Thanks, Michael. Absolutely. Headwaters Foundation for Justice is a social justice community foundation thats based in Minneapolis and serves the state of Minnesota. Since our founding in 1984, we have been using participatory grantmaking as our core grantmaking strategy.

Weve worked with hundreds of volunteers to make grantmaking decisions, and we feel like this has really been the core value that we are able to add into our community.

MICHAEL: Thats great background, Maria. Thank you. How would you define participatory grantmaking and how is that approach applied at HFJ?

MARIA: At Headwaters Foundation, we refer to participatory grantmaking as community-led grantmaking, and thats really intentional on our part. Our board of directors has delegated final decision-making power to our volunteers through all of our community-led grantmaking funds. So what that means for us is our volunteers review applications, they conduct site visits, and they, ultimately, do all of the deliberation and final decision-making for all of our grants. Similar to what you said in your opening remarks, we believe that the people most affected really should be at the center of our grantmaking decisions here at Headwaters Foundation. And thats because what we are supporting through our grants are strategies through community organizing, movement building, and advocacy work that we think is actually going to change, not just the Twin Cities, not just Minnesota, but, actually, have the potential to change our country. So we are really proud of the fact that we have volunteers that are doing this work for us. But it really is about where do we locate that power and decision-making? And that really clearly sits with our volunteers.

MICHAEL: Thats perfect. Thank you, Maria. And I think that that local approach that also has potential national ramification is really important. And so, with that, let me bring Irene into the conversation, too. And, Irene, thank you for being a part of todays episode. Can you tell us a bit about the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and its work and your work?

IRENE WONG: Before beginning, let me just say thank you for having me here today. Im honored to join you, Maria, and Mary for this conversation.

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is a nearly 60-year-old family foundation based in Los Altos, California, just outside San Francisco. Packard Foundations vision is one of a just and equitable world where people and nature flourish. We work with people across the globe to create enduring solutions for just societies and a healthy, resilient, natural world.

The foundation has roughly 130 staff and grants over 400 million a year to support myriad issues utilizing a range of grantmaking approaches, including the one were going to discuss today.

MICHAEL: Irene, since were going to talk about participatory grantmaking, how would you define that strategy, and how does it fit in with Packards overall funding approach?

IRENE: Ive heard people use the term participatory philanthropy, participatory grantmaking, and as Maria said, community-led grantmaking and community philanthropy describe similar actions. My definition of participatory grantmaking comes from a practitioner perspective. And for me, participatory philanthropy is about getting those closest to the problem set you want to solve for engaged in the solution youre seeking.

This participation extends not just to grantmaking, but to other important decisionshow grantees want to be engaged in terms of the process, how grantees want us to help communicate their stories. And so, for us, its one of the ways in which we partner with communities.

MICHAEL: Thanks Irene. Maria, you mentioned that HJF, since its founding in 1984, has embedded this work or this approach. So, obviously, participatory grantmaking is nothing new, but I think we all have a sense that its gathering momentum. What would you say is driving interest in participatory grantmaking as an approach?

MARIA: Thats a great question, Michael. Since 2020, since the murder of George Floyd, I think that community has really been demanding a lot more of philanthropy, including transparency, access to power and resources, and ways that I think philanthropy hasnt always done very well. And what Im seeing, from my colleagues in the field is that theyre really heeding that call in thinking about how can they put into question some of the longstanding power dynamics that have existed in thinking about new ways to engage community in decision-making around local investments, around grantmaking.

I see my colleagues testing out new ideas around a participatory approach, trust-based philanthropy, things like that, through initiatives and projects that are really meant to seed these ideas within their institutions, and really to test new ideas, and to bring into the fold different kinds of relationships within those institutions.

Really its about, the community grantees and leaders really holding philanthropy accountable saying, Hey, youve got all the money. We need it to make the kind of change we all want to see in the world. But we also want to be a part of the decision-making process about where and how those dollars are granted out.

MICHAEL: Absolutely. Irene, let me ask you, how have you seen philanthropy evolve in its understanding and use of community participation?

IRENE: Michael, Ive worked at five different foundations over the course of two decades and witnessed many trends. There have been certainly early iterations, I think, of participatory grantmaking from use of, community advisors and grant committees to determine grant decisions. But, something feels really different today, and I think Maria really said it best. Our current context is demanding greater transparency on funding, decision-making, and accountability on impact, and I think thats whats fueling interest in participatory grantmaking. And theres so much more recognition that those closest to solutions are really key in the decision-making and they need to be at the table to help make those decisions, or, actually, just make those decisions.

MICHAEL: I think thats a great point because, you know we always talk about, the impact of the work thats being funded, and, in many ways whats more important than to get the communitys feedback when youre trying to gauge what that real impact is, too?

IRENE: In the spring of 2020, it became clear that the pandemic and its economic repercussions were severely impacting Monterey County, particularly in the census tracks homes of a large number of Latinx, immigrant, and farm-worker households. Latinos accounted for 81% of hospitalizations and 80% of deaths. Yet at the same time, they comprised only 60% of Montereys population.

Concurrently, we were hearing from community-based organizations, working in highly-impacted communities that they did not feel their voices were being heard when it came to the public health response to stemming COVID-19 in their communities. Given our long-standing focus on investments in Monterey County, we knew we had step up our engagement and be a part of the solution set, but we also knew we needed to not just hear from the experts on the ground, but to engage them in the decision-making on how to allocate resources and really turn it over to them.

So we partnered with a trusted local consultant, who worked closely with community-based organizations to support them in crafting their recommendations for funding. We were transparent about our grantmaking parameters, letting folks know we had a budget of about a million dollars for groups to work with, and we let the groups tell us what is it that we need to fund. You know best whats most needed, so how should the funding be deployed?

Fast-forward today, we just completed an evaluation of this participatory grantmaking process. And for the evaluation, we also consulted community groups asking them what would be helpful to learn in the evaluation? What questions would it be great to have answered? And when we go out to actually put out the information, were going to consult the community groups that made these decisions. So, Michael, in doing this work I should also add that we also compensated the people, because that was a really important part of the process. They were doing the work. And our job was to make it easy for them to do this work and figure out what we needed to provide in terms of support, what barriers we needed to remove.

MICHAEL: I think that point you made about compensating the people is an important one to also remember, because that is one of the foundations of equity, is recognizing people for the work that theyre doing on our behalf. So thank you for sharing that example in total, Irene.

Maria, Irene addressed how large funders are approaching this. How can individual donors think about this approach as they pursue their granting strategies?

MARIA: I think at the core of a participatory process of any kind of decision is relationships and trust. And when I think about the work that individual donors can do, certainly Ive had instances of working with individual donors whove said, You know what? I want to talk with organizational leaders, community leaders, and have them help me make some of those decisions. That is really much easier said than done, though. When I think about this, I think about what does it look like to be in relationship with the folks that you want to bring into that work? And I think from that perspective, it takes a lot of time. So inviting people into a decision-making process, whether its an individual or a family thats working on giving their wealth away, I think its about really taking the time in advance to build that trust. And, frankly, the work can only, go as quickly as the speed of trust, and so it might take some time to do that.

For some of us in the social justice fund sphere, we have donors that pay really close attention to our grantmaking, and oftentimes at Headwaters, well have people that will write us emails and say, Hey, I really appreciate that you just published your grantee list from your community-led funds, and I took that and actually made decisions based off of what your volunteers recommended.

MARIA: It not only speaks to Im really grateful that the people have the trust in Headwaters and in our processes, but its also about the trust in the community members whove made those decisions. And we regularly publish Here are the volunteers that we worked with, so that the public will know exactly who is sitting around the table discussing these potential grantees and making those final decisions. And so theres ways for folks to get really deeply connected to that work.

MICHAEL: And sharing that information also reinforces what you were saying earlier about transparency too, obviously.

MARIA: Absolutely.

MICHAEL: And I love that phrase, you know, moving forward at the speed of trust. Thats going to go into my list of great maxims.

Irene, I know Packard was one of the local foundations supporting Magnify Community. Can you tell our listeners about that initiative that I believe recently sunsetted and what it accomplished?

IRENE: Sure, Michael. Magnify Community was a collaborative donor network created in response to the Giving Code Report we commissioned that highlighted this disconnect in Silicon Valley between local giving and local needs. And I think what Maria said, it was really this disconnect in the relationships that were not mechanisms to bring people from different walks of life together. And the report also found that upwards of 60% in contributions were leaving the area. Community-based organizations were not getting a significant share of Bay Area philanthropy, yet that philanthropy was growing. So what Magnify sought to do was really bridge this gap and encourage greater local investments.

And it did a terrific job helping donors to get proximate and connected with community leaders, and really build that relationship that Maria talked about. Their forums brought community leaders and philanthropists together to talk about the needs and to explore them. And this was during the height of COVID, so we were all on Zoom, as well, too. But there was something magical about bringing people in the room together, finding that connection, and really building this relationship with community leaders that you want to empower. And I think that is really the start of the basis of this participatory grantmaking. Its really building trust and building strong partnerships, and understanding of issues and whos working on what and how, together, we help build the solutions for the future that we envision for everybody.

MICHAEL: Thats a great point. And even though the work of Magnify Community was, focused on the Bay Area, as was the original Giving Code Report, which, when it first came out several years ago, was I hesitate to say surprising, but definitely, reinforced things that many of us working in the sector already suspected was happening here. The report says a lot not just about the Bay Area, but reflects what might be happening in philanthropy in other parts of the country, too.

So, Maria, let me ask you a question. Weve been talking about all the things that help make a participatory approach successful, but what barriers, if any, do you see to a broader adoption of participatory grantmaking?

MARIA: I think one of the number one things that can be a barrier is time. And its everything from the trust-building that I talked about earlier, to simply the planning and building of a new initiative like this. What we tend to find is it takes anywhere from nine, 12 months to really think through what the criteria is, who gets invited to the table, how we hold those relationships both during the project, as well as after the project, both with the volunteers and the grantees.

But its also the time it takes to simply go through a participatory project. We think about one of our initiatives called the Giving Project, which brings together a multiracial and cross-class group of individuals that not only are making grants, but are also raising the money for those grants. And, on average, we find that those volunteers are giving over 100 hours of their time to the entire process over about a six-month period. And what it takes for the staff to really support that is not just the meetings that theyre facilitating, but its all the in between work of coaching, encouraging, connecting people, right?

When I think about that time barrier, it really is about all the stuff that we do when were planning new initiatives, but its also about the space that were holding for community, to make sure that they feel very authentically invested in, and that their voice really has power in the decisions that theyre making.

I think the final piece I will say is for, larger institutions, some of the nimbleness thats required in a participatory grantmaking process might be a challenge. Ive talked with lots of larger institutions who are really thinking about what is the best way to go about bringing community members into our work? And Im sure Irene can attest, in larger institutions there may be some more bureaucracy that program officers and program managers might need to navigate that isnt necessarily the fun stuff that is the result of really good relationship and community building, but is nonetheless some of the things that folks have to deal with. Of course, here at Headwaters, we are a small social justice foundation, and so this has really been baked into our DNA since day one. And so when we are thinking about the ways that we can be creative and nimble, I think we have a little bit more leeway of what that can look like. So, I think again, its that time aspect, and then its about how flexible can your institution be to meet the demands or innovations that are possible through this process.

MICHAEL: And I would hope that the last two years have forced many of us to realize how flexible we really can be. So maybe that is a positive indicator helping to lower that one barrier to adopting a participatory approach.

Irene, same question for you, barriers that you see to more organizations adopting a participatory grantmaking approach or strategy?

IRENE: I absolutely agree with what Maria said about having time and having flexibility thats really key. Participatory grantmaking approaches may not be right for all donors or foundations. It can be complex, expensive to execute, and particularly as Maria said, time-intensive for donors and nonprofits alike and logistically challenging. I have in the back of my mind this 100 hours Maria just talked about and thats an astounding amount of time. I think one needs to be really intentional about the way they approach participatory grantmaking and really think before engaging, if its the right thing for that particular strategy and weigh the benefits of doing so, be clear about the goals to ensure that participatory grantmaking is a real value add both for donors and for the recipients as well.

MICHAEL: The one thing that comes through from what Im hearing from both of you is that you need to be authentic when you are engaging the community in this decision-making because if it isnt authentic, then it can end up having a net negative affect.

So were getting close to the end of our time, but before we wrap up, I want to give you both a chance to share any closing thoughts or observations, especially with those of our listeners who might be interested in investigating or adopting a participatory approach. Maria, lets start with you.

MARIA: Thanks, Michael. Ive just really enjoyed this conversation today, and its so fun to talk with Irene and to learn from her, as well.

A couple of closing thoughts I would have is, community-led grantmaking really forces an institution to think and question where power lies and how its wielded within your institution, or whether its you, as an individual or a family, thinking about your philanthropy. My advice always is take the time to really ask the hard questions and to interrogate. Why? Does this add value? And, oftentimes, for folks that are funding within a local region, whether its a city, county, or a state, its really important, as Irene said, to think about how youre ensuring that your volunteers or your institution are thinking about local investments, and, also, thinking through relationships through this lens of proximity. I really appreciated that point that Irene made.

Ultimately, community members, have a really strong and accurate sniff test. Volunteers and other community leaders will know and will say if a process feels inauthentic, if a process isnt really challenging some of the long-held power dynamics that exist within philanthropy. And, ultimately, this isnt only about a donor or a funder wanting to do good work, but what I also find is this is a way for donors and funders to have some credibility, right? Its a way for them to say, Yes, Im living out my values. Im living out the mission of my institution.

And so, again, just being thoughtful about how are you entering into this work? What long-held assumptions, or policies, or practices that you might be holding onto may need to be questioned or put to the wayside?

And, finally, I think community-led grantmaking leaves the door open for so much innovation and transformation within an institution for an individual, but moreover, for a community. So Im really excited that more people are really trying to think about how can they integrate this work, whether its through a project or across their entire grantmaking strategy.

MICHAEL: Thats great, Maria. And I like the point you made about the values alignment from the donors perspective, too. I think thats a great one to reinforce. Irene, any closing thoughts youd like to share?

IRENE: I loved Marias comments about authenticity, sniff tests, and the values alignment, as well. I think I would offer the suggestion of, if youre thinking about participatory grantmaking, theres really no need to go it alone, learn from other peoples experience. Particularly for individual donors, a great way to begin is to work with an intermediary like Marias group, the Headwaters Foundation, which has the experience, community relationships, context, and understanding of the complexities involved with participatory grantmaking.

And I think the second thing I would offer is to really think about it as long-term, and its not just, Lets try participatory grantmaking for this one project. Its about building the relationships, building the change you want to see, doing it together, and investing for the long-term.

MICHAEL: Absolutely. That long-term perspective is something we can, sometimes lose sight ofas were racing to try to create impact in the issue areas and in the communities that were working with.

Let me give Mary a chance to rejoin us. Ill ask you to come back in and help us wrap up todays discussion with some closing thoughts.

MARY: Id be happy to, Michael. Theres so much we can learn from the great work that both of our guest organizations are doing to really empower and support local communities. As a national donor-advised fund, we, at Schwab Charitable, dont engage in participatory grantmaking, but we definitely do facilitate the ability of our donors to support a grantmaking strategy that leverages some of the ideas we heard today.

MICHAEL: Hear, hear. Well thank you for that, Mary.

Well, Maria, Irene, thank you, both, for your time today. I started this episode with one of my favorite quotes, so its only fitting that I end with another that I think might be appropriate, and thats, Nothing about us without us. I think thats another way to think about this work. And I thank you both for helping us all understand how and why a participatory approach is something we should be seriously considering in our thinking as donors.

MARIA: Thank you Michael for having us today, and just deep appreciation for folks listening. These are really big questions to ask. So please do reach out to me or anybody who has taken on this process. Theres a lot to learn and a lot to talk about.

IRENE: Thank you Michael for having us today. And its been terrific to be in conversation with you, Maria, Mary, on such an important topic. And I really appreciate the conversation.

Thank you for listening. We hope youve enjoyed this episode. Please consider leaving us a review on Apple Podcast or your favorite listening app, as it helps others discover the show. We encourage you to listen to other episodes in this series, as well as other podcasts from SSIR. This podcast series is made possible with the support of Schwab Charitable, who played an important role in the selection of topics and speakers. For important disclosures and a transcript of this episode, visit schwabcharitable.org/impactpodcast.

Resources

Subscribe to Giving with Impact for free on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.

Giving with Impact is an original podcast fromSchwab Charitable and Stanford Social Innovation Review.

If you enjoy the show, please leave us a rating or review onApple Podcasts.

Schwab Charitable Fund is recognized as a tax-exempt public charity as described in Sections 501(c)(3), 509(a)(1), and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions made to Schwab Charitable Fund are considered an irrevocable gift and are not refundable. Please be aware that Schwab Charitable has exclusive legal control over the assets you have contributed. Although every effort has been made to ensure that the information provided is correct, Schwab Charitable cannot guarantee its accuracy. This information is not provided to the IRS.

Schwab Charitable is the name used for the combined programs and services of Schwab Charitable Fund, an independent nonprofit organization, which has entered into service agreements with certain subsidiaries of The Charles Schwab Corporation.

2022 Schwab Charitable Fund. All rights reserved.

The rest is here:

Participatory Grantmaking: A Shared Approach to Effective Change - Stanford Social Innovation Review

As Pride month continues to celebrate the lives, bravery and love of LGBTQ+ people across the full spectrums of gender and sexual orientation, PR Daily reached out to a variety of comms pros who are proud members of these communities. We asked them a variety of questions about best practices for reaching queer audiences year-round, how far the industry has come on issues of representation, and which organizations are doing it right.

The overall responses offer deep insights from each participants lived experience, but some broad takeaways every comms pro can use include:

Responses have been lightly edited for length and style.

When crafting messages for the LGBTQ+ consumer, what are some of the most important keys to keep in mind so that your message resonates and is authentic?

Lisa Manley, vice president, Sustainability, Mars

Its pretty obvious when a company sees Pride month as an opportunity to capitalize on a cultural moment, rather than doing the work to authentically engage LGBTQ+ audiences. As a communications professional and a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I think credible engagement comes down to two fundamental things:

Aaron Radelet, global chief communications officer and senior vice president, Walgreens Boots Alliance

In many ways, these keys are the same no matter what audience youre trying to reach. Ensure your actions match your words. Truly understand and listen to what the consumer wants. Avoid the perception of just trying to profit.

A few ways to achieve these goals with the LGBTQ+ consumer (and avoid rainbow washing) are:

Chip Garner, EVP, Digital Advocacy, BerlinRosen

Always be authentic. Allow LGBTQIA+ people to see themselves and their storylines represented. Narratives that speak to our unique and specific identities, concerns and triggers are the ones that will be uplifted and shared. Discarding played-out stereotypes and going beyond feelgood-ism to reflect the multiple facets the beauty and the pain of our lived experience make messages practical and relatable. Importantly and I cant stress this enough ensure that LGBTQIA+ folks are integral to the story making: messages and campaigns without direction and input from our community are glaring in their inauthenticity and will fail.

Spotlight intersectionality. Be inclusive by being specific. Messaging needs to reflect the fullness, complexity, and diversity of the LGBTQIA+ community. You do this by centering representations and stories that uplift marginalized identities. We have an alphabet soup of a name lean into all the letters! And for so many of us, being Queer is just one of the identities we claim. Brands and orgs that default to two 28-year-old white guys in speedos just wont cut it anymore.

Michael Kaye, associate director, global communications, OkCupid

Remember that the LGBTQ+ community represents a diverse, expansive group of people with their own unique experiences and identities. What resonates with a person who identifies as gay might not with someone who identifies as lesbian, nonbinary or transgender. On OkCupid, we match people on what matters to them through in-app questions. Because everyone has their own interests and priorities when it comes to dating and relationships, weve created localized questions in over 30 countries around the world, and questions created by and for the LGBTQ+ community. Meaning, queer users on OkCupid have a whole series of questions that only they see, and within that list we even have questions specifically for gay daters, lesbian daters, etc. Its all about making sure each person on our app feels recognized and understood.

Lets say youre counseling an organization that has not done very much, if anything at all, in terms of outreach to the LGBTQ+ community. What is the best place for them to start?

Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force

Do your homework! Look into diverse organizations, local organizations and one that fit your brand or market. Get to know them, invite different groups to speak to your staff and marketing teams. The community is very much under attack and understanding the scope of that and the real people behind the work is important. Engage your LGBTQ and allied employees. So many more parents and families of LGBTQ youth and relatives are engaged in the work. Our allies are a huge audience to reach as well. Finally, remember that the LGBTQ and allied market is a very informed and intentional one make sure your company is providing all the benefits and protections they should to LGBTQ employees, we do our homework before supporting companies reaching out to us.

Kevin Wong, vice president of communications, The Trevor Project

I would ask them to start by looking into their companys track record of support regarding LGBTQ issues and the community, as well as its treatment of LGBTQ staff from culture and inclusion to health benefits and resource groups. If the company feels they are at a place internally where they can authentically engage in external promotion of their support of the LGBTQ community, then I would suggest engaging an LGBTQ organization that can help guide their messaging, support, outreach, marketing, activations and, hopefully, donations.

Mike Doyle, president and CEO, Ketchum and member, Board of Directors for GLAAD

The best place to start is just to start and get to work. With our clients at Ketchum, we first counsel them to embrace the fact that they are embarking on a long, intentional journey - not a one-time (or one-month) moment. And to remember that they have the scale and the ability to influence so many stakeholders - including, and importantly, their employees - in pursuit of accelerating acceptance. Corporate voices matter in this mission.

Kaye

The first step to becoming an advocate is to listen and learn. Talk to people who are responsible for doing the work. Do not jump right into being a voice within a conversation you have no education of or experience in. At OkCupid weve spent years cultivating relationships with the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood. When we speak to the LGBTQ+ community, they know weve been catering to them for nearly two decades.

Generally speaking, as compared to, say, five years ago, do you feel there has been notable progress in brands/organizations effectiveness to communicate with the LGBTQ+ community? Please explain your answer.

Wong

In a survey of over 40,000 LGBTQ youth, more than half said brands who support the LGBTQ community positively impact how they feel about being LGBTQ. When companies communicate their support of LGBTQ organizations, they have a real opportunity to make a positive impact on the communities in which they live and work. More and more companies are learning that there are best practices when communicating to the LGBTQ community including year-round support from companies, incorporating a donation component to help the community, and updating their internal policies and employee engagement tactics to match their commitments.

Manley

Over the past five years, weve started to see more and more brands work with and communicate to LGBTQ+ audiences. Thats progress! But it has yet to break into the mainstream, as evidenced by the fact that Pride month is still the primary cultural touchpoint where we see corporate engagement. Much more work needs to be done to bring inclusion of this community beyond Pride month activations. Engagement should not be occasional, promotional or transactional - it must be intentional and integrated. And well only know culture is truly shifting when there is evidence of LGBTQ+ community considerations influencing communication strategies throughout the year, across different channels, and segmented across diverse markets.

Doyle

Theres no doubt weve seen a marked improvement in how brands and organizations are communicating with the LGBTQ+ community; however, theres an acute need to accelerate this work. We know that representation leads to better understanding and acceptance, yet according to reports from the Geena Davis Institute and Nielsen, less than 2% of mainstream advertising/marketing content produced includes LGBTQ+ representation. Consider this: nearly 21% of Gen Z adults in the U.S. identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. In other words, almost a quarter of these voters, buyers and believers identify as LGBTQ+, so not only is it a moral imperative to urge and create opportunities for LGBTQ+ representation in all forms of communication and content, its a business imperative for us all.

Radelet

I think companies have shifted, as the country has shifted. Support for LGBTQ+ rights are at all-time highs, and one major reason is that more people than ever know openly LGBTQ+ in their lives (i.e. friends, family, colleagues). Familiarity creates understanding.

I feel incredibly fortunate to have lived through this massive transformation in our profession, and in our society as a whole, over the course of my career and life.

Garner

Yes and no. For every organization that engages and celebrates the community with informed, specific, and authentic messages, theres a Burger King ad with two top buns. Its the norm now that theres a deluge of corporate marketing in June, but the prevalence of rainbow washing is not only self-defeating, its depressing.

Excluding your own organization and/or clients, please highlight a campaign/program from the past year or so that you feel truly exemplifies the best in LGBTQ+ messaging.

Renna

One of the best, most inspirational examples I have seen is the collaborations with Gendercool and the Phluid Project. As a time when the trans community, especially youth and POC, are under attack, the positive and powerful visibility of these is vital. Gendercool, a trans youth led organization doing amazing work, is partnering with Nike, the Gap, Dell and others to increase representations of trans and non-binary youth who are thriving with family and community support. And the Phluid Project is bringing their product line with messages of gender and transgender rights and community empowerment to huge and accessible audiences with products in Target, Kohls, Macys and other retail outlets.

Wong

Macys has a longstanding history of supporting LGBTQ young people, and they lean into their brand and strengths as a company. Since theyre a clothing retailer, we collaborated on a Styles of Pride campaign that centers LGBTQ youth voices in an authentic way, and focuses on how style can be an important form of expression. The hero video emphasizes the diversity of LGBTQ youth that The Trevor Project serves, and shows young people expressing themselves freely.

Manley

Ive long admired brands with an established history of engagement with the LGBTQ+ community like Absolut. Beyond inclusive marketing, Absolut has supported the community for over 40 years through representative partnerships, sponsorships and millions of dollars in donations to local LGBTQ community centers and organizations.

I was excited last year to see LEGO step forward with the Everyone is Awesome campaign. A play on the Everything is Awesome theme song used in one of their movies, LEGO released a set with 11 figures each designed with its own hairstyle and distinct color from the Pride flag. The purpose of the launch was to draw attention to the diverse identities that compose the LGBTQ+ community. I thought the campaign was not only authentic to the brand, but also authentic to the community.

And LEGO built on it this year with A-Z of Awesome, which was a community-centered social media project that centered LGBTQIA+ voices and invited members of the community to share their individual stories. This included donating $1 million to various LGBTQ partners and collaborating with international festivities, advocacy and educational organizations like Workplace Pride, Open for Business and Stonewall.

Through each iteration of LEGOs campaign, Ive seen it evolve and improve as an example of how a brand can take steps to engage with our community in a meaningful and intersectional way that not only brings value to the business, but also authentically celebrates and elevates the community.

Doyle

As a member of GLAADs Board of Directors, I celebrate the important work initiated by GLAADs inaugural Social Media Safety Index. Released in early 2021, this was the first study of this kind across the five major social media platforms to truly gauge LGBTQ+ user safety, and it found the entire sector was essentially unsafe with a prevalence of hate speech and harassment. It created from these findings a responsibility platform checklist that offers recommendations for all organizations in the sector.

Radelet

This one, from Miller Lite, checks many of the right boxes:

Garner

Equality Floridas campaign is a great example of topical messaging that is emotional, unsparing, and unwavering in its advocacy

For larger brands and campaigns, I really dug the H+M Beyond the Rainbow campaign a terrific multi-platform, digital-first campaign that eschews cliches and reimagines the rainbow as a vehicle for inclusive, emotional, authentic storytelling.

Kaye

Tinder and the Human Rights Campaign are working together to end LGBTQIA+ blood donation bans in the United States by encouraging users to take part in the ADVANCE survey that could help end the harmful policy.

COMMENT

Continue reading here:

What prominent LGBTQ+ PR pros say about reaching the community in Pride and beyond - PR Daily

San Francisco, CA Today, Mayor London N. Breed announced new proposed funding to expand services for Asian victims of crime. The $500,000 investment in her proposed budget will increase services and capacity to serve Asian victims of crime who are limited in their English proficiency.

Since the pandemic began, reported hate crimes and incidents against Asians and Pacific Islanders have increased exponentially. In 2021 alone, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) reported in January of 2022 that there was a 567% increase in reported hate crimes from 2020. The Stop AAPI Hate coalition tracked more than 10,000 incidents of hate from March 2020 through September 2021 nationally.

As weve seen hate crimes play out in our city, our Police Department has responded to make arrests and hold people accountable, said Mayor Breed. And while accountability is critical in these cases, it also became clear in talking to many in the community that these victims also need mental health support, which can be difficult for those with language barriers. Through this funding, we will be getting the support to those who need it, in the way that they are most likely to accept itthat is the key to a victim-centered system.

The proposed $500,000 investment includes:

With these investments from the Mayors Office, more Asian victims of crime will have early access to culturally competent mental health services, said Christina Shea, Deputy Chief/Director of Clinical Services at RAMS, Inc. This is a crucial piece to begin the recovery and healingto have a means to process their feelings of grief, shock, fear, and anxiety, which could lead to more complex issues in the future, if not supported early on.

During a time when our community is experiencing extreme stress, anxiety, and fear, supporting culturally competent and in-language support is more critical than ever. We uplift any effort that not only destigmatizes but expands mental health services for our API community. Healing starts with an intentional effort to meet community members where they are and with respect for their culture. Investments in this work are pivotal as we recover from our collective trauma, said Sarah Wan, Executive Director of Community Youth Center (CYC), an organization that provides wraparound services for victims of crime, focusing on limited English proficient API victims of hate incidents and crimes.

Mayor Breed has invested in growing victim services citywide, including for the limited English proficient communities and hate crime victims. Last year, she invested over $3.2 million in wraparound victim services for the API community and created a Community Liaison Unit (CLU) within the SFPD to ensure that there would be cultural and linguistic competency to reach and serve victims. There is ongoing $2.6 million for community-led, multiracial safety walks staffed by CYC and the Street Violence Intervention Project (SVIP) as well as $2.5 million for community-based wraparound victim services and a citywide senior escort program led by Self Help for the Elderly to prevent violence in the first place.

This investment represents a commitment to support our diverse communities in San Francisco, said Dr. Sheryl Davis, Director, Human Rights Commission. Through the Office of Racial Equity, the Human Rights Commission will invest over two million dollars to address hate incidents and support communities and groups across the City to address bias and discrimination. The success of this program requires cross-cultural collaboration, and we are all committed to addressing the root causes of bias and inequity. We will continue to address issues of hate across the intersections including, race, age, gender, sexual orientation, and in this instance the need for in-language support. This is one example of how we provide supports based on the community need.

What was clear from these providers was that there was a need to strengthen access to mental health services for victims who faced additional obstacles in getting help after the death of a loved one or being targeted for violence due to language and cultural barriersvictim advocates identified this is a key gap that they could not provide without the Citys help in growing these resources.

###

Read more:

Mayor London Breed Proposes Funding in Budget to Expand Services for Limited English Proficient Asian Victims of Crime | Office of the Mayor - SF...

KANSAS CITY, Mo. Theres a new tool helping Kansas City better understand its progress and growth.

The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) is pulling together a lot of data, helping figure out what help the metro needs and where programs to address those needs should happen.

The map is called the Economic Equity Value Atlas (EEVA), and it tracks more than 100 types of data throughout the metro. It makes it a lot easier to see which parts of town are thriving and which parts arent.

When we identify a problemthats clearly shown in the metrics, then it becomes a rallying cry for what we are going to do about it, MARC Director of Research Services Frank Lenk said.

Lenk pulled the data together for the EEVA and, through a series of clicks, shows how the maps data can tell a variety of stories about communities all over the KC metro.

One example is showing how the amount of people applying for home ownership loans is relatively uniform across much of Johnson County, Kansas, and Jackson County, Missouri.

But when looking at how often those applications are denied, the atlas shows denials are much more common in communities that have also been redlined and disinvested in throughout Kansas Citys history.

Lenk said stark contrasts like that show the same communities can keep struggling through time, even when intentional efforts to hold them back are less common.

We have more of a systemic problem that will require a more systemic solution, Fenk said. Its something that we need to come together to solve. No one can solve it on their own.

Fenk also demonstrated how the largest population increases are about 15-20 minutes outside the core of the city, showing a continued move to the suburbs that has been happening in the metro for years.

But the data also shows movement into the very center of the urban core where new development has, for the first time in years, created an increasing population in the center of the city.

However, other data shows that spending on roads and bridges remains more common on the edges of the suburbs, suggesting that the suburban sprawl will only continue.

The city of Kansas City is using the atlas as it tries to improve communities along the Prospect Avenue Max route as part of its ProspectUs project.

Kansas City Planning Director Jeffrey Williams said it gives the city a way to know if its plans are working and a way for citizens to hold the city accountable.

With tools like EEVA, it gives you a number to shoot for, a target, a measure, Williams said. It sets a base, and its a way to measure how we are growing.

The goal is to make sure that programs meant to help the community reach the right locations, but also as a way to make sure that growth doesnt happen at the expense of some communities or leave parts of the metro behind.

In total, Kansas City, Missouri, needs to be a wholly-equitable, accessible, welcoming community, Williams said.

See the article here:

New tool helping Kansas City make sure its growing the right way - WDAF FOX4 Kansas City