Posted in Collaboration

December 16, 2015

Courageous Race Conversations Shift Justice System

Our eyes met and locked a split second after we noticed the feet of two young men sitting next to each other in the circle – both had a pant leg rolled up to show an ankle monitor. In the same circle, sat two sheriffs with guns and tasers strapped to their hips and covered by their untucked shirts. It was day three of our training, Moving Forward in Addressing Race, Power and Privilege, and we were now harvesting the fruits of many hours of challenging mental, emotional and spiritual work.

“I have learned to see that not all police officers are rude and mean,” shared a 14 year-old Latina girl. “I have learned that some officers care about me and want to be fair; this is the first time I’ve been in a space where I felt heard by adults (in the system).” 

Having law enforcement at the table with an openness to change is important. Systems are made up of individuals. Individuals centered on equity values and skilled in moving policy forward, in partnership with multi-sector networks towards common goals, can create long term change.

“I have gained sight and vision where before I was blind,” shared a white male law enforcement officer, “and I am willing to give what ever it takes personally and professionally to our cause.” 

This same individual had entered into the circle two days before carefully monitoring his every word, letting us know that he was stretching to understand what others were saying. This man’s perspective was literally transformed over the course of three days; it was an amazing shift to witness. Lifting the veil that usually hides the ways in which white people have benefitted from racism and other forms of oppression, as well as the ways that white people unintentionally reinforce discrimination and mistreatment can be shocking.

Why does confronting racism in the juvenile justice system matter?

  • The U.S. stands out in its use of youth incarceration. We incarcerate youth at higher rates than anywhere in the world: five times the rate of South Africa; 15 times the rate of Germany and 30 times the rate of Italy. With more than 75 percent of youth locked up for non-violent offenses, the U.S does not have an alarming crime problem; we have an alarming incarceration problem. And it’s a problem primarily for youth of color. We know that our current youth justice system is not equitable, excellent, or used sparingly and appropriately. Nearly 55,000 youth were incarcerated on any given night in 2013, most (87 percent) for non-violent offenses. The majority (66 percent) were youth of color. Nationwide, youth of color are significantly more likely to be incarcerated than White youth. In 2013:
    • Black youth were 4.6 times as likely;
    • Native American youth were 3.3 times as likely; and
    • Latino youth were 1.7 times as likely.[1]
  • An adolescent who has spent time in secure detention is far less likely to attain a high school diploma or consistently participate in the labor force in the future.[2]

When the youth of color created and performed a skit to illustrate the everyday harassment they face at the hands of police in this room full of adults, some of whom have a role in incarcerating them, all involved were transformed. The unfair treatment of people of color and at the hands of law enforcement is and has always been a life or death issue, and while public outcry lifting up this issue is important, finding ways to build bridges across this divide is even more crucial.

In our circle sat law enforcement, juvenile justice system-involved youth and parents, detention center and juvenile probation staff, non-profit leaders, leaders in the school district and staff from the district attorney’s office. We were all there with a single purpose, to decrease the disproportionate level of incarceration of African American, Native American and Latino youth. This was a crucial moment: a group of 30 people living and working in the same county with a rich diversity of perspectives, roles in the community and life experiences spent three whole days learning about the history and current manifestations of racism, listening to each other’s stories, and beginning to build a deeper level of trust.

“I hadn’t wanted to build relationships with the people in this group. I thought I could do the work with you and not necessarily like you. Many of us came to this table thinking that we were not playing a part in the negative impact we were having on youth. My biggest learning is that we need to have a level of trust and if we do not allow the education and vulnerability, we will not be open to own the part that each of us is playing in the dynamics of racial disparities. Without the relationship building and trust we can not move the work forward.” – Committee Chair

Nine months before this day, we met this group because they were in the midst of an intense racialized conflict between two leaders at this table, and the group’s long-time work had come to a halt. Years of tensions bubbling between “community” folks and “systems” people, between white folks and people of color, had risen to the point of ugly accusations and deep hurts. People who had been leading this work were seriously considering walking away.

How did the group get to this point? Years before, community stakeholders in this county formed a committee to address the overrepresentation of youth of color in their county’s juvenile justice system. New partners were asked to be part of that committee, including community stakeholders who had never been included in justice system reform. Traditional meeting locations and times at the courthouse were changed, and Judges, public defenders, prosecutors, juvenile probation and detention staff began going to meetings in the community, sometimes in the evenings, with youth and families who were directly impacted by the justice system. Although the disproportion of youth of color in the system was acknowledged by all, the initial strategies developed by the subcommittee for reducing that overrepresentation had limited impact and fell apart quickly. Furthermore, a lack of a common understanding of racial and ethnic disparities or agreed upon manner to communicate through hard conversations about racism had caused a divide between system stakeholders and community partners.

The dramatic shifts we saw the group take were rooted in the hard work by many people at this table and those that had supported them in the past. For five years they learned to work together as well as build cooperation across sectors. We supported the group to take a step back, rethink assumptions, account for the impact of their actions, and recommit to repairing relationships and backing up each others’ integrity and leadership. The stakeholders now have a renewed capacity to honor their commitment to the youth in their community, address institutional and structural racism together, and are in the process of implementing new practices within their Juvenile Probation Department informed by young people themselves.

“We talk about restorative justice for young people, but we also went through a restorative justice process ourselves. We are more able to have the difficult conversations about racism and I think this has shifted the power in the group. I feel I can bring my full self to the space now.” – Committee Chair

We, the trainers in this scenario, are two people who have devoted our lives to holding space for people to do the deep, challenging, and life-affirming work of understanding how racism operates and of actualizing a commitment to racial equity. As we led this training, it was not lost on us the vast differences we too were bridging. One of us is a formally undocumented immigrant who grew up in poverty and has been deeply targeted by oppression, and the other is a white person whose ancestors migrated to the U.S. with legal privileges from various parts of Europe in the 1600-1800s and has benefited from countless race and class-based advantages.

We are trained in different methodologies for leadership, collaboration and racial equity. One of us is a VISIONS Inc. trainer who has learned how to manage and support individuals to process and shift at personal and interpersonal levels while at the same time shift the culture and structure that lead to disparate racial outcomes. The other is a consultant and trainer at the Interaction Institute for Social Change who has supported groups that have a desire to do racial equity work but are unsure how to make it real. Many such groups have gone through an anti-racism training and then get stuck in a soup of spiraling emotions and an inability to translate the learning into action. Others have made some progress toward reducing racial disparities and are coming up against the roadblocks of cultural clashes that prevent a deeper level of cross-sector collaboration and change. Bringing the sets of tools both organizations have developed to a group that was ready to take their work to a new level of depth was the magic sauce that allowed for the incredible learning and shifts people experienced at this training.

“And now it’s time to get real again and roll up our sleeves, because [even though we have been working on this together for years already] this is just the beginning. There is still a tremendous lack of accountability in our system, a lack of consistency and practice. There are a few people in the entire system that get it – and so we got a long way to go. It is so refreshing and healing to be where we are now and we can take that medicine to keep going. The truth is that young people in our state are being mistreated. I am not going anywhere and neither is the institution we are trying to reconstruct. Language development, protocol, procedure, culture — all of that needs to be a continuous part of the work going forward.” – Committee Chair

During these three days, a few lessons about what it takes for this work to be successful became clear to us:

  • Break out of our silos – people from all parts of a system need to be at the table, including a critical mass of those most affected by the inequities (in this case that meant having more than one or two system-involved youth of color participate)
  • Take the time to build a shared understanding of what racism is, and how it operates at the internalized, interpersonal, institutional, structural and cultural levels as well as at the intersection of these
  • Make room for people to share their stories, and to show up as complex human beings (beyond job titles)
  • Create a space that allows people to show up with their minds, bodies, and spirits (an interactive learning environment that requires everyone to show up with vulnerability and openness is required; lectures and surface level activities don’t cut it)
  • Lean into disagreements and misunderstandings in order to build trust and a deeper level of collaboration, which makes the real work possible
  • Commit to the long-term nature of this work

In our country, images of young people of color being killed or harassed by law enforcement are commonplace. Growing numbers of youth and men of color in prison continue to skyrocket. As the Movement for Black Lives grows across the country, racial tensions simmer. People of color are afraid for their lives. White people are afraid to acknowledge the ways racism continues to define our country and to courageously and non-defensively do their part to undo racism. Bringing young people together with adults who work in the juvenile justice system and other adults that are part of extended ecosystems of support and contact is crucial to address the racial divide that has continued to divide our country and that has maintained the disparities that ultimately hurt us all.

What does it take for people of color, adults and youth to feel safe to fully speak about the negative impact of racism on their lives and for white folks and adults to hear this with out reacting defensively and sinking into guilt? What will it take for young people of color, those most affected by the juvenile justice system, to be seen as experts about the way racism plays out in the current system and about how to create a system where young people of color are not unduly punished for their mistakes, but treated like human beings?

About the Interaction Institute for Social Change: IISC increases the collaborative capacity of individuals, organizations, and institutions so they can find solutions to social problems. Over the past 25 years, we have developed a lens through which we facilitate social change and we bring it to every engagement. IISC invites groups and leaders to shift power dynamics, focus on building networks, and magnify love as a force for social change. Using this collaborative change lens, we see leaders overcome challenges and have astound-ing impact.

Never before have people with such varied histories been so intimately connected, whether because they live in a densely populated urban area or because they are linked online. Communities are struggling together with immense complex problems, from childcare to climate change. This makes being willing and able to facilitate meaningful discussions across differences one of the most important leadership skills of the 21st century.

Solving complex problems means understanding they have a systemic nature. Powerful leaders offer ways to investigate the root causes, in order to look for high leverage solutions and engage non-traditional allies.

IISC is building Big Democracy, the collaborative infrastructure to facilitate sustained engagement by leaders in their organizations and cities.  

About VISIONS Inc: Founded in 1984, VISIONS, Inc. (www.visions-inc.org)  is a non-profit training and consulting organization, specializing in diversity and inclusion. We have offices in Dorchester, MA; Rocky Mount, NC; and Fresno, CA; and are supported by our highly skilled and diverse team of consultants located throughout the United States and abroad. VISIONS mission is to:

  • equip individuals, organizations, and communities with the tools needed to thrive in a diverse world.
  • remove structural and cultural barriers that prevent full and equitable participation.
  • help create environments where differences are recognized, understood, appreciated, and utilized for the benefit of all.

We  realize this mission by implementing a time-tested, insight-driven, process model of  consulting and training that  supports  our clients in becoming catalysts for change and effectively engages all people in the deep, challenging, and rewarding work of authentic inclusion, personally and within their organizations and communities.

[1] The W. Haywood Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice Fairness and Equity, http://data.burnsinstitute.org/about

[2] The Sentencing Project,  http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_Disproportionate%20Minority%20Contact.pdf

1 Comment
October 6, 2015

Going Slow and Going Farther: Collective Impact and Building Networks for System Change

A recent report out of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University highlights a number of food systems change efforts that have adopted a collective impact approach. Two of these are initiatives that IISC supports – Food Solutions New England and Vermont Farm to Plate Network. The report distills common and helpful lessons across eight state-wide and regional efforts. Here I want to summarize and elaborate on some of the article’s core points, which I believe have applicability to virtually all collaborative networks for social change.

First off, the authors note the importance of context. They quote Margaret Adamek from the Minnesota Food Charter, who points out that “borrowing from other states and initiatives only goes so far as ‘the unique features of each place are what dictate the strategy.'” At IISC, we could not agree more. Complex systems suggest that we cannot bring a cookie cutter approach to change. As such, there is not one single appropriate model for food systems change. That said, the authors discuss common practices that can undergird a diversity of approaches.

  • Investing time – It always takes longer than you think or want. While this may not be the best marketing pitch for collective impact and network building, it is good to manage people’s expectations. This work is a marathon, not a sprint. Undoing and shifting years of practices, layers of institutional structures and fixed mindsets does not happen over-night. Furthermore, it takes time to build alignment among key players.
  • Building trustA recent blog post in the Stanford Social Innovations Review says it all – “In our research and experience, the single most important factor behind all successful collaborations is trust-based relationships among participants. Many collaborative efforts ultimately fail to reach their full potential because they lack a strong relational foundation.” Trust is what binds the efforts together and creates longer-term and more emergent potential.

Change begins and ends with relationships, and a big part of systems change is rewiring and bringing greater depth (trust) to existing patterns of relationships.

  • Being strategic about communication – Communication really is the lifeblood of networks. It’s what contributes to transparency, trust, social learning and adaptive capacity. Communication is not simply about one-way or one-to-many channels. Having myriad ways for people to connect and find one another helps to deliver value to more people in more ways.
  • Using stories as strategy and evaluation – In complex systems, stories become an avenue for sense-making as well as a means of capturing diverse human experiences in a system. Stories can also provide qualitative data about how systems are changing, and they tend to have stickiness and staying power that can keep people motivated and coming back.

Powerful stories are like enriched compost that can be fed back into the network to nurture new growth.

  • Tracking economic impact and other metrics – Arguably, economics underlies every kind of social change needed in this country. What I mean by this is that access to/ownership of resources of various kinds is key to power and self-determination, and affecting every system is the concentration and consolidation of power in ever fewer elite hands. Without tracking whether resources are growing in local communities and flowing and owned in more equitable ways, it is hard to say that we are making truly systemic change.
  • Engaging diverse stakeholders – Another underlying factor in every systemic issue in this country is the growing crisis of democracy. From small towns to big cities, the composition of the public is becoming increasingly complex. At IISC, we see all of our work as striving in some way, shape or form to answer the question: “How can we build the will and develop the skill of the diverse public to collectively create just and sustainable societies?” We see a future in which we are “all in;” all in providing the information and knowledge needed to understand the issues that affect us; all in making decisions that impact us; all in, and especially those who are most often left out and are most negatively impacted. This push for more inclusive processes and structures is what we call Big Democracy. In this sense, engaging diverse stakeholders is not simply a means but an end in and of itself.
4 Comments
September 10, 2015

Networks for Change: Skill, Will, Attitude and Structure

A couple of weeks ago I joined a panel of presenters on a webinar hosted by Johns Hopkins’ Center for a Livable Future focused on collective impact and network building for food policy councils. Other panelists included Ellen Kahler from Vermont Farm to Plate Network, Jennifer Obadia from Health Care Without Harm, and Whitney Fields from Indianapolis Food Council. My role was to provide an overview of collective impact, giving credit to FSG and the Collective Impact Forum for codifying and advancing research and practice in this arena, as well as network building principles as applied to collaborative efforts to realize more local, just and sustainable food production, distribution and access. Read More

2 Comments
July 28, 2015

Networks: Don’t Wait, Animate!

15221-717x359

Just coming off of co-delivering a 2 day Pathway to Change public workshop at IISC with Maanav Thakore, and I’m continuing to think about how important context is to the work of social change. In particular, I’m thinking about how seeing the foundation of all change efforts as being fundamentally networked can yield new possibilities throughout the work. There is the change we plan for, and the change that we don’t plan for and perhaps cannot even imagine – emergence. This is the stuff of networks, of living systems, of decentralized and self-organized activity, which can be encouraged and supported but not often predicted or controlled. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

How do I have to be for you to be free?

Orland Bishop

Read More

Leave a comment
April 22, 2015

Network Building as Change: Caring Through Connection

Image by Judy Gallagher, used under provision of the Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0.

The following is a slightly modified post from a little over a year ago. In recent months, the notion of putting care at the center of “net work” – to ground it, make it real and people accountable – has surfaced a number of times and strengthened. The original post included the phrase “the empathic turn.” Since that time I’ve come to see “caring” as a more appropriate word, rather than “empathy,” as it evokes for me not simply feeling but action. This re-post is inspired by the activists and thought leaders who are about to gather in Oakland, CA for the “Othering and Belonging” Conference, hosted by the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society

In an essay that I continue to revisit, the poet/essayist/novelist/farmer/ conservationist and champion of sanity, Wendell Berry, talks about what he calls “the turn towards affection.”  Having spent many years reflecting on and pushing back against the unfortunate demonstrated human capacity to despoil landscapes and demonize “the other,” he takes a strong stand for both deep rooted connection and . . . imagination:

“For humans to have a responsible relationship to the world, they must imagine their places in it. To have a place, to live and belong in a place, to live from a place without destroying it, we must imagine it. By imagination we see it illuminated by its own unique character and by our love for it.”

In other words, by his assessment, imagination thrives on contact, on an intimate form of knowing that is not simply intellectual, but intimate and holistic. For Berry it is only this kind of knowing that can lead to truly “responsible” action.

Others, past and present, hold the truth and power of this kind of fuller bodied knowing to be self-evident, in environmental conservation and social justice efforts and in what it means to be a responsible human. Professor john a. powell writes in his book Racing to Justice:

“There is a need for an alternative vision, a beloved community where being connected to the other is seen as the foundation of a healthy self, not its destruction, and where the racial other is seen not as the infinite other, but rather as the other that is always and already a part of us.”

Read More

1 Comment
March 26, 2015

Collective Impact: Equity, Community and Network Thinking

Learning Wall

Just returning from the Champions for Change gathering in Washington, DC hosted by the Tamarack Institute and the Collective Impact Forum. I was in attendance with a couple of others from the Food Solutions New England Network Team to learn more about people’s experiences with creating and developing a “backbone” function in their “collective impact” efforts, and also had the opportunity to do a couple of skills sessions around IISC’s “Dimensions of Collaborative Success” framework from Facilitative Leadership for Social Change. Read More

Leave a comment
February 20, 2015

Intuition, Iteration, and Group Visualization for Change

Important considerations for collaborative social change work: What are considered “legitimate” ways of knowing and doing? Why? What does this allow? What doesn’t it allow?

stickies

Photo by Juhansonin

I’m always interested to see diverse cognitive styles and preferences show up in the collaborative processes we help to design and facilitate at IISC. A classic difference is between those who bend more towards the analytical side of things and those who prefer to lead with intuition. This, of course, paints too stark of a dichotomy of what most people present overall, and context can often be a determinant in what people lead with. Nonetheless there are undeniable tensions that arise within groups about what constitutes “rigor” and “right method” for deriving what might be considered strategic insights. I would say that in many more “mainstream” (one might say “professional”) settings, it is often analysis and deference to some kind of “expert “that has a better chance of winning the day. And so I’ve been interested to come across a few resources that talk about and validate the place of intuition and iterative group visualization in coming up with good answers.

In a piece that appeared in the Harvard Business Review, Justin Fox writes about how instinct can beat analytical thinking. In particular, he lifts up the work of Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, Germany. Gigerenzer’s research suggests that rational, statistical, analytical approaches work well in situations where one is able to calculate risk. The trouble, however, is that in many situations, decisions are made in considerable uncertainty, where risk and consequence are unknown because everything is quite dynamic. Read More

Leave a comment
February 19, 2015

Smart Teams

Appreciating our colleague, Maureen White, for bringing our attention to recent research on smart teams. She highlighted a couple of things when she shared the articles, and I thought it important to share them with you.

The smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics:

  1. Their members contributed more equally to the team’s discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the group.
  2. Their members scored higher on a test called Reading the Mind in the Eyes, which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible.
  3. Teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. Indeed, it appeared that it was not “diversity” (having equal numbers of men and women) that mattered for a team’s intelligence, but simply having more women.

Read More

Leave a comment
February 18, 2015

A Leader-ful Movement

We are living through the early days of the next civil rights movement. It is an exhilarating moment. No, it does not read like the linear narrative of our history books and movement building manuals. That is because books and manuals are usually written with the benefit of hindsight to weave a story together. This movement is emergent and it takes a sharp eye to understand it.

Tip #1: You and Oprah should let go of old definitions of leadership

Jodie Tonita of the Social Transformation Project has recently published one of the sharpest articulations of leadership and how it works in the #BlackLivesMatter movement. I urge you to read it in its entirety.

Image of leaders

Names, bios, and more at revolt.tv.

Read More

Leave a comment
January 29, 2015

Facilitative Leadership for Net Impact

“Our world is, to a very real extent, based on dialogue. Every action taken that involves more than one person arises from conversation that generates, coordinates and reflects those actions. Those actions have impact. If our human world is based on conversations, then the work of creating and supporting those conversations is central to shaping a world that works. Designing and conducting meetings and other groups sessions well is vital to determining our common future.”

Group Works

Just recently in work with a national network, we turned the corner to start creating a structure to channel the alignment it has achieved around core goals for system change and ultimately to realize “collective impact” in a particular domain. As we were kicking off some of the early discussions, someone asked what I thought were the keys to creating a successful network structure. That’s a huge question that merits a complex answer, and I’ll admit that in reflecting on the dozen or so large scale change efforts I’ve been a part of the past 7 or 8 years, the first thing that came to mind was – “really good facilitation.”

Simplistic as this response may sound I was thinking of lessons learned from numerous efforts that no beautiful or well thought out network/collaborative structure stands up to a lack of strong facilitative capacity (skillset, mindset, and heartset). To be more nuanced, it is not just facilitation that ultimately came to mind, but what we at IISC call facilitative leadership.

For over 20 years, IISC has been teaching, preaching and practicing Facilitative Leadership (FL), and in many ways it seems that this approach has never been riper in light of the burgeoning call to collaborate and cooperate across boundaries of all kinds. At its base, FL is about creating and inspiring the conditions for self-organization so that people can successfully achieve a common (and often evolving) goal. The logical question that follows is, “How does one ‘create and inspire’ these conditions?” The answer is found in a variety of practices derived from successful group work and that have indeed shown promise across different networks and large scale change efforts to create solid foundations and momentum for social change. Among them are these: Read More

5 Comments
January 22, 2015

Democracy, Equity and the Pursuit of Data

“If you bring the appropriate people together in constructive ways with good information, they will create authentic visions and strategies for addressing the shared concerns of the organization and community.”

David Chrislip

Image from r2hox

In our work at IISC, we occasionally reference David Chrislip’s “collaborative premise” (see above) as a way of orienting people to some of the key components of effective collective and net work. Given our emphasis on effective stakeholder engagement and process design, we generally focus on the first two elements more so than the last around good information, which does not mean we think it doesn’t matter. In fact, recently I’ve been observing some interesting dynamics around the data conversation in various network building and collective impact projects that we support.

Invariably, it seems that there are those who are quite concerned about ensuring that a given collective effort has the “right data” and that people are being “rigorous” in their approach to problem/opportunity analysis and solution generation. While understanding the need to have and use good data, we also think that it’s important to ask the question – Data for what? People often say they want data to ensure that they are not making uninformed and overly subjective judgments. Understandable. Furthermore it is sensible to want to seek out a baseline to be able to measure progress as a change effort moves forward. This said, I see a number of pitfalls in what can sometimes become the drumbeat for data.

Read More

4 Comments