It starts with intentionality—working to ensure that a project’s (or policy’s) potential benefits, like jobs, are accessible to members of under-served populations and communities. And, you want to make sure that the workers on the project are being paid decent wages and have benefits. But when developers or cities conduct business as usual, they’re missing opportunities to maximize the social or environmental impacts of an investment. For example, when Los Angeles initially announced plans for its billion dollar light rail purchase, they failed to think through how their procurement could benefit the entire city/region. The city, at first, considered it as a simple transaction for goods and services, until community organizers surfaced the potential missed opportunity to bring much needed jobs into the region through procurement policies that preference local sourcing, quality job standards and local hiring.

In recent years many of our cities and states have moved towards fiscal austerity seeking to cut public sector cost and in some instances to reduce the size of government. These moves have had a negative impact on much needed social services, public schools or other investments that have a tremendous positive impact on lower-income communities. At the same time, cities and states are far too willing to “give away the farm” by subsidizing the relocation of a major corporation to their city/state. And they do this with few if any questions asked. In return they get little if anything other than what is often a headcount of “new” jobs coming to the city. These jobs are counted as new regardless of whether or not they are already filled or if they are even accessible to the segment of the population that most needs them. It is an equity issue – it’s about where and how we’re choosing to spend our tax dollars.

Working in partnership with Good Jobs First we helped to activate the philanthropic sector to respond to a call for comments by the General Accounting Standards Board [the group that oversees public-sector accounting standards] that would mandate that local governments report how much revenue they lose to business tax breaks granted in the name of economic development. It was a big win for transparency and equity because now states and cities have to report on the estimated $70 billion per year they give away, mostly as tax breaks. They have to talk about what they’re losing — and lost revenue affects every kind of public service: education, health care, housing, infrastructure, and public safety.

Often cities and states will award tax abatements to lure a new company into the area. I think there’s an opportunity to tie that tax break or relief to the quality of the jobs that the company is providing. So you could ensure that there’s a wage standard that applies to and benefits all workers. And you could make certain that all the employees have benefits. Those are just some of the conditions you could demand as a part of the tax relief or subsidy package.

Worker ownership is a much more democratic business structure and we are trying to figure out if it is possible to scale it. Worker-owned cooperatives and employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) have been around for a long time but neither has become a dominant business structure. There are a host of questions as to why: Democratic ownership is still somewhat unfamiliar to most Americans and operating within this type of structure may be difficult during the first few years. But the benefits, increased job security, sometimes better wages, and the ability to really grow wealth, that’s why we’re in this. That’s why we continue to push to see if we could really get to a point of scale.

There is a pretty robust business sector in many communities of color, but it’s mostly sole proprietor businesses or other micro enterprises. We are focusing on midsize and larger businesses, the ones that are generating more jobs or have the potential to generate more jobs. But it is also these businesses whose success is limited because they simply cannot access the capital they need to grow and create new jobs. So, through our program related investments in Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), for example, we are investing in faster, more efficient ways to deploy capital to minority and women-owned businesses. But because many of these small businesses also lack technical and back office capacity, and often lack networks to identify their next contract, we are also funding business support services.

This is the bane of my existence. Philanthropy often talks about innovation. And I certainly think there is a need for us to innovate a bit more including pushing the organizations that we support to think more broadly—especially in terms of what lower income people can do in this economy. There’s an understanding that most low-wage work is dominated by people of color or women. The question I always ask is, “Does that always have to be the case?” Community groups, community development organizations, and workforce organizations aren’t necessarily looking at the industry clusters or the data that shows what is driving a regional economy. Instead of focusing on all of the industry sectors that are growing, they often focus on the lowest hanging fruit. These are jobs with the lowest barriers to entry like the hospitality or food services sector, or in health care and construction. But there’s great promise and efforts in the tech sector and other areas such as biosciences. We have to look harder at how best to ensure that lower income people and people of color have fair access to career sectors that offer quality jobs from the start.

By 2030 New York City will grow to over nine million people. There are implications as to how this is going to tax the existing, aging infrastructure—our energy, transportation, and stormwater systems. So, how do you put in place systems capable of supporting that growth, while also addressing an increasingly precarious social and physical environment? We believe creating a planning process, in which all communities can articulate their long-term needs and be co-architects in the infrastructure design and operations will impact how those decisions and priorities are made. PlaNYC, the Bloomberg Administration’s sustainability plan, for example, attempted to create an open and participatory process. They brought valued community stakeholders into the process, which was unique because often organizations such as the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Department of Environmental Protection make decisions internally with little authentic input from the users of the services. Engagement consists of basically checking off the box that they had the two or three public meetings that they’re legally required to hold, and that's the end of it. But, the Bloomberg Administration attempted to create a process where there was an open dialogue over a series of months during which they brought in community-based organizations that would then return to the community and solicit ideas. While there were flaws in the process, community-based organizations were activated in a way that continues to this day and acts to hold public officials more accountable to residents.

Infrastructure shapes the built environment and guides the success of people living in that environment. We can create cities and be intentional about how we think through the land use practices that mitigate the amount of pollution that we're creating, while also supporting connectivity. For example, if you compare New York City to a smaller city that does not have reliant and affordable transit, New York’s GHG footprint is actually significantly lower because the city has far fewer people in cars. Most cities are dependent on the highway infrastructure. That’s an example of decisions about where we make investments that has implications for the environment and the quality of life within communities.

Given the opportunity, with the right organizing support, information, governance and financing structures in place, communities will make good decisions about which energy solutions make the most sense for them, whether that is energy efficiency, renewables, or other distributed systems. We are focused on process rather than the prescriptive approach of prioritizing one energy source over another. We think that an inclusive, democratized process where the end users are engaged in the decision process will produce a better solution—grounded by equity principles. One of the biggest opportunities right now is the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the country’s first attempt at limiting carbon emissions through federal policy. While the policy is at the federal level, each state must decide how to comply. This means all states have been engaged in designing a process to compile ideas and feedback about an energy plan for their particular state –some states have been more inclusive than others. As this country moves away from fossil fuels and towards other sources of energy, it is critical that people have a say about how and where these new systems are built and who gets to benefit from them.

There has been a broad spectrum of responses to the Clean Power Plan (CPP). For a variety of reasons, some state elected officials, such as Kentucky’s new governor, are more vocal about their opposition to the plan than others. The reality, however, is that many segments of the national market have already begun to transition from a coal economy. Groups like Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, their partners at the Empower KY campaign, and many Kentucky residents want a different future than the one many of their elected officials are proposing. These Kentuckians are collectively putting forward an alternative plan outside of the formal government process—one that would allow Kentucky to be in compliance with the CPP. They want to prepare themselves for a just and equitable economy not based in extractive industries such as coal and to actively help create new markets that foster their alternative economic visions.

One of the challenges in the food sector is that a lot of the assets a typical business would account for as collateral do not apply to the food sector. As a result, a lot of lenders do not adequately understand these businesses and their unique financing needs. So in the short term, philanthropy is taking on the role of helping to collateralize this nascent part of the food industry and providing the capital to enable them to build out their businesses in exchange for providing a social good. Surdna’s program related investments in the food sector demonstrates to others the value and the viability of these businesses.

The people and organizations doing the exemplary work are convening themselves and talking about how they can support their peers as they begin to transition to operations that look at a mix of gray and green infrastructure. As with many emerging fields of practice, we believe that peer-to-peer exchange opportunities are critical. Within the green infrastructure sector, we are supporting some thinking about what a more formalized network of practitioners might look like. Our intention is to support further developments—both on the planning and implementation side of green infrastructure systems. Within this type of network, one of the opportunities is for cities that have not yet engaged—or are at the beginning of their thinking about green infrastructure—to learn directly from those cities that are leading the way.

I was reminded recently of the clarity of purpose and inspiration we get from actually seeing the work that we’re supporting. I recently went to see Paloma McGregor’s Dancing While Black performance, held in a very intimate space in Brooklyn. Following the showing of work by four choreographers/dancers, Paloma sat with the audience and asked that “they now put something back into the room—and back to the artists—by sharing how they were affected by the performance”. It was a wonderful experience listening to people talk about art, dance, and social issues in the temporary community that was created through dance. It reminded me of how important it is to support artistic practices that spend time and energy thinking about the craft and the messages built into artistic practice in equal measure.

Art by definition is a really subjective process—for the artists and the audience. So what I might think was not successful, someone else might think was superb. And both answers can be simultaneously right. But when you can look at an artist’s work over time and you see those moments where maybe it didn’t come together quite as intended, it helps you understand their process beyond the judgements we find ourselves having based on achievement of a single performance. At Surdna, we have to have the ability to embrace both those moments where their intentions are fully met and maybe when things didn’t come together as planned. In both of those instances, it offers the perfect analogy to how we should think about our work as funders—not as success across the linear time scale but as ebbs and flows of practice that we have to give ourselves time to fully understand.

The design of the process itself is so clearly different from what we would have seen in the absence of a community engaged mindset. So, hopefully, our funding is enabling people who are really skilled at bringing communities together and eliciting ideas and advice in rooms with people who are often left out in places where there are important decisions being made. The specific projects that we’re supporting will yield stronger communities as a result of democratized processes in which the power of residents speaking on their own behalf is prioritized in rezoning, planning, and policy decisions.

If our work is done right, the artists and culture bearers who are catalyzing change are doing so in support of the retention of residents who choose to remain in these communities. Artists are often seen as an early signal of gentrification. But our funding is focused on the artists and culture bearers who are already part of the community and are working alongside fellow residents on the issues that the community prioritizes

We all know that contributed support (foundation and individual giving) is not enough to fully capitalize the vast array of artistic work taking place. And, we also know that a lot of artistic and creative entrepreneurial endeavors are not attractive to commercial lenders—the businesses look small, risky, and unique. Our work with the social investment and arts programs at the Kresge Foundation is intended to demonstrate a different view on the field of small business lending and technical support for arts related activities. We are working with a group of Community Development Finance Institutions, to show us how they support arts and culture across an array of small business, real estate, and other financing programs that help artists, arts organizations and creative enterprises in low income communities. Over time, we hope to demonstrate how this work can deliver social and economic benefits to a community.

The programs we support are measuring the success of their students and alumna. We hear their stories, collect their data and visit their programs to round out our view on the Teens’ portfolio. As investors in arts organizations providing this training, we are deeply grateful for the exposure to the direct service work that they are providing. And see promising approaches in this work that yields strong outcomes. For example, we have found that success for young people often times is a reflection of the relationship that an organization builds with both the youth and their families. And we are always excited and encouraged by the wonderful accomplishments not only of the participants themselves but also of the organizations that build demand for arts and culture, train people in complex creative processes, and offer nurturing pathways for young people.

We’ve been thinking deeply about some of the recent efforts concerning diversity measurement of everything from who participates in arts and culture to who occupies leadership positions in cultural organizations. And while I fully support these endeavors, I also feel that it’s important to move beyond just the headcount. We have got to challenge ourselves to think about the necessary changes to provide effective contexts for people to exercise their power and skill to improve conditions for people and communities. We need to develop communities that respect and value differences. And ultimately, we need to see equity not just as equal distribution of resources, but a set of ongoing actions that recognizes the disparities, and holds us all accountable for what is not working for everyone.