So, we’ve been talking about equity lens and tools for quite some time, and they did a practice run on and equity analysis on the public market (I have to admit I didn’t look at that til now). But this is the first public explanation of the equity analysis tool that I have seen on a city agenda. It’s the first time I saw the tool and questions (long form, short form) I probably missed the public market one because their agendas come out late every week and I don’t always go back and look.
Lara Mainella and Jason Tisue did a presentation. Mainella is from the City Attorney’s Office. He is the Warner Park Center Director. Mainella says they were asked to do a presentation on the tool kit. She asks if they are familiar with he RESJI (Racial, Economic and Social Justice Initiative) as a whole or if she should talk about it. They think they should get an overview. They say this came up on a project. Tisue says this is a new program, this was started by the council and mayor, he reads the mission. He says it is a tool for city staff to use. The team has people from all departments, they meet regularly and strategize about how to better inform policy makers and implement these changes.
Mainella says that one of the charges to the team was to develop a tool kit or analysis tool so that when a city policy or decision is to be looked at through a racial and social justice lens, then they will have a document to help with that process. They have three documents, the tool kits are attached, there is a long version and a comprehensive version and the idea is that because city council and leadership have charged them with and empowered them with the ability to make decisions through a lens that intentionally recognizes equity, we have been told to be intentional about it. They are determining how to do that. They created the tool to do this. They ask questions that might not typically be asked. They are to ask who will benefit and who will be burdened, it goes deeper and asks for people of color who might be impacted. They think about unintended consequences, it’s a brainstorming activity. After they have identified these things, then they ask questions about how you identified them, and then asks about stakeholders and community engagement. What was used to get to where they are, who have you heard from and who haven’t you head from if there is a genuine way to get feedback from people who haven’t been impacted. You do that, write it down and then make a recommendation that takes into account the issues you were guided through.
Woman on commission asks about one part about the a recommendation which I didn’t understand but she seems to be asking if the report results are binding or what influence they have on commission decisions. Mainella says it depends upon what other processes are involved, the person doing this can, if they want to, ignore the results, but when it goes to the governing body they will know the analysis is done, and they will ask why. David Wallner (the chair) says that they are looking at a playground that has triggered their interest, if staff thinks a playground goes here and the report disagrees, is this advisory. In the end, Jacob says the commission decides. He says that after using it for Warner Park Visioning process, it is a tool to guide community engagement, it is a way to communicate and reach out to people you wouldn’t reach out to. It doesn’t come up with an exact answer, it’s a guiding tool, as it gets implemented, it becomes more commonplace, as it is a tool that is used more often. At first you might go against where the tool guides you, but that will go away. He used it to identify people who wouldn’t have given input in the Warner park process and it helped them reach out and do community engagement they wouldn’t have ever done. Mainella says that she isn’t familiar with how playground decisions are made, does it come to this commission. Wallner says it’s part of a report and part of the master plan process. Mainella says this won’t replace existing structure, it informs it. If the commission is in evolved in playground locations, the final version of the tool will be made public to you and the people who participated in the process and it is to be used as much as you would like it to. Eric Knepp (Parks Director) says that this commission is unique in that you have multiple decision making authority and some items don’t go to council, except the capital budget does. The decision making authority rests with them for some things, he thinks it will be a helpful tool in informing the process. He looks forward to going through this process, this is designed to get the voices they heard, to hear the needs of the area and the park. The commission in theory could ignore it, he would discourage that, but he doesn’t suspect that this will be an issue with the one they are working on now, it’s more of an informative thing. Wallner agrees.
Samba Baldeh asks if the report is finalized. Mainella says she thinks this is final. It is on employeenet webpage, meant for employees but open to everyone, it’s in a to z forms.
Baldeh asks if there is a process in place to let policy makers know about the tool, that it is there and we can use it. Mainella says from your questions I guess we need to work on that. Baldeh asks if there is a process to go to other committees and let them know. Mainella says that the leaders have a timetable and process laid out, they are using it on a pilot process but in the 2016 plan they will roll it out in a more robust fashion. Baldeh asks if they can get more info, it is being used as a political tool, but if it isn’t presented to us, can you send something out letting us know that it exists. Baldeh asks about how they are evaluating the impact of the tool. Mainella says it is on the list of things to do, they have number crunching people and technical analysis people working on it. Knepp says introducing the tool was in every department’s plans, so they will id that in the 2016 plan.
And that was it.
Here’s the info from the best practices one-pager from Sept. 2014:
Is:
– A systematic examination of likely impacts of decisions, policies, programs, practices and budgets on racial and ethnic groups or low –income populations
– Used to minimize adverse consequences, prevent institutional racism and identify new options to remedy existing inequities
– An intentional pause
– Best used early in the process
– To be conducted with a variety of perspectives and stakeholders whenever possible
– A way to raise the voice of traditionally marginalized communities
– A way to raise awareness of racial and social justice issues in the communityIs NOT:
– The “answer”
– To be used for political or professional gain
– To stop a process or slow it down beyond recognition
– Only applicable at the beginning and can be used to evaluate ongoing issues or programs
– The only way to engage stakeholders
– A way to create token representation in decisions
– A guarantee that decision makers will follow the recommendationsBest Practices
– Identify groups and individuals most likely to be impacted by the decision, policy, program, practice or budget. Find ways to involve them in the analysis.
– The analysis can be conducted in a variety of ways. Some examples include:
o facilitated, full-group discussion
o one-on-one conversations
o small group meetings
– Create accountability by sharing the analysis widely with stakeholders, decision makers and the public. Be clear about how the process occurred, including who asked for the analysis, who participated, and identified missing elements such as data or stakeholder input.
– This is not a prescriptive or linear process. Adapt it to your needs and reach out for technical assistance as needed.
