Chapter 2: Frameworks for Racial Equity
By John Holdsclaw, IV with Mark M. Newberg and Kate Y. McCrery
The scars of inequity are now visible to all. The rifts and fissures inequity forges demand repair.
And the junction between racial equity and public policy is an intersection that must be addressed.
So what do we do about it? Where do we start?
Now that we’ve defined what impact is, let’s explore a critical element that has been underscored by the events of 2020: No policy can be truly impactful if it is intentionally (or unintentionally) racially discriminatory.
This might previously have gone unspoken. It has certainly been under-recognized. But the times in which we live and work demand we make explicit that which was long implicit.
Let’s start with some baseline agreements.
These will provide a starting point for the work that follows. Because without a common baseline of agreement, it’s hard to know where to start. But, in this case, the common agreements are the starting blocks that launch us toward common solutions.
Agreements
1. We are talking about racial equity.
This is both related to and distinct from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). (Similar individual definitions are often used to help develop specific institutional policies within organizations.)
Racial equity is both an aspiration and an active, ongoing practice. It recognizes that, historically, ability has been equally distributed, but opportunity has not. It seeks to remedy that inequity, achieve just results, and enable all communities to thrive.
2. Even well-intended policies can create discriminatory outcomes.
3. A policy that creates discriminatory outcomes can’t be truly impactful.
4. We would like to avoid those discriminatory outcomes.
No single chapter of a manual can solve all that racial equity seeks to address. This chapter is only a start; a common point of reference as we navigate together toward a better, just, and more equitable future.
For a deep exploration of racial equity, along with a comprehensive set of tools and resources, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation has made its own guide available to you here.
It is free to use, heavily researched, and constantly expanding. We encourage you to bookmark it, use it, share it, and return to it time and time again.
So, now we have a common understanding of what we’re talking about, and common agreement around some basic building blocks of achieving policy-process-driven racial equity. That’s a start. It’s also not enough. We need a framework to help embed racial equity into our policy-making approach, in a way that accelerates the process of achieving the outcomes we want.
But what does that look like in real life? How can a “good” policy be “unintentionally” discriminatory? Aren’t those mutually exclusive outcomes? It turns out they’re not, and that thinking about this on the front end can help us get to better outcomes, more quickly.
We think the easiest way to illustrate how “good” can be “unintentionally” discriminatory, and how to avoid it (in order to generate impactful outcomes), is with examples. So, we’ve created the following “hypothetical” case study, drawn from real-world examples.
First, we’ll establish the scenario. Then, we’ll circle back and apply the framework, just as we would in a live case study. Finally, we’ll answer a few key questions that come up most frequently at this stage in the process. Let’s get started.
Trees: Throwing Shade
The Mayor of a well-known, mid-sized American city is an avid outdoorsman. He grew up hunting and fishing in the mountains, spent summers breathing the clean air on his grandparent’s farm, and winters harvesting maple sap on his aunt’s property deep in the northeastern woods. In short, the mayor is both a sportsman and an environmentalist.
The Mayor and the City Council (as well as the Governor and State Legislature) have decided that air quality is an important issue and have decided to implement (and fund) an air-quality-improvement campaign. All acknowledge that the quickest, cheapest, most long-lasting, and most economically efficient place to start is planting trees. Lots of trees. 100,000 trees, in the City, in five years.
Research shows that trees improve air quality, absorb carbon dioxide, provide shade, and improve property values. All positive outcomes. The Mayor and the Council are excited. The Mayor orders the Department of Public works to buy the trees and start planting. The City’s Chief Operating Officer draws up a list of impact metrics the City will track. There is fanfare. There is ceremony. There is media attention.
There is unintentional discriminatory effect.
How is That Possible?
Let’s take an online map of this mid-sized American city. Now let’s put a neighborhood overlay on top of this map. Let’s also code those neighborhoods by their racial demographics, so that we can distinguish the predominantly white neighborhoods from the majority black and brown neighborhoods. Finally, let’s add an overlay showing where the 100,000 trees are scheduled to be planted.
Notice any gaps? If our hypothetical city is anything like the real world, chances are that the gaps will reveal themselves in the black and brown neighborhoods. It’s also likely that those neighborhoods have much less green space (fewer and smaller parks, fewer existing trees, smaller or no lawns), and much more concrete.
The planting map probably wasn’t drawn in order to keep trees out of those neighborhoods. It might well be faster to reach the goal of 100,000 new trees by planting where the ground is easily accessible, rather than covered by concrete and asphalt. But it’s unintentionally discriminatory.
Also, remember how the COO was compiling a list of impact metrics associated with tree planting? That list likely would include decreases in respiratory disease (trees clean the air), decreases in heat-related medical incidences (trees tend to create cooler microclimates in the summer), and decreases in airborne pollution.
By drawing a planting map that was unintentionally discriminatory, the City has prevented these positive impacts from reaching the communities that needed them most.
That means that, while the City might meet its overall climate goals it’s going to miss out on some of the greatest benefits, and greatest long-term cost-savings (from reduced health-related incidences), all because of some easily avoidable mistakes.
How Could it Have Been Avoided?
So we have arrived here. A well-intentioned policy has been implemented in an unintentionally discriminatory manner.
To make sure this does not happen again, here’s a simple, single-page set of questions to ask (and answer) at the front-end of any policy design and implementation process. These questions won’t cover every scenario you could ever encounter.
They do, however, form a basic framework that will guide you as you approach each new endeavor:
Who
Who is this policy designed to benefit?
Do the demographics of the group(s) to benefit reflect the demographics of my community?
Does the policy apply across all demographic groups? (Race, Gender, Urban, Rural, Religion, Orientation, Etc.)
Are there specific groups in my community that will not benefit from the policy as it is envisioned?
If so, how can we include these groups, with intentionality?
What
What is the intent of this policy (specifically, what impact does the policy attempt to achieve?)
Is that impact likely to be distributed equally across my community, as the policy is currently designed?
If not, how can I change the policy design/implement plan to bring the benefits to the full breadth of my community?
How
How will this policy be implemented?
Which individual (or individuals within a department) will be responsible for implementation?
Does that individual have a commitment to equitable implementation, the necessary resources to equitably implement, the support of their superiors for equitable implementation, and appropriate incentives to implement equitably?
Have the communities to benefit from the policy been measurably engaged in the implementation process?
a. If yes: how will the success of equitable implementation be measured?
b. If no: develop such a process, implement it, and make sure to design a system to measure the equitability of implementation.
Why
Why is this policy, as designed, the right approach to achieving equitable impact?
Why is the problem this policy seeks to solve the right problem to address?
Do the communities affected agree that the policy seeks to solve the right problem, in the right way?
If we apply these questions to our hypothetical, here’s a quick overview of what we might expect the Mayor to have discovered in our four categories of questions:
Who
The policy is designed to benefit everyone in the community, equally.
But the map very clearly shows that it won’t.
We can, and should, fix this.
What
The policy is designed to reduce air pollution and net carbon emissions. It’s also designed to improve, as secondary impacts, public health.
It’s not currently designed in a way that spreads the impact equitably.
We should have looked at a demographic map at the beginning. We would have noticed this omission.
We can fix this by redrawing our planting map. We’ll plant trees everywhere, with a special focus on places where there are low current concentrations of trees (and higher concentrations of airborne pollutants).
How
The Department of Public Works is in charge of tree-planting, and the Director of Public Works is specifically tasked with accomplishing our planting and climate-related goals (at least when it comes to this policy).
The Mayor should talk with the Director of Public Works about the policy goals and make clear that equitable implementation is supported, incentivized, and required.
Community leaders should be engaged in determining the highest priority neighborhoods/locations for tree planting, with first priority given to neighborhoods with lower ratios of trees-to-residents.
This won’t always be easy, but we might also uncover hidden opportunities or partnerships we would not previously have seen.
Why
If we fix the planting map, we can predict exactly how much carbon will be absorbed by each tree. We can match that against our Department of Environmental Quality’s data on carbon emissions/pollution by neighborhood.
Trees are extremely efficient at absorbing carbon, they last a long time, they’re much less expensive than new infrastructure construction, and they are generally regarded as improving quality of life in the areas where they grow. Sounds like a solid public policy approach.
Not only do the communities agree with the initiative, they have helped us see new opportunities we would not have otherwise seen.
By taking the RE framework into account, we have multiplied the impact we can have, by more equitably dividing the distribution of trees. That’s a win for the entire community.
Thumbnail
What You Need to Know
Racial equity is a fundamental component of effectively impactful policy. No policy can be truly impactful if it is intentionally (or unintentionally) discriminatory. But simply saying we are opposed to discriminatory effects isn’t enough. We need to do something about it.
That starts with understanding what we’re talking about:
This is both related to, and distinct from, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). (Similar individual definitions are often used to help develop specific institutional policies within organizations.)
Racial equity is both an aspiration and an active, ongoing practice. It recognizes that, historically, ability has been equally distributed, but opportunity has not. It seeks to remedy that inequity, achieve just results, and enable all communities to thrive.
In order to effectively embed the practice of racial equity across the full spectrum of policies a local, state, or national government (or governmental agency) might generate, there are four core questions to ask.
Use these as a starting point, whenever a new policy is under consideration, or an existing activity is under review. If you do, they will help you achieve more equitable and impactful policy outcomes:
Who
Who is this policy designed to benefit?
Do the demographics of the group(s) to benefit reflect the demographics of my community?
Does the policy apply across all demographic groups? (Race, Gender, Urban, Rural, Religion, Orientation, Etc.)
Are there specific groups in my community that will not benefit from the policy as it is envisioned?
If so, how can we include these groups, with intentionality?
What
What is the intent of this policy (specifically, what impact does the policy attempt to achieve?)
Is that impact likely to be distributed equally across my community, as the policy is currently designed?
If not, how can I change the policy design/implement plan to bring the benefits to the full breadth of my community?
How
How will this policy be implemented?
Which individual (or individuals within a department) will be responsible for implementation?
Does that individual have a commitment to equitable implementation, the necessary resources to equitably implement, the support of their superiors for equitable implementation, and appropriate incentives to implement equitably?
Have the communities to benefit from the policy been measurably engaged in the implementation process?
a. If yes: how will the success of equitable implementation be measured?
b. If no: develop such a process, implement it, and make sure to design a system to measure the equitability of implementation.
Why
Why is this policy, as designed, the right approach to achieving equitable impact?
Why is the problem this policy seeks to solve the right problem to address?
Do the communities affected agree that the policy seeks to solve the right problem, in the right way?