"!$#!
" !!$
!!
$
!
About the Publisher
The Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN) is a peer-to-peer network of local
government professionals from cities across the United States and Canada dedicated to creating
a healthier environment, economic prosperity, and increased social equity. Our dynamic network
enables sustainability directors and staff to share best practices and accelerate the application
of good ideas across North America.
The connections fostered by USDN have become increasingly important as cities both large and
small lead the way in developing the next generation of sustainable communities. USDN members
collaborate to produce resources and tools to spur innovation and advance sustainable practices.
About the Author
Angela Park is an independent consultant, writer, and founder/executive director of Mission Criti-
cal (formerly Diversity Matters), a nonprofit organization dedicated to making equity and diversity
hallmarks of progressive advocacy and policy making. She brings more than two decades of
experience on sustainable development policy, environmental justice, equity and diversity, and
organizational and leadership development to her partnerships with institutions across the
nonprofit, government, philanthropic, and private sectors. She researched and wrote Everybody’s
Movement: Environmental Justice and Climate Change and her work has been published by
The Diversity Factor, Grist, and Yale University and featured in Audubon. Angela has testified before
Congress and state legislatures and lectures at colleges across the United States. Previously,
she worked at The White House in both terms of the Clinton/Gore administration, managing
sustainable communities policy and constituency engagement at the President’s Council on
Sustainable Development. She coordinated state-level sustainable development initiatives at the
Center for Policy Alternatives and co-founded and served as deputy director of the Environmental
Leadership Program.
© Urban Sustainability Directors Network. All rights reserved.
248-880-1745
www.usdn.org
Design and layout:
FARM Creative
http://www.farmcreative.net
This report is available from:
URBAN SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTORS NETWORK
http://usdn.org/public/Innovation.html#EquityScan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i:1
PREFACE i:8
INTRODUCTION: DEFINING AND MAKING THE CASE 2
Defining Equity in the Sustainability Context 2
Making the Case for Equity 5
Equity is the Winning Economic and Environmental Strategy
Equity is Intrinsic to Good Planning
Equity and Diversity Are The Key to the Twenty-First Century’s Political
Constituency for Sustainability
SCANNING THE FIELD: GOOD PRACTICES TOWARD EQUITY 11
I. FRAMING AND COMMUNICATION: Integrate Equity Into Framing And
Communication Of Sustainability 12
Good Practice #1: Define sustainability proactively beyond “green,”
fully integrating equity and economy and a triple-bottom line approach 12
Spotlight: St. Louis, Missouri
Spotlight: Washington, DC
Good Practice #2: Connect the language and principles of environmental
justice and public health to sustainability whenever possible 15
Spotlight: Richmond, CA
Spotlight: San Francisco, CA
Good Practice #3: Put demographics and equity implications front
and center to educate community members 20
Spotlight: Equity Atlases
II. DATA, METRICS, AND ANALYSIS: Use data, metrics, and analysis to set
goals and build accountability for progress on equity 24
Good Practice #4: Collect comprehensive sustainability data that
fully integrate equity, then disaggregate that data to identify communities
of concern 24
Spotlight: King County, Washington
Good Practice #5: Use indicators to keep the public informed on
progress towards sustainability, including the reduction of disparities
among demographic groups 27
III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, CAPACITY BUILDING, AND
COLLABORATION: Build sustainability efforts on a foundation of community
engagement, ongoing capacity building, and collaboration 30
Good Practice #6: Build sustainability programs on a foundation
of authentic community engagement 30
Spotlight: Albany, New York
Spotlight: Services and Outreach to Limited English
Proficiency Residents
CONTENTS
Good Practice #7:
Provide learning opportunities on the basics of planning
and sustainability, including developing capacity and leadership in neighborhoods
prioritized for engagement 34
Spotlight: Cleveland, Ohio
Spotlight: San Francisco, California
IV. L OCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
Expand the capacity and infrastructure for equity in local government
decision-making and operations 37
Good Practice #8: Build an infrastructure of people and entities tasked
with achieving progress on equity in sustainability and foster collaboration
across agencies and beyond 37
Spotlight: Seattle, WA
Good Practice #9: Provide professional development to cultivate the
awareness,knowledge, and skills to effectively address equity within
local government 41
Good Practice #10: Develop implementation tools and processes
to institutionalize equity and increase accountability in decision-making,
budgeting, and programs 44
Spotlight: STAR Community Rating System
Spotlight: Examples of Local Government Equity Tools in Use
RECOMMENDATIONS: NEXT STEPS FOR INCREASING THE IMPACT
OF SUSTAINABILITY BY STRENGTHENING EQUITY 51
Recommendation #1: Spread what works by expanding opportunities
for information sharing and peer learning on equity in sustainability 52
Recommendation #2: Multiply and deepen professional
development opportunities 52
Recommendation #3: Expand the use of equity measures and support
their increasing sophistication 53
Recommendation #4: Diversify the sustainability field 54
Recommendation #5: Strengthen community partnerships, across sectors,
to accelerate progress on equity 56
Recommendation #6: Push the envelope on equity in sustainability
to innovate on high impact strategies 57
FINAL THOUGHTS 58
ENDNOTES 59
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 61
CONTENTS
i:1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Equity is emerging as a core component of sustainability. Leading cities and
regions are now making equity central to their sustainability efforts—in
name and in practice. To guide this report, the USDN Equity Scan Steering
Committee agreed on this definition of equity:
Equity in sustainability incorporates procedures, the distribution of
benefits and burdens, structural accountability, and generational impact
This includes:
s0ROCEDURAL%QUITYINCLUSIVEACCESSIBLEAUTHENTICENGAGEMENTANDREPRESENTA-
tion in processes to develop or implement sustainability programs and policies
s$ISTRIBUTIONAL%QUITYSUSTAINABILITYPROGRAMSANDPOLICIESRESULTINFAIRDISTRIBU-
tions of benefits and burdens across all segments of a community, prioritizing
those with highest need
s3TRUCTURAL%QUITYSUSTAINABILITYDECISIONMAKERSINSTITUTIONALIZEACCOUNTABILITY
decisions are made with a recognition of the historical, cultural, and institutional
dynamics and structures that have routinely advantaged privileged groups in
society and resulted in chronic, cumulative disadvantage for subordinated
groups
s4RANSGENERATIONAL%QUITYSUSTAINABILITYDECISIONSCONSIDERGENERATIONALIMPACTS
and don’t result in unfair burdens on future generations
Increasingly, there is an economic, political, and environmental case to be made for equity
and targeted solutions that address the needs of the most disadvantaged can, in fact,
benefit everyone. Local governments are promoting equity as sound fiscal and fiduciary
investments in the long-term health of their communities. As demographic change sweeps
the country, cities and metropolitan areas will serve populations that are majority people
of color, if they do not already. For the sustainability field, the authentic integration of
equity and economy—adhering to spirit of the Three Es and triple-bottom line—is
a necessary step toward expanding the political constituency for sustainability, beyond envi-
ronmentalists. Individuals who identify more closely with social justice and economic
development and who consider social and economic issues high priorities are more likely
to see the relevance of sustainability to their lives and work through a wider lens. The
emerging political majority, the constituency for sustainability, will demand an authentic
commitment to equity. It will test for credibility, seeking to make sure sustainability’s
promise isn’t merely nicely-phrased words in plans, but results they can see, feel, touch, and
enjoy in their neighborhoods, homes, family, and their lives.
i:2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SCANNING THE FIELD: GOOD PRACTICES TOWARD EQUITY
This report aims to shed light and provide guidance by sharing good practices that local
governments can emulate to ingrain equity more fully in their sustainability efforts. There is
a wealth of experience and expertise on which to draw. Cities are not implementing good
practices one at a time, checking off a box as they go. Good practices intertwine. Progress
in one area supports movement in another arena.
I. FRAMING AND COMMUNICATION: Integrate equity into framing and communication
of sustainability
GOOD PRACTICE #1: Define sustainability proactively beyond “green,” fully integrating equity
and economy and a triple-bottom line approach
Cities signal their commitment to equity both by how they introduce the concept of sustain-
ability to residents and in their ongoing reinforcement and framing. Because sustainability is
perceived as synonymous with “green,” environmental, and ecological issues, cities must be
proactive in reframing the term to embrace broader social, economic, public health, and safety
issues. Cities that are integrating equity successfully are painting a holistic picture of the pur-
pose of their sustainability programs. They are tying sustainability to an interwoven array
of issues connected to community vitality and prosperity. Importantly, in leading cities, sustain-
ABILITYISNTMERELYBEINGDElNEDINAHOLISTICMANNERITISALSOBEINGFRAMEDBYEXPLICITLY
naming historic inequities, underserved and vulnerable populations, the desire for fairness, and
the need to create equal opportunities for residents across neighborhoods.
Examples:
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, DC
GOOD PRACTICE #2: Connect the language and principles of environmental justice and
public health to sustainability whenever possible
Public health and environmental justice are two specific opportunities for broadening the
frame of sustainability and expanding how it is perceived. They are pathways for making equity
more visible within sustainability and their increased prominence holds the potential to engage
a more diverse mix of residents in sustainability efforts, including those who may perceive
conservation and ecology as distant issues pertaining to others. Cities are beginning to lead
with public health, making explicit ties to environmental and economic issues within a sustain-
ability umbrella. Like equity, environmental justice expands the frame of sustainability. A few
leading cities and counties have integrated the language and principles of environmental justice
into policies, programs, and staffing, and, in rare instances, into the structure of environmental
agencies as stand-alone programs. As cities explore their options for beginning or deepening
the integration of equity into sustainability, public health and environmental justice are two
high-potential opportunities for engaging residents and community leaders across sectors in
this important work.
Examples:
Cleveland, Ohio
Ingham County, Michigan
King County, Washington
Newark, New Jersey
Portland, Oregon
Richmond, California
San Diego County, California
San Francisco, California
Seattle, Washington
Washington, DC
i:3
GOOD PRACTICE #3: Put demographics and equity implications front and center to educate
community members
Easily-understood data about a city’s historic and current reality are part of the necessary
foundation for shared analysis and decision-making that engages community members. Data on
disparities and information about their implications, both currently and for the future, need to be
shared within the context of sustainability as part of the basic knowledge residents need to be
engaged in community decisions. Proactive education on differences in key indicators across the
community is an opportunity to build the case that equity is a core component of sustainability,
shining a light on existing inequities so public priorities are shaped accordingly.
Examples:
Atlanta Metropolitan Region, Georgia
Denver, Colorado
II. DATA, METRICS, AND ANALYSIS: Use data, metrics, and analysis to set goals and build
accountability for progress on equity
GOOD PRACTICE #4: Collect comprehensive sustainability data that fully integrate equity,
then disaggregate that data to identify communities of concern
In addition to collecting sustainability data overall, distributional equity requires an analysis
of the disbursal of benefits and burdens across key demographic groups and neighborhoods.
Disaggregating data by demographics provides a fuller picture of environmental, economic,
and social health, bringing to light disparities among groups within a community. As equity has
become further embedded in sustainability, equity indicators and measures are becoming
both more sophisticated and more widespread in their use.
Examples:
King County, Washington
San Diego County, California
San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Region, California
GOOD PRACTICE #5: Use indicators to inform the community on progress towards
sustainability, including the reduction of disparities among demographic groups
While some cities have simply renamed environmental indicators as sustainability indicators,
increasingly, health, social, economic, and equity issues are being integrated into an expanding set
of measurements that more accurately reflect the complexity of sustainability. Tracking indicators
over time enables cities to assess whether their programs and activities are accomplishing their
intended positive impacts and to convey developments to residents and decision-makers alike.
Adjustments can be made and goals may be enlarged, based on the direction of change and the
pace of progress.
Examples:
Dubuque, Iowa
King County, Washington
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Los Angeles County, California
Metro Portland Region, Portland, Oregon
Raleigh, North Carolina
Minneapolis, Minnesota
New York, New York
i:4
III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, CAPACITY BUILDING, AND COLLABORATION:
Build sustainability efforts on a foundation of community engagement, ongoing capacity building,
and collaboration
GOOD PRACTICE #6: Build sustainability programs on a foundation of authentic community
engagement
Commitment to equity intensifies and broadens sustainability initiatives, bringing more people
into dialogue and action. Successful community engagement lays the foundation for procedural
equity—inclusive, accessible, authentic engagement and representation in processes to develop
or implement programs and policies. Importantly, rather than expecting residents to come to the
city, many sustainability programs are going out to meet people where they are, physically and
virtually.
Examples:
Albany, New York
Austin, Texas
Calgary, Alberta
Cleveland, Ohio
King County, Washington
Nashville, Tennessee
GOOD PRACTICE #7: Provide learning opportunities on the basics of planning and sustainability,
including developing capacity and leadership in neighborhoods prioritized for engagement
Sustainability programs are creating new opportunities for learning and leadership and, in many
cases, are focusing their efforts on constituents who have been least engaged, historically, in
their efforts. This work is of critical importance because community processes can be accessible
without being inclusive and authentic for those who lack familiarity with government processes
or deep knowledge of specific issues. True engagement requires that community members
are informed and knowledgeable about the basics of the issues under deliberation. It requires
recognition of historic and cultural dynamics within communities that have embedded privilege
and disadvantage creating the chronic, cumulative disadvantage at the heart of structural inequity.
Capacity building, leadership development, and programs to bring all community residents up to
speed on the fundamentals of sustainability are renewing interest and expanding a true sense of
ownership and engagement.
Examples:
Cleveland, Ohio
San Francisco, California
IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Expand the capacity and
infrastructure for equity in local government decision-making and operations
GOOD PRACTICE #8: Build an infrastructure of people and entities tasked with achieving prog-
ress on equity in sustainability and foster collaboration across agencies and beyond
As equity becomes a more prominent feature of sustainability, more local governments are
creating offices and positions focused specifically on making equity-sustainability connections.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Raleigh, North Carolina
Richmond, California
San Francisco, California
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Seattle, Washington
Washington, DC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i:5
They are formalizing structures for interagency communication and coordination as they implement
sustainability plans with detailed equity actions. They are being intentional about connecting a growing
cadre of far-flung employees and departments with equity-related responsibilities. In addition to internal
infrastructure, local governments are building substantial partnerships with local universities, community
organizations, foundations, and the business community to create a team inside and outside of govern-
ment to move their equity agendas.
Examples:
Calgary, Alberta
King County, Washington
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Portland, Oregon
GOOD PRACTICE #9: Provide professional development to cultivate the awareness, knowledge, and
skills to effectively address equity within local government
Professional development is a nearly invisible component of equity, but its inclusion is at the heart of
long-term, sustained progress. Equity is promoted or thwarted in the daily choices, big and small, of
administrators and policy makers. The level of awareness and expertise they bring to these moments
can be influenced by investments in their professional development. Intensive training has been a
cornerstone of the most ambitious equity-focused initiatives in local government where the unwaver-
ing commitment of city leaders encouraged employees to wade through discomfort and emerge with
revelations and new skills.
Examples:
Metropolitan Portland Region, Oregon
Portland, Oregon
Seattle, Washington
GOOD PRACTICE #10: Develop implementation tools and processes to institutionalize equity and
increase accountability in decision-making, budgeting, and programs
Ultimately, integrating equity in sustainability requires institutionalizing equity throughout all facets of
local government decision-making. A structure of explicit policies and processes to prioritize equity are
necessary to leverage the knowledge, information, and skills cities develop and nurture in employees
through professional development. A few cities and counties are mandating an equity lens, and in more
places tools are being pioneered to create mechanisms to consistently consider equity in decision-
making. Rather than allowing equity to remain an invisible, generalized intention, these tools make equity
an explicit, deliberate consideration.
Examples:
King County, Washington
Minneapolis, Minnesota
RECOMMENDATIONS: NEXT STEPS FOR INCREASING THE IMPACT
OF SUSTAINABILITY BY STRENGTHENING EQUITY
Local governments can build on the good practices described in this report to spur the growth of
equity as a foundational component of sustainability by following up on these recommendations:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Richmond, California
San Jose, California
Seattle, Washington
Washington, DC
Portland, Oregon
Seattle, Washington
i:6
RECOMMENDATION #1: Spread what works by expanding opportunities for information sharing
and peer learning on equity in sustainability
RECOMMENDATION #2: Multiply and deepen professional development opportunities
RECOMMENDATION #3: Expand the use of equity measures and support their increasing
sophistication
RECOMMENDATION #4: Diversify the sustainability field
RECOMMENDATION #5: Strengthen community partnerships, across sectors, to accelerate
progress on equity
RECOMMENDATION #6: Push the envelope on equity in sustainability to innovate on high
impact strategies
FINAL THOUGHTS
By fully integrating equity, local governments are uniquely situated to make a substantial contribu-
tion to the sustainability field. Equity has been left out of the framing and content of sustainability
for too long, but a new generation of local leaders is bringing it to the fore. With this evolution, the
sustainability field has the opportunity to communicate and brand its work far beyond environmental,
scientific, and seemingly wonky policy approaches that don’t touch people’s daily lives. Most impor-
tantly, many local sustainability leaders are rethinking and redesigning their work. They are using a
structural equity lens to analyze access and opportunity to the determinants of a healthy, prosperous
life. They are addressing distributional equity and uncovering the truths beneath community-wide data
by identifying the groups who are the face of society’s disparities and targeting their resources accord-
ingly. They are building the capacity of the most disenfranchised groups in their communities to be
true partners in democracy through their efforts to foster procedural equity. They are institutionalizing
equity by making it an intentional, conscious part of their decision-making processes. In doing so, local
government leaders are on the front lines of sustainability. Their lessons learned and cumulative efforts
have much to teach those who are working on state, provincial, federal, and national sustainability
policy and advocacy.
Equity is a key to maximizing the potential for sustainability to serve as a galvanizing, interconnected
frame for creating a better world. Our collective future depends on making equity a priority.
Sustainability has the power to weave the strands that create hope and prosperity, health and well-
ness, community cohesion and true opportunity for all. A focus on equity is an opportunity for
sustainability leaders to address some of the thorniest, most deep-seated issues in society and to re-
inforce the inextricable ties that bind us in one shared destiny as people on the planet. Local govern-
ments have important roles to play, momentum on their side, and a window of opportunity with their
grasp. The benefits of sustainability must accrue to all, not just the privileged few.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i:7
PREFACE
The Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN) is a peer-to-peer network of local govern-
ment professionals from cities across the United States and Canada, dedicated to creating a health-
ier environment, economic prosperity, and increased social equity. Although the field of sustainability
is continually innovating new ways to realize this triple-bottom-line approach, sustainability directors
often struggle with how best to weave equity into their day-to-day work.
Equity became a prominent issue among USDN members in 2013, and continues as a focus area of
the network. Currently, eighteen USDN members participate in bimonthly calls of the USDN Equity
and Access User Group—initially led by members in Newark, Albany, Cincinnati, and Denver—to
share information and learn together about topics that include defining equity in sustainability, com-
munity outreach and engagement, metrics, and incorporating equity concerns into adaptation, trans-
portation, and land use planning. USDN’s fall 2013 annual meeting featured an equity workshop and
plenary, and in January 2014, USDN sponsored a peer-to-peer exchange focused on equity tools for
twenty staff from nine cities and counties.
These efforts have inspired members to strengthen their integration of equity in a variety of sus-
tainability programs. This Equity Scan was commissioned by USDN to build on this work. Sustain-
ability directors representing more than 30 cities across North America wanted to deepen their
knowledge and learn tools to advance equity in their work, starting with learning from the practices
underway in communities of all sizes, with starkly differing contexts. The Scan was designed to con-
tribute information and resources to answer these questions:
s(OWARECITIESDElNINGEQUITYANDHOWARETHEYINTEGRATINGEQUITYINTHEIRSUSTAINABILITYPROGRAMS
currently?
s7HATGOODPRACTICESLESSONSLEARNEDANDTOOLSAREEMERGINGFROMWORKALREADYUNDERWAY
s7HATNEXTSTEPSARENECESSARYTOADVANCETHElELDTOWARDACHIEVINGEQUITYOUTCOMESTHROUGH-
out local government sustainability efforts?
A literature scan and interviews of a cross-section of leaders across North America were conduct-
ed to gather data in response to these questions.
A Steering Committee of USDN members guided the Scan since its inception:
s3TEPHANIE'REENWOOD3USTAINABILITY$IRECTOR.EWARK.*
s9IANICE(ERNANDEZ$IRECTOR'REEN#OMMUNITIES%NTERPRISE#OMMUNITY0ARTNERS)NC
s*ENITA-C'OWAN#HIEFOF3USTAINABILITY#LEVELAND/(
s$OUG-ELNICK#HIEF3USTAINABILITY/FlCER3AN!NTONIO48
s4OM/SDOBA6ICE0RESIDENT'REEN)NITIATIVES%NTERPRISE#OMMUNITY0ARTNERS)NC
s"ETH3TROMMEN$IRECTOR/FlCEOF3USTAINABILITY"ALTIMORE-$
s$ESIREE7ILLIAMS2AJEE%QUITY3PECIALIST"UREAUOF0LANNINGAND3USTAINABILITY0ORTLAND/2
s3ARAH7U0OLICYAND/UTREACH-ANAGER/FlCEOF3USTAINABILITY0HILADELPHIA0!
s0AUL9OUNG!DMINISTRATOR/FlCEOF3USTAINABILITY-EMPHIS4.
s*O:IENTEK$EPUTY$IRECTOR%NVIRONMENTAL3ERVICES$EPARTMENT3AN*OSE#!
i:8
The project was made possible by the guidance of Julia Parzen and Nils Moe, in their
consecutive roles as managing director of USDN, and funding from the Kresge Foundation
with support from Lois DeBacker and Jessica Boehland of their Environment Program.
USDN will leverage the Scan’s findings throughout its work and expand the capacity of
its members to play leadership roles in ensuring sustainability benefits everyone in their
communities. The Equity and Access User Group will continue to support members’
progress in incorporating equity in decision-making processes to build on the Equity Scan
and other resources. In addition, USDN will launch programs to develop a pipeline of
emerging leaders to bring new perspectives and diversify the group of practitioners at the
forefront of local government sustainability.
An increased focus on equity has the potential not only to expand and broaden a vibrant
constituency for sustainability but also to make a transformational, lasting impact on the
health and well-being of all in our communities. USDN is committed to expanding and
evolving the sustainability field by making equity a core component of all facets of its work.
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION:
DEFINING
EQUITY AND
MAKING
THE CASE
2
INTRODUCTION: DEFINING EQUITY
AND MAKING THE CASE
Equity’s visibility has increased as a core component of sustainability in recent years. Leading cities
and regions are now making equity central to their sustainability efforts—in name and in practice.
Sustainability is commonly defined as the Three Es (environment, economy, and equity), the triple-
bottom line (planet, people, and profit), and as a next-generation term for environmentalism.
While The Three Es and the triple-bottom line have equity and a focus on the well-being, health,
and livelihood of people embedded within them, sustainability is often framed with environmen-
TALISMASTHEPRIMARYFOCUS4RUEINTEGRATIONOFEQUITYISEMERGINGSLOWLYTHISWORKHASCONTINUED
and deepened over the last thirty years.
Historically, equity took a back seat in sustainability framing, discussion, and implementation.
Despite its expansive definition, sustainability initia-
tives, policies, networks, and the movement’s leadership
have been dominated by environmentalists who have
institutionalized, often unconsciously, a narrower, green-
focused orientation. Consequently environmental justice
activists and some leaders who bring a broader lens
(like those in the fields of economic development and
planning, for example) perceive that those who frame
sustainability in purely environmental terms are either
ignorant of or dismissive to equity considerations. This legacy has impacted the perception of
local government sustainability departments. “I find few sustainability offices doing very much on
equity,” said one major city’s planning director. “Equity is the forgotten E in the three Es
of sustainability.”
Tom Osdoba, of Enterprise Community Partners observes, “I start from the perspective that very
little sustainability work initially aligned economic development and equity well. It’s not surprising.
Most urban sustainability efforts grew out of green and environmental activism. The networks
built out that way. It’s not a criticism, but sustainability came into cities at an oblique angle that
caught the economic and equity communities off guard.”
While the initial environmental focus reverberates, strong integration of equity—and economic
issues—in sustainability, as an equal player to environmental concerns, is emerging. Equity is now
e
e
e
economy
equity
environment
Defining Equity In the Sustainability Context
3
appearing more frequently in the local sustainability plans that provide the
structure and framework for activities underway in cities. More substan-
tively, local governments are leading efforts to create decision-making tools
and enact consistent guidance on how cities use an equity lens throughout
their programs and operations.
Local governments define equity in numerous ways and, at times, do not
use the term explicitly. A 2013 USDN member survey provided insight into
the current expression of equity. According to the survey, “fair access” tops
the list of the most popular terms and concepts. In order of frequency of
use, survey respondents defined equity as:
1. Fair access
2. Opportunities for all, sometimes being explicit
that is this defined as opportunity regardless
of group identity
3. Cost and benefits of sustainability are fairly
distributed
4. Full participation
5. Triple bottom line
The Equity Scan Steering Committee reviewed a host of equity definitions
currently in use. While local circumstances will ultimately dictate the public
definitions and framing of equity in sustainability, the Equity Scan Steering
Committee recommends that the following components be considered
and integrated into local sustainability approaches to equity. And, for the
purposes of this report, the Steering Committee is using this definition:
Defining Equity: The Third E
Equity in sustainability incorporates procedures, the distribution
of benefits and burdens, generational impact, and structural
accountability:
s Procedural Equity—inclusive, accessible, authentic
engagement and representation in processes to develop
or implement sustainability programs and policies
s Distributional Equity—sustainability programs and policies result
in fair distributions of benefits and burdens across all segments
of a community, prioritizing those with highest need
s Structural Equity—sustainability decision-makers institutional-
IZEACCOUNTABILITYDECISIONSAREMADEWITHARECOGNITIONOFTHE
historical, cultural, and institutional dynamics and structures
that have routinely advantaged privileged groups in society and
resulted in chronic, cumulative disadvantage for subordinated
groups
s Transgenerational Equity—sustainability decisions consider
generational impacts and don’t result in unfair burdens on
future generations
Defining Equity, The Third E
Equity in sustainability incorporates procedures,
the distribution of benefits and burdens, gen-
erational impact, and structural accountability:
s0ROCEDURAL%QUITYINCLUSIVEACCESSIBLE
authentic engagement and representation in
processes to develop or implement sustain-
ability programs and policies
s$ISTRIBUTIONAL%QUITYSUSTAINABILITY
programs and policies result in fair distribu-
tions of benefits and burdens across all
segments of a community, prioritizing those
with highest need
s3TRUCTURAL%QUITYSUSTAINABILITYDECISION
MAKERSINSTITUTIONALIZEACCOUNTABILITY
decisions are made with a recognition of the
historical, cultural, and institutional dynamics
and structures that have
routinely advantaged privileged groups
in society and resulted in chronic,
cumulative disadvantage for subordinated
groups
s4RANSGENERATIONAL%QUITYSUSTAINABILITY
decisions consider generational impacts
and don’t result in unfair burdens on future
generations
— USDN Equity Scan Steering
Committee
4
Civic leaders are answering a question posed by equity deliberations: equity for whom? For equity to
have meaning, it must be connected to an analysis of how group identity impacts and shapes people’s
lives. In North America, and across the globe, cities are not only defining equity, they are identifying the
specific constituencies within their community that need to be fully engaged and whose opportunities
and access need to be improved.
Constituencies that have been identified by local governments as most impacted by community decision-
making and whose life outcomes are disproportionately affected by structures in society include:
s People of color
s Poor and low-income residents
s Youth
s The elderly
s “New Americans” or recently-arrived immigrants
s Individuals with limited English proficiency
s People with disabilities
s The homeless
While demographics vary across the United States and Canada, racial disparities—on nearly every mea-
sure of life outcomes and opportunity—are among the most persistent. Even when class and income are
factored out of analyses, race continues to be an inexorable fixture in society. Race continues to be a key
determinant of disparity.
In most communities, a focus on equity requires acknowledgment and attention to race. The following
definitions may help provide a common understanding of racial justice, institutional racism, and structural
racism—all issues that local government sustainability officials confront on a regular basis.
Racial justice as the proactive reinforcement of policies, practices, attitudes and actions that
produce equitable power, access, opportunities, treatment, impacts and outcomes
for all.
)NSTITUTIONALRACISMREFERSTOTHEDISCRIMINATORYTREATMENTUNFAIRPOLICIESPRACTICESANDPATTERNS
and inequitable opportunities and impacts in single public- and private-sector entities.
Structural racism refers to the cumulative impact of the racism of multiple societal institutions
over time. It encompasses: (1) history, which lies beneath the surface providing the foundation
FORWHITERACIALADVANTAGEINTHISCOUNTRYCULTUREWHICHSERVESTONORMALIZEANDREPLICATE
RACISTIMAGESANDIDEASANDINTERCONNECTEDINSTITUTIONSANDPOLICIESTHATPERPETUATEAND
reinforce racial power disparities.
— Catalytic Change: Lessons Learned from the Racial Justice Grantmaking Assessment
These terms go beyond individual racism—“pre-judgment, bias, or discrimination by an individual based
on race “
1
—which is the most familiar form of racism and the only definition used by many. The city
of Seattle provides these examples of racism at the individual, institutional, and structural levels, related
to employment:
5
Example of individual racism: Individuals acting in a discriminatory manner based on race in
the workplace.
Example of institutional racism: Job descriptions that put undue emphasis on college
degrees over work experience. This may eliminate qualified candidates of color, who face
institutional barriers to higher education. This practice can create racial inequity in the job
market, even when that is not the intent.
Example of structural racism: Racial inequity in employment creates inequity in family
wealth. Fewer household resources mean limited housing choices, which often go hand in
hand with poorer schools and inadequate health care.
— Racial Equity in Seattle: Race and Social Justice Initiative Three-Year Plan 2012-2014
Making the Case for Equity
Economists, politicians, researchers, and business leaders are calling attention to rising income inequality
and growing disparities among demographic groups, especially based on race and class.
“ From the inception of our country, government at the local, regional, state and federal level has
played a role in creating and maintaining racial inequity. Despite progress in addressing explicit
discrimination, racial inequities continue to be deep, pervasive and persistent across
the country. Racial inequities exist across all indicators for success, including in education,
criminal justice, jobs, housing, public infrastructure and health, regardless of region.”
— Racial Equity Policy Brief: The Responsibility and Opportunity for Local Government,
Local Progress and the Center for Popular Democracy
“On every measure of well-being or distress—economic security, academic achieve-
ment, access to health care and fresh food, incarceration—communities of color suffer
disproportionately.”
— All-In Nation, Angela Glover Blackwell, Neera Tanden
“ Our racial hierarchy is unsustainable—economically, politically, environmentally, and from any
semblance of a humanitarian point of view.”
— Racing to Justice, john powell
Cities fall across a communications spectrum. Some use equity, clearly defined, as an explicit guiding
framework, while others employ equity concepts by using proxies for the term. In some cases, equity
and its related terms are used as foundational concepts or values in cities’ sustainability initiatives, but
officials don’t use the term publicly. In those cases, social, health, housing, education, and economic
development fill in as proxies for equity in sustainability. Because many city leaders are struggling to
make sustainability a resonant concept, potentially confusing, opaque definitions of equity may be
perceived as further complication of their messaging challenges. Where equity is explicitly and effectively
used, local leaders are intentional about avoiding jargon, providing real-life examples, and being as clear
as possible in their wording.
6
Equity Is The Winning Economic And Environmental Strategy
and It Benefits Everyone
Increasingly, there is an economic and political case to be made for equity. In his influential book, The
Price of Inequality, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “we are paying a high price
for our inequality—an economic system that is less stable and less efficient, with less growth, and a
democracy that has been put into peril.”
2
His work is connected to a trend in economic and social
research that makes the case for equity as sound economic policy. Metropolitan regions with higher
levels of socioeconomic equity have been shown to thrive compared to those where disparities are
rampant.
3
More and more, researchers are finding that inequality hampers economic growth.
According to Manuel Pastor of the University of Southern California, “equity as important to eco-
nomic development” has “good logic, a growing empirical basis” and it “makes intuitive sense. Recent
work suggests that equity can be good for the environment” and that inequality has negative envi-
ronmental impacts for everyone, he said. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
found a correlation between racial disparities in exposure to air toxics exposure and higher levels of
air pollution in urban areas.
“ …we find that in urban areas with higher minority pollution-exposure discrepancies, aver-
age exposures tend to be higher for all population subgroups, including whites. In other
words, improvements in environmental justice in the United States could benefit not only
minorities but also whites.”
4
The collective benefit of equity is articulated in the policy brief, Racial Equity: The Responsibility and
Opportunity for Local Government:
h4HEGOALMUSTBEBEYONDCLOSINGTHEGAPLEADERSMUSTESTABLISHAPPROPRIATEBENCHMARKS
that lift up all populations while paying close attention to those often excluded…Advanc-
ing equity means focusing on more than just disparities. Systems that are failing communi-
ties of color are actually failing all of us.”
5
An excellent example of action to address inequity that improves services for everyone is the story
of streetlight repairs in Seattle told by Glenn Harris from Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights. Like many
cities, Seattle’s public works departments repaired streetlights upon request. Residents phoned
in complaints and city workers would show up and replace light bulbs. This process left poor
neighborhoods in the dark. More streetlights in low-income neighborhoods were in a state of
disrepair than other areas of the city. Because the life span of a streetlight’s bulb is predictable,
the city changed its process. Streetlights are now fixed on a regular schedule, addressing the inequity
across neighborhoods and benefiting everyone, including wealthier residents who no longer
have to call the city to make a complaint. By addressing the needs of the least well-served neigh-
borhoods, everyone benefited. This principle is at the core of Targeted Universalism, the concept
articulated by the University of California’s john powell.
6
Targeted solutions that address the needs of people of color and low-income residents can, in fact,
benefit everyone. Yet, without a targeted strategy, oftentimes community-wide outcomes improve
while leaving behind the most vulnerable populations.
Jurisdictions that are able to move beyond perceiving equity initiatives as social “welfare,” “charity,”
or “goodwill” are finding the capacity to address community well-being more systemically. Local gov-
ernments in Seattle and King County, Washington, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Portland, Oregon are
7
Equity Is Intrinsic To Good Planning
In free societies that hold that all people are equal and justice for all is an attainable goal, planning is a
collective exercise, an ongoing demonstration of democratic principles at the community level.
Adherence to the following equity principles is core to good planning:
s Authentic engagement of all who are impacted by government decisions
s I nclusive processes that enable all members of a community to co-create the community’s future
s Attention and intention to dismantle policies that exacerbate existing disparities based on race,
income, gender, age, or physical disability
s Responsibility to hold the current generation of decision makers accountable for their actions,
rather than inflicting the consequences on future generations
s Awareness of history and systemic factors that create cumulative advantage and disadvantage for
groups in society
A commitment to equity is embedded in the ethics of professionals involved in local government
planning efforts. While all sustainability professionals are not planners, there is significant overlap among
the planners and sustainability leaders in local and regional government.
To be an effective planner is to integrate the mindset of equity. The American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP) Code of Ethics includes principles specifically tied to equity:
d) We shall provide timely, adequate, clear, and accurate information on planning issues
to all affected persons and to governmental decision makers.
e) We shall give people the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of
plans and programs that may affect them. Participation should be broad enough to include
those who lack formal organization or influence.
f) We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all
persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged
and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of
policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs.
g) We shall promote excellence of design and endeavor to conserve and preserve the
integrity and heritage of the natural and built environment.
h) We shall deal fairly with all participants in the planning process. Those of us who are public
officials or employees shall also deal evenhandedly with all planning process participants.
— AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, adopted March 19, 2005,
American Planning Association
promoting equity as sound fiscal and fiduciary investments in the long-term health of their communities.
As demographic change sweeps the country, cities and metropolitan areas will serve populations that
are majority people of color, if they do not already. After decades of growth in the middle class, low-
income households is now the burgeoning socioeconomic demographic. The framing of equity as sound
policy creates the space to address root causes, not just symptoms of disparity or economic inequality,
namely, institutional racism and the privileging of the white, educated, middle and upper class. Reversing
the trend of increasing disparities impacting communities of color and economically struggling house-
holds is essential for building a foundation of future prosperity.
8
Equity and Diversity Are The Key To The Twenty-First Century’s
Political Constituency For Sustainability
For the sustainability field, the authentic integration of equity and economy—adhering to spirit
of the Three Es and triple-bottom line—is a necessary step toward expanding the political
constituency for sustainability, beyond environmentalists. To be true to its definitions, sustain-
ability must comprise more than environmentalism. But even if sustainability focused exclusive-
ly on environmental issues, there is a compelling case for attracting a constituency for green
causes that is more diverse by race, class, and gender.
There is a strong argument to be made that sustainability directors and leaders working to
push a purely environmental agenda will be far more successful if they are intentional about
making equity and social justice core components of their work. Individuals who identify more
closely with social justice and economic development and who consider social and economic
issues high priorities are more likely to see the relevance of sustainability to their lives and
work through a wider lens.
Since 1990, studies and polling have consistently shown that people of color support environ-
mental and climate-related causes at higher levels than whites.
7
While the stereotypical envi-
ronmental constituency is often perceived as white, wealthy, and older, levels of political sup-
port belie that perception. Furthermore, environmental organizations at the national, regional,
and local levels have awakened to these new political realities. They are putting unprecedented
effort into diversifying their staff and board composition, creating more inclusive organizations,
and building partnerships with environmental justice groups, communities of color, low-income
communities, youth, women, military families, and faith communities. In many cases, they have
been prodded by leaders in the environmental justice movement and allies who integrated the
Three Es from the inception of their work on labor and economic development issues.
The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the
Environmental Defense Fund are among the largest, most powerful organizations recogniz-
ing the new political landscape. Each of these groups have dedicated staff time and funds to
focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion in recent years. The release of The State of Diversity in
Environmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs, Foundations & Government Agencies in July 2014
contributed unprecedented statistical analysis of the environmental field’s demographics.
The report’s findings make it clear that there is much more work to do.
Report Findings:
1. The Green Ceiling
Despite increasing racial diversity in the United States, the racial composition in
environmental organizations and agencies has not broken the 12% to16% “green
ceiling” that has been in place for decades.
2. Unconscious Bias, Discrimination, and Insular Recruiting
Confidential interviews with environmental professionals and survey data highlight
alienation and “unconscious bias” as factors hampering recruitment and retention
of talented people of color.
9
3. Lackluster Effort and Disinterest in Addressing Diversity
Efforts to attract and retain talented people of color have been lackluster across
the environmental movement.
The Result: An overwhelmingly white “Green Insiders’ Club.”
— The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations:
Mainstream NGOs, Foundations & Government Agencies
While USDN has not conducted a demographic analysis of sustainability directors or its membership,
it is apparent to most that the demographic composition of local government sustainability offices
and the USDN membership does not mirror the demographics of the communities they serve. Lack
OFRACIALDIVERSITYISTHEMOSTVISIBLEDATAPOINT$IVERSITYISNOTDESTINYTHEMESSAGEMATTERS"UTTHE
demographics of sustainability messengers matter, too.
The emerging political majority, the constituency for sustainability, will demand an authentic
commitment to equity. It will test for credibility, seeking to make sure sustainability’s promise isn’t
merely nicely-phrased words in plans, but results they can see, feel, touch, and enjoy in their
neighborhoods, homes, family, and their lives.
SCANNING
THE FIELD:
GOOD
PRACTICES
TOWARD
EQUITY
11
On the road to equity, there are no guarantees. The promise of a roadmap is seductive, but work on equity is
COMPLEXANDMESSYSIMPLELINEARSTEPSAREOFTENHARDTOlND4HISCHAPTERAIMSTOSHEDLIGHTANDPROVIDE
guidance on practices that local governments can implement to ingrain equity more fully in their sustainability
efforts. Showcasing work underway and describing key factors that are making equity more prominent in local
sustainability efforts are intended to inspire as well as inform. As the field has expanded and evolved, examples
of true integration of equity within sustainability have grown in number and in variety. Within those examples,
themes and patterns have emerged.
In many cases, cities with a strong focus on equity have
responded to similar circumstances. There are many
lessons to be learned from the distinctive approaches
and actions they have taken. Two qualities emerged as
nearly universal in interviews for this report: humility
and the understanding that equity requires a systemic
approach. Practitioners leading the charge on equity
attest to a steep, ongoing learning curve, the desire to
learn from and connect with others with
shared goals, and the need to acknowl-
edge imperfection in the results of
their efforts, even when they see
positive signs of change. They also
acknowledge that their success in
one good practice arena is often
related to, if not dependent, on
another. Issues and actions inter-
sect in systemic fashion.
Given this complexity, the pursuit
of equity in sustainability will demand
actors in every sector and at all levels—local,
regional, state/province, and federal/national. Equity is
NOTSOLELYINTHEPURVIEWOFCITYGOVERNMENTOFTEN
there is very little cities can do to move equity indica-
tors positively on their own. While this Scan focuses on
the leadership of “local government,” it defines “local”
expansively to mean town, city, county, and metropoli-
tan region, and often involves some combination of
those entities furthering the cause of equity. Nonprofit
organizations, foundations, and business leaders have
played critically important roles and must be mentioned
in any discussion of community leadership on equity
as well.
The concept of best practices is popular because prac-
titioners want to learn from related efforts. It’s under-
standable to seek guidance and hope to find a best way,
the most effective way, to achieve a goal. And no one
wants to reinvent the wheel. Unfortunately, in many
arenas, there is no perfect, best, or standard approach.
While the term best practice has migrated from the
business world to other sectors, the complexity and
systemic nature of equity challenges belie the simplicity
that is often implied by naming actions as best.
According to leadership consultant, Mike Myatt,
“There is no such thing as best practices.
The reality is best practices are nothing
more than disparate groups of method-
ologies, processes, rules, concepts
and theories that attained a level
of success in certain areas, and
because of those successes, have been
deemed as universal truths able to be
applied anywhere and everywhere.”
8
This is arguably even truer for a still-
emerging and evolving arena like equity in
sustainability, where new initiatives, tools, reports,
and learning opportunities surface every few months.
The good news is that there is a wealth of experience
and expertise on which to draw. In lieu of prescribing
best practices, this chapter builds on lessons learned
from leading cities to describe practices that have
strengthened the visibility of equity. They have estab-
lished supportive contexts and conditions as fertile
ground for equity to take root in sustainability efforts.
They have moved the dial on progress.
While these practices are categorized and numbered
for ease of reference, moving the dial on equity is not
a linear process. Cities are not implementing good
practices one at a time, checking off a box as they go.
Good practices intertwine. Progress in one area
“Cities are not
implementing good
practices one at a time,
checking off a box as they go.
Good practices intertwine.
Progress in one area supports
movement in another arena.
The synergy between good
practices paves the
way for further
movement.”
SCANNING THE FIELD: GOOD PRACTICES
TOWARD EQUITY
12
supports movement in another arena. The synergy between good practices paves the way for further
movement. Cities have built their efforts on equity from myriad starting points. What matters most is to get
started, then dig more deeply and build on existing good practices to create a web that moves the system
of local government toward equity.
.OCITYCOUNTYORREGIONISUSINGEVERYAPPROACHANDPRACTICETHELEADERSHIGHLIGHTEDINTHISREPORTHAVE
used a mix of these approaches and practices based on unique histories, local circumstances, political will,
funding, and capacity. The guidance in this chapter may not be one hundred percent feasible in every munici-
pality, but implementing as many of these good practices, as possible, is an excellent place to start or renew
equity-related work in local government.
This chapter describes ten Good Practices that have been organized into four categories:
I. Framing and communication
II. Data, metrics, and analysis
III. Community engagement, capacity building, and collaboration
)6#APACITYANDINFRASTRUCTUREFOREQUITYINCITYDECISIONMAKINGANDOPERATIONS
Define sustainability proactively beyond “green,” fully integrating
equity and economy and a triple-bottom line approach
GOOD PRACTICE #1
Cities signal their commitment to equity both by how they introduce the concept of sustainability to residents
and in their ongoing reinforcement and framing. Because sustainability is perceived as synonymous with “green,”
environmental, and ecological issues, cities must be proactive in reframing the term to embrace broader social,
economic, public health, and safety issues. While the specific language of the triple-bottom line approach of planet,
people, and profit or the Three Es of environment, economy, and equity doesn’t need to be used, necessarily, cities
that are integrating equity successfully are painting a holistic picture of the purpose of their sustainability programs.
They are tying sustainability to an interwoven array of issues connected to community vitality and prosperity.
)MPORTANTLYINLEADINGCITIESSUSTAINABILITYISNTMERELYBEINGDElNEDINAHOLISTICMANNERITISALSOBEINGFRAMEDBY
explicitly naming historic inequities, underserved and vulnerable populations, the desire for fairness, and the need
to create equal opportunities for residents across neighborhoods.
St. Louis, Missouri, and Washington, DC, are two cities that have been intentional and proactive in their framing
and communication of sustainability in their most recent efforts. They have dedicated resources to ensuring that
sustainability is being rebranded to resonate with an audience beyond environmentalists, with residents across
race, class, age, and neighborhoods.
Good Practice #1:
Good Practice #3:
Good Practice #2:
Good Practice #1:
Good Practice #3:
Good Practice #2:
GOOD PRACTICE #1
Define sustainability proactively beyond “green,” fully integrating
equity and economy and a triple-bottom line approach
GOOD PRACTICE #2
Connect the language and principles of environmental justice
and public health to sustainability whenever possible
GOOD PRACTICE #3
Put demographics and equity implications front and center
to educate community members
I. FRAMING AND COMMUNICATION
Integrate equity into framing
and communication of sustainability
13
Empowerment, Diversity & Equity Goal:
Objectives:
The City of St. Louis aspires to empower its social and human capital by strengthening its social,
cultural, and economic diversity and creating a higher level of respect and civic participation in
order to attract, support, and facilitate dialogue, urban innovation, population, and jobs, in order
to create an equitable, transparent and inclusive environment for those who live, work, learn,
and play in the City.
“St. Louis is a very diverse City, and we are proud of that but also challenged by it. Whether it is a focus
on racial integration, including seniors, supporting youth needs, or allowing for choice of sexual orienta-
tion, we try to be proactive and progressive,” said Catherine Werner, sustainability director. “There is
still room to do much more, of course, but the whole plan was an effort to build on existing assets,
strengths, and conditions to enhance the City’s overall quality of life.”
The office of Mayor Francis Slay was intentional about balancing and optimizing “economic, social, and
environmental outcomes” to avoid the lopsided integration of the Three Es—focusing on the environ-
ment more than equity and economy. Notably, the St. Louis Plan is one of the few that specifically
focuses on inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) residents and communities.
One of the mayor’s priorities is to maintain the city’s 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign’s
Municipal Equality Index (MEI) on LGBTQ issues.
s%MBRACETHEVALUEOFDIVERSITYASPIRETOWARDSEQUITYANDATTRACT
and retain a diverse population and culture
s%NCOURAGECIVICENGAGEMENTTRANSPARENCYANDLEADERSHIP
s0ROMOTEYOUTHDEVELOPMENTEDUCATIONENGAGEMENTANDEMPOWERMENT
s0ROMOTESENIORCIVICINVOLVEMENTEMPOWERMENTANDINTERGENERATIONAL
engagement
s2EDUCEHOMELESSNESSANDSUPPORTLOWINCOMEFAMILIESANDTHEUNEMPLOYED
s%NSUREEQUALACCESSTOAMENITIESBUSINESSOPPORTUNITIESTRANSPORTATION
and safe and healthy neighborhoods
— City of St. Louis Sustainability Plan, Adopted January 9, 2012,
City of St. Louis Planning Commission
The city of St. Louis integrated social and equity issues throughout its 2013 Sustainability Plan, “an over-
arching framework of sustainability opportunities.” It is expansive in content—including the arts, health,
public safety, education, affordable housing and transit, healthy local food, leadership development, and
employability of residents—but also focuses on ensuring equal access to amenities and services and
addressing the needs of disadvantaged populations.
Empowerment, Diversity & Equity is one of the Plan’s seven functional categories. The corresponding
chapter specifically names racial and ethnic disparities in poverty, unemployment, access to amenities
and services, and political participation, and sets the following goal and objectives:
SPOTLIGHT — ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
14
A focus on equity is also explicit in A Vision of a Sustainable DC, the city’s twenty-year
SUSTAINABILITYPLAN-AYOR6INCENT'RAYSINTRODUCTIONSTATESTHECITYSCOMMITMENTTO
ensuring sustainability benefits the most vulnerable and presents the wide array of related
issues on which the plan focuses:
As our population expands, we have an important decision to make. We can take
decisive action now to ensure that our citizens—particularly the most vulnerable
among us—benefit from increasing innovation and amenities, a broader tax base,
a growing and diversified economy, and a wide range of new and accessible jobs.
Or we can ignore this opportunity, and allow historic gaps in education, income,
housing and access to transportation to further divide our city.
The choice is clear. I believe we must plan for a city that is sustainable—not just
environmentally, but economically and socially as well.”
— A Vision of a Sustainable DC
“We start from a position as a historic, eastern city with significant equity issues. We start
with the baseline assumption that equity has to be dealt with—from our mayor, planning
director, our director, the health director,” said Brendan Shane, chief of the Office of Policy
and Sustainability in the Department of the Environment.
A commitment to broad framing using clear language was also intentional from the start.
The mayor insisted that sustainability had to be relevant to every resident, “broadening the
message, ensuring it appealed to a wide variety of people across the city,” said Shane. The
city’s Planning Department managed the community engagement process that created the
plan in 2011-2012. City staff used simple and specific language in lieu of jargon. “We knew
that people were confused by the term ‘sustainability,’ so we changed how we communi-
cate, to talk specifically about issues,” said Laine Cidlowski, urban sustainability planner at the
DC Office of Planning. To spread the word about the plan, the city used icons focused on
priorities issues identified through an intensive public and neighborhood engagement
process. The list of key priorities leads with jobs, health, and the built environment.
“We had really strong participation throughout the process,” said Shane. Equity
was a clear priority. “We heard it from the community. We had the working
group process and equity came up in every working group—waste, food, etc.”
he said. Children, low-income residents, and elderly households are prioritized
throughout the plan and health disparities across wards of the city are named.
The plan repeatedly flags the economic benefits of the short-term, mid-term,
and long-term actions it recommends, and equity is a focus of implementation. “In
the final plan, equity and diversity are one of the four challenge areas,” said Shane. They
have “to be included in the solution areas for transportation, for food and waste and water,
and such.”
SPOTLIGHT — WASHINGTON, DC
15
Connect the language and principles of environmental justice
and public health to sustainability whenever possible
GOOD PRACTICE #2
Sustainability has the potential to marshal a holistic vision of community
vitality. Public health and environmental justice are two specific op-
portunities for broadening the frame of sustainability and expanding
how it is perceived. They are pathways for making equity more visible
within sustainability and their increased prominence holds the poten-
tial to engage a more diverse mix of residents in sustainability efforts,
including those who may perceive conservation and ecology as distant
issues pertaining to others.
Public health is a universal benefit of a clean environment. Clean air. Safe
food and water. Surroundings free of toxins. But a green slant on sustain-
ability coincides with long-held perceptions of environmental issues as being
historically focused on pristine lands, wilderness, and faraway species. Cities are beginning to lead with
public health, making explicit ties to environmental and economic issues within a sustainability um-
brella. National efforts to apply the concepts of health in all policies and social determinants of health
to local and regional governments are engaging sustainability leaders.
“Health is one of those very real indicators that can be used to support equity issues. It ends up
being connected so much on outcomes. Without a job or good health, you’re disadvantaged,” said
Susan Anderson, director of Portland’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. “My definition of sustain-
ability for the last fifteen to twenty years has been economy and environment, social education and
health.”
“Health equity is compelling. It animates folks to see stark health outcomes, how they vary,” said
Richard Gelb, performance measures manager at the Department of Natural Resources and Parks
in King County, Washington.
Sustainability
has the potential
to marshal
a holistic vision
of community
vitality.
The city of Richmond, California, is a leader in the integration of public health, equity, and sustainability.
They define key terms as follows:
Social determinants of health are factors people are born with, live with, and grow with
that influence your health. Social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health
inequities. Examples are race, ethnicity, gender, education, or income.
Health equity is achieving the highest level of health for all people. Health equity entails
focused societal efforts to address avoidable inequalities by equalizing the conditions for
health for all groups, especially for those who have experienced socioeconomic disadvantage
or historical injustices.
Health inequities are preventable differences in the presence of disease, health outcomes, or
access to health. They are the result of an uneven distribution of resources, services, wealth, etc.
and are unnecessary, unjust, unfair, and avoidable.
Health in All Policies or ‘healthy public policy’ is based on the idea that health starts with where
people live, work, learn, and play and that individual and community health is influenced by more
16
than just individual choices. One’s physical and psychosocial environment, culture, government, etc. all
play a role in influencing and determining both individual and population health. Health in All Policies
(HiAP) is the integrated and comprehensive approach to bring health, well-being, and equity consid-
erations into the development and implementation of policies, programs, and services of traditionally
non-health related government systems or agencies.
— City of Richmond, Health in All Policies Toolkit
Updated 2013
In Cleveland, health impact assessments (HIAs) are being used to strengthen equity in sustainability. The tool has been used
to assess plans on urban agriculture and transportation. “A health impact assessment is a series of methods and approach-
es for infusing health in policy decisions. It looks at health effects, highlights health disparities, and makes health impacts
more explicit. The HIA process engages and empowers community. It recognizes lived experiences,” said Freddy Collier,
Cleveland’s deputy planning director. HIAs are “a tool to advance the work of infusing health in all policy,” he said.
Public health has been at the center of the environmental justice (EJ) movement’s work from the outset, due to its origins
in organizing low-income communities of color to fight toxic waste dumps. The EJ movement defines the environment
broadly as “the places we live, work, play, and pray.”
9
For more than 25 years, the movement has organized a new political
constituency of low-income people, people of color, and indigenous communities for sustainability, environmental
protection, and environmental health. Organizing one neighborhood and community at a time, the movement has affected
corporations and government agencies at all levels, and influenced and expanded nonprofit and philanthropic approaches
to environmental issues.
Originating in the United States, EJ is a global movement and expansive issue. It is defined as follows by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency:
While The Principles of Environmental Justice is a formally adopted manifesto of the EJ movement and equity principles are
broader, more conceptual, and sometimes up for interpretation, they complement each other in many respects. Like equity,
environmental justice expands the frame of sustainability.
In the United States, environmental justice is a mandated feature of federal government due to the 1994 Executive Order
signed by President Bill Clinton, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations,” and many states have passed EJ laws and created environmental justice departments. A few leading
cities and counties have integrated the language and principles of environmental justice into policies, programs, and staffing,
and, in rare instances, into the structure of environmental agencies as stand-alone programs. In addition to San Francisco’s
unique Environmental Justice Program, cities, counties, and public utility commissions have dedicated staff focused solely on
environmental justice in far-flung places that include Ingham County, Michigan, Washington, DC, and Seattle, Washington,
and San Diego County, California.
Newark, New Jersey, included environmental justice as one of seven principles to guide implementation of its Sustainability
Action Plan:
Environmental Justice: Policies will support the right of all members of the community to enjoy
the benefits of a healthy environment, regardless of income, race, class, or location.
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regard-
less of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementa-
tion, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for
all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys
the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access
to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and
work.
10
— U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
17
Everyone deserves to live, work, and play in a healthy environment, regardless of
income, race, ethnicity, or place of origin. Sustainability initiatives will put a priority on
addressing the environmental health needs of those who are most vulnerable or
currently most disproportionately burdened with environmental health costs.
The city’s commitment to environmental justice is integrated throughout its plan, including these specifics
on food justice:
Healthy Food Access: One of the most basic measures of health and wellness in a
community is the way that community nourishes itself. Food justice refers to the idea
that everyone has the right to access healthy, affordable, safe, culturally appropriate
food. A healthy food system celebrates the diversity of culinary traditions among com-
munity members, and enables them to meet their nutritional needs with dignity. The
Action Items in this category put in motion the dynamics required to build a healthier,
more just food system in Newark.
— Sustainability Action Plan, City of Newark, 2013
In the San Diego area, the regional plan, San Diego Forward, is also explicit in integrating equity and envi-
ronmental justice into its vision for transportation:
Social Equity and Environmental Justice
Roads, freeways, and other transportation infrastructure can have a significant effect
on the quality of life for a region’s residents by shaping access to housing, jobs, ser-
vices, and recreational opportunities. Achieving social equity and environmental justice
in the context of creating a comprehensive plan for the region is a major goal of
SANDAG. It requires making investments that provide all residents, regardless of age,
race, color, national origin, income, or physical agility, with opportunities to work, shop,
study, be healthy, and play. Without proper planning and development, transportation
systems can degrade the quality of life in communities. In addition, the construction of
roads, freeways, and rail transit systems has sometimes placed health burdens on many
lower-income and minority communities. At times, new transportation projects have
physically divided communities or impacted access to community services, resulting
in long-lasting social and economic costs. It is important to understand the impacts of
transportation and other infrastructure investments on our most vulnerable commu-
nities in order to better plan for the future. For these reasons, environmental justice
principles and social equity goals will be an important consideration in the regional
plan development process. Promoting social equity and environmental justice in
regional planning efforts requires involvement from a wide variety of communities and
stakeholders.
— San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
Public Involvement Plan, February 2013
A common feature of health equity and environmental justice approaches is their recognition of the role
of cumulative impact. Communities that suffer from environmental injustice are confronted with inter-
secting challenges from all sides. They may be the dumping ground for noxious facilities, underserved
by city infrastructure and services like parks and street cleaning, suffer from high rates of asthma, or
lack access to quality health care. Public health practitioners use the concept of cumulative stressors to
describe similar phenomena. In Richmond, the HiAP Strategy describes cumulative stressors that may
impact residents. “Chronic stress has known physical and mental impacts, from clogging arteries and
heart disease, to overweight and diabetes, to chromosome damage and premature aging.”
11
Among
the cumulative stressors the HiAP Strategy names are racial profiling, residential segregation, economic
insecurity, and violence.
18
An explicit focus on environmental justice may not be politically feasible in every jurisdiction. It is an unfamiliar
concept to some community leaders and may not resonate in communities that shy away from social justice
language. But in cities embracing EJ, sustainability leaders are seeing the benefit of synergy with their efforts to
engrain equity. As cities explore their options for beginning or deepening the integration of equity into sustain-
ability, public health and environmental justice are two high-potential opportunities for engaging residents and
community leaders across sectors in this important work.
SPOTLIGHT — RICHMOND, CA
The city of Richmond, California, is using public health as the fulcrum for integrating equity and sustainabil-
ity. The city’s work has resulted in two firsts: Richmond became “the first California jurisdiction to incor-
porate a Health and Wellness Element into its General Plan”
12
and the first in the United States to adopt
both a Health in All Policies strategy and ordinance.
Richmond’s Health and Wellness Element targets “the social, economic, physical, and environmental causes
of health inequities and poor health outcomes.” The state of California ”requires every city and county
TOADOPTAGENERALPLANTHATINCLUDESTHEFOLLOWINGSEVENELEMENTS(OUSING,AND5SE#IRCULATION4RAFlC
/PEN3PACE.OISE0UBLIC3AFETYAND#ONSERVATIONv
13
The Community Health and Wellness Element is
an unique formal addition to Richmond’s General Plan, one of one eight elements the city added to what
the state mandates.
Ten major areas were identified by the city under its Health and Wellness Element:
1. Improved access to parks, recreation, and open space
2. Expanded access to healthy food and nutrition choices
3. Improved access to medical services
4. Safe and convenient public transit and active transportation options
5. A range of quality and affordable housing
6. Expanded economic opportunity
7. Completeness of neighborhoods
8. Improved safety in neighborhoods and public spaces
9. Improved environmentalquality
10. Green and sustainable development and practices
— Data, Indicators, and Tracking Strategies for Implementation of the City of
Richmond’s Health and Wellness Element: An Assessment and Recommendations,
December 2011
Richmond’s leadership on health equity is the result of many years of community engagement, data
gathering, and relationship building across government, academia, and the philanthropic sector. The
focus on health was triggered in 2005 by initial planning for the update to the city’s General Plan.
During that process, the city “identified a need to promote systems and policy changes that targeted
social determinants of health.”
14
Funding from the California Endowment enabled the city to create
its Community Health and Wellness Element. Substantial community engagement resulted in a
COMMUNITYHEALTHANDWELLNESSSTRATEGYADDITIONALFUNDINGFROMTHE#ALIFORNIA%NDOWMENT
supported its implementation. When the Richmond General Plan 2030 was approved in April 2012,
equity and sustainability were woven throughout and health equity was at the fore.
City Manager Bill Lindsay refers to Health in All Policies (HiAP) as the “prism” through which all city
operations and services should operate. “The HiAP strategy sets a framework of collaboration with-
in city departments as well as with community-based organizations and other government agencies
to address community health, equity and sustainability in Richmond. Through this lens, Health in All
Policies is both a practice and destination,” states the city’s website.
19
The city has published a toolkit to inform and engage community members and the HiAP Strategy
provides guidance to all city employees. It is organized into six areas of intervention:
1. Governance & Leadership
2. Economic Development & Education
3. Full Service & Safe Communities
4. Residential/Built Environments
5. Environmental Health & Justice
6. Quality & Accessible Health Homes and Social Services
Each “Intervention Area” contains short-term, medium-term, and long-term actions based on the time
frames of 1-2 years, within 5 years, and 5+ years.
The ongoing collaboration between the city, its school district, Contra Costa County, the California
Endowment, and the University of California, Berkeley, has been a linchpin to the city’s success on
health equity. It was formalized in 2012 under the auspices of the Richmond Health Equity Partner-
ship and individuals across these institutions continue to play pivotal roles in moving the city forward
toward its expansive vision to achieve “the highest level of health for all Richmond residents.”
15
“HiAP was a strategy to bring together actors in local government that hadn’t worked together, rec-
ognizing that no one government agency working alone could deliver on equity,” said Jason Corburn,
associate professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “We made structural racism a centerpiece
of the HiAP work, acknowledging that local governments have been complicit implementing policies
and following administrative procedures, many that they themselves did not write, that perpetuate
privilege and did not attempt to dismantle ethnic, racial and gender discrimination.”
The cultural shift within city government has been transformative. “We have managed to change the
culture of local government around health equity from ‘that’s not my job’ to ‘health is what I aim to
promote every day,’ and ‘I’m a community clinician,’” said Corburn.
The city of San Francisco has, arguably, the most expansive environmental justice programming in
North America, born from a backdrop of homegrown activism and the unique opportunity created
by the evolution of California’s utility deregulation.
The city’s integration of equity, public health, and environmental justice is announced, clearly, in this
mission statement: “The San Francisco Department of the Environment (SF Environment)’s mission
creates visionary policies and innovative programs that promote social equity, protect human health,
and lead the way toward a sustainable future.”
16
Environmental justice was a priority for residents
who participated in the process that produced the city’s Sustainability Plan that was approved in 1997.
San Francisco has a “very long history of citizen involvement in city government. It’s not just top-
down,” said Anne Eng, San Francisco’s environmental justice program manager. Within the expansive
community engagement that involved nearly 350 local institutions and individuals, an Environmental
Justice subcommittee galvanized support that resulted in the integration of environmental justice in
the Plan. Equity is prominent in the section entitled “Integrating Environmental, Economic, and Social
Concerns.”
When the Sustainability Plan was endorsed by the City and County of San Francisco, it served as a
policy advisory document. During the final stages of developing the plan, a voter initiative approved
SPOTLIGHT — SAN FRANCISCO, CA
20
Planners in the city of Raleigh, North Carolina are very intentional about explaining their demographics. “It’s about
knowing our trends. This is where we are and where we are going as a city,” said Mitchell Silver,
17
former Chief
Planning & Development Officer and Planning Director. “We break it down on race, age, sexual orientation. Our
vision and values are going to change.”
Data on disparities and information about their implications, both currently and for the future, need to be shared
within the context of sustainability as part of the basic knowledge residents need to be engaged in community deci-
sions. Proactive education on differences in key indicators across the community is an opportunity to build the case
that equity is a core component of sustainability, shining a light on existing inequities so public priorities are shaped
accordingly.
an amendment to the city charter to create the Department of the Environment, known as SF
Environment. An Environment Code translated the Plan’s goals and guidance into a range of municipal
ordinances.
A seven-member Commission on the Environment establishes the department’s policies and direc-
tives. “It started with two people and has really grown,” said Eng, referring to the department’s current
tally of 120 employees. Eng, who previously served as an environmental commissioner, has led the
city’s Environmental Justice Program for the last decade. The Environmental Justice Program is a per-
manent program within the infrastructure of the department.
In addition to the substantial infrastructure from San Francisco’s Sustainability Plan, Environment Code,
and the establishment of an EJ Program, utility deregulation in California created an unexpected,
large pool of funding to support the city’s environmental justice efforts. In the 1990s, in the midst of
state regulatory reform of electric utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) was ordered by the Public
Utilities Commission to sell off power plants to break up their monopoly. Two plants in the southeast
corner of San Francisco, in the neighborhood of Bayview-Hunters Point, went up for sale as a result.
Residents and city officials were alarmed by the possibility that a new owner would want to increase
production resulting in additional pollution. The neighborhood, home to the city’s largest African-
American population, already suffered from violence, poor health outcomes, and high rates of poverty.
In response to community organizing and negotiations with the city, PG&E sold only one power plant
and decommissioned the other. In 1998, the state of California gave $13 million dollars to the city
to mitigate environmental justice-related harm caused by the sale. “That money went to a grants
program to address environmental health and energy concerns, over a ten-year period,” said Eng.
Environmental justice grants were distributed to nonprofit organizations to build community gardens
and implement energy efficiency and renewable energy retrofits including the purchase of new
appliances and installation of one hundred solar systems. Ninety-five percent of the original state
grant has been disbursed, but the city has revenue streams from waste fees and ongoing, active
fundraising efforts to sustain programs.
The impact on SF Environment has been powerful. “Environmental justice was a program, but it got
the city to look at everything through an EJ lens,” said Shawn Rosenmoss, fundraising and grants
manager in the Department of the Environment.
GOOD PRACTICE #3
Put demographics and equity implications front and center
to educate community members
21
Because equity touches every facet of community life, equity atlases offer a wide lens that brings a rich mix
of issues to light, regardless of the foci that vary from region to region. In Atlanta and Portland, the frame is
BROADARTICULATEDASCOMMUNITYWELLBEINGANDLIVELIHOODTHEIREQUITYATLASESWERECREATEDBYBROADCOM-
munity coalitions led by the nonprofit sector. In Denver and Los Angeles, transportation is the focus and lo-
cal foundations led the efforts to create their equity atlases, engaging a range of partners. By making equity
explicit in the data presentation, equity atlases delve into disparities, typically focusing on race, ethnicity, and
income.
The goal of mapping sustainability data is well articulated in the LA County atlas: “To know where you
want to go, you first need to understand where you are.”
18
By emphasizing the interconnected nature of
community vitality, equity atlases are a valuable tool in framing sustainability broadly and presenting a more
holistic, intersectional view of issues that are often discussed in isolation.
This is well articulated in metropolitan Atlanta:
“ Each of the indicators represented in this equity atlas can be improved by a range of specific
policy interventions but it is clear that they are all interconnected. Improving health outcomes
will require taking action to locate homes, schools and jobs in healthy neighborhoods with access
to nutritious foods, green space and primary care options. Reducing unemployment will mean
taking action to improve elementary and middle school performance, supporting families in ex-
tending learning beyond the classroom and surrounding children with positive options for after
school activities that push back against poverty and crime. Expanding transportation options so
that more people have access to jobs and housing that does not disproportionately consume
their paychecks will require political will, collaborative approaches and
genuine community engagement.”
— One Region, One Reality, One Future
2012 report of the Metro Atlanta Equity Atlas
Currently, education is the primary use of equity atlases. They are being used to educate
the public, policy makers, and leaders in the private, nonprofit, government, education, and philanthropic
sectors, although funding varies across regions and therefore impacts the communications tools that orga-
nizers can develop and the degree to which they can dedicate hands-on time to outreach.
SPOTLIGHT — EQUITY ATLASES
Pioneered in 2007 in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, equity atlases have been created in regions
across the country to present quality of life data in a visual format through a demographic lens. While
local governments are not the originators of equity atlases, city and county officials are often involved in
the collaborative efforts that have brought them to fruition. In the regions where equity atlases have been
developed, local government officials now have a valuable information and tracking tool and a tangible op-
portunity to work closely with the nonprofit, academic, and philanthropic communities on equity.
Knowledgeable, open dialogue about a community’s history, present circumstances, and future prospects
depends on basic facts. The implications of significant demographic shifts are a necessary component of
planning. Easily-understood data about a city’s historic and current reality are part of the necessary founda-
tion for shared analysis and decision-making that engages community members. The data should be clearly
conveyed and discussed throughout the community.
22
Ron Carley, the former executive director of Portland’s Coalition for a Livable Future, played a
pivotal role in the creation of the first equity atlas in the country. “The fundamental goal of the
original equity atlas was to illuminate regional disparities with the ultimate objective of targeting
public policy and investments to address them,” he said. “It begins with education and there is just
something about maps that resonates with decision-makers even when presenting information
they may already know. The atlas format provides an innovative way to demonstrate the intercon-
nectedness of the issues. In the case of the Portland metro region we had a significant impact on
elevating the dialogue around equity to the point where the city of Portland now has an Office
of Equity and our regional government, Metro, is in the process of developing a Regional Equity
Strategy.”
While equity atlas publications can make for compelling reading for those inclined to dig deeply
into regional policy issues, many residents are unlikely to read reports that number over one hun-
dred pages. Maps are compelling because they are visual, but many demographic maps are techni-
cal, using jargon and confusing those who aren’t used to the mapping format of presenting data.
Infographics and presentations tailored to specific audiences are positive outgrowths of equity
atlases and are helping regions achieve the most fundamental goal of these projects: educating the
broadest array of stakeholders in the region, especially those whose voices have historically been
least heard in regional decision making.
This engagement is necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of equity atlases. “Atlases, like any
analytical tool, are only as good as the change they foster and the inequities they address,” said
Carley. “One concern I have is that in the eyes of some public officials production of an equity
atlas is an end unto itself. It’s ‘checking the equity box,’ but if the atlas is the ‘talk,’ then policy change
is the ‘walk.’”
23
$
$$$
$$
$$$
PLAN
LIVE
WORK
93 annual hours
of traffic delay
per traveler
Highest air
pollution of any
city in the US
14% of Los Angeles
children have
asthma
53% of income
spent on housing
and transportation
More than 80% of
low-income jobs not
well served by transit
SMART GROWTH
!
!
Reduce traffic
congestion by 24%
13% reduction
in greenhouse
gasses
Lower rates of
asthma and other
health problems
More homes
and jobs near
quality transit
Reduced housing and
transportation costs
Benefit to every
LA household
$3400/year
Smart Growth… for a better future for all of Los Angeles
www.calfund.org/smartgrowth
Data from United States Census Bureau American Community Survey, American Public Transportation Institute, American Lung Association, County of Los Angeles Public
Health, The Center for Neighborhood for Technology, Los Angeles Equity Atlas – 2013, Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transit Authority, Natural Resources Defense Council, and AAA.
$40 billion in
transit investment
Double current
transit system
Sustainable
Communities Act
374,000 new
housing units
near transit
400,000
new jobs
GRAPHIC: Excerpt from Los Angeles Equity Atlas
24
Collect comprehensive sustainability data that fully integrate equity,
then disaggregate that data to identify communities of concern
GOOD PRACTICE #4
Cities conduct research and compile information about a vast array of community issues on an ongoing basis
and these data are used as a foundation of community planning. Communities prioritizing equity are collecting
sustainability data and analyzing it through a demographic lens.
The collection of data on historic patterns and current conditions is a fundamental component of under-
standing emerging community needs and projecting future opportunities. While sustainability plans are rarely
mandated, in most states and provinces a Comprehensive Plan or General Plan, in the United States, or an
Official Community Plan or Municipal Development Plan, in Canada, is required by law. The compilation of local
and regional data within a sustainability category has become a standard practice for cities and regions that
have established sustainability offices and plans. The articulation of sustainability goals is increasingly matched
by the commitment of local and regional government agencies to track progress and hold themselves ac-
countable for achieving gains. Depending on how sustainability is framed and defined, the goals, and the
subsequent data that needs to be tracked, have either integrated equity or ignored it altogether.
In addition to collecting sustainability data overall, distributional equity requires an analysis of the disbursal
of benefits and burdens across key demographic groups and neighborhoods. Disaggregating data by demo-
graphics provides a fuller picture of environmental, economic, and social health, bringing to light disparities
among groups within a community. In this way, local governments are identifying specific demographic groups
as priorities for engagement and consideration when city resources are allocated or decisions are being made.
Historically, these communities of concern have often been the least served by city services. They often suffer
disproportionately from community harms, like asthma rates and air pollution from nearby highways and busy
roads, to higher rates of infant mortality. They have the least access to goods and services—from neighbor-
hood trees to sidewalks, from clean, safe streets to frequent transit service.
While people of color and indigenous communities, or First Nations, and low-income neighborhoods are
identified, frequently if not nearly universally, as communities of concern across the United States and Canada,
local demographics and circumstances determine the groups that need to be prioritized by each city.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments in Northern Cali-
fornia is an example of how communities of concern are identified by assessing risk factors. They focus on the
following groups:
s Low-income populations
s People of color and indigenous populations
s Limited English proficiency
s:EROVEHICLEHOUSEHOLDS
s Seniors 75 and over
s People with a disability
s Single parent families
s Cost burdened renters
II. DATA, METRICS, AND ANALYSIS.
Use data, metrics, and analysis
to set goals and build accountability
for progress on equity
Good Practice #1:
Good Practice #3:
Good Practice #2:
GOOD PRACTICE #4
Collect comprehensive sustainability data that fully integrate
equity, then disaggregate that data to identify communities of
concern
GOOD PRACTICE #5
Use indicators to inform the community on progress towards
sustainability, including the reduction of disparities among
demographic groups
25
In Washington, the King County Strategic Plan 2010-2014 and the subsequent equity and social justice Ordi-
nance 16948 passed by its council built on existing racial justice and equity efforts in Seattle and the county
and sparked additional transformational work within the region. “This ordinance establishes definitions and
identifies the specific approaches necessary to implement and achieve the ‘fair and just’ principle that is
embedded as a core element of the goals, objectives and strategies of the countywide strategic plan,” states
Ordinance 16948.
The ordinance defined key terms and its definitions are often referenced by sustainability leaders across
North America, especially the one referring to equity:
‘ Equity’ means all people have full and equal access to opportunities that enable them to attain
their full potential.
‘Inequity’ means differences in well-being that disadvantage one individual or group in favor of
another. These differences are systematic, patterned and unfair and can be changed. Inequities are
NOTRANDOMTHEYARECAUSEDBYPASTANDCURRENTDECISIONSSYSTEMSOFPOWERANDPRIVILEGEPOLICIES
and the implementation of those policies.
‘ Social justice’ means all aspects of justice, including legal, political and economic, and requires the
fair distribution of public goods, institutional resources and life opportunities for all people.
— King County Signature Report,
October 11, 2010, Ordinance 16948
Based on the ordinance, the county identified race, income, and English proficiency as priority communities
of concern. The county must “consider equity and social justice impacts in all decision-making so that deci-
sions increase fairness and opportunity for all people, particularly for people of color, low-income communi-
ties and people with limited English proficiency or, when decisions that have a negative impact on fairness
and opportunity are unavoidable, steps are implemented that mitigate the negative impact.”
20
SPOTLIGHT — KING COUNTY, WA
Within their focus on transportation, they use communities of concern “to refer to communities in the
Bay Area that face particular transportation challenges, either because of affordability, disability, or because
of age-related mobility limitations.”
19
In San Diego, the regional plan has defined communities of concern more broadly:
Promoting social equity and environmental justice in regional planning requires the proactive
engagement of community members who have traditionally been underserved and underrepre-
sented in the planning process. Cities and communities with high concentrations of low income
residents and minority populations, as well as federally recognized Native American tribes, have
been identified as communities of concern.
— San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
Cities face numerous challenges when collecting data on equity and sustainability. They must establish
clear priorities to filter the sheer volume of available data. At a minimum, they have to clarify the
boundaries of the complex, expansive scope of these issues and create baselines from which to measure
progress. As equity has become further embedded in sustainability, equity indicators and measures are
becoming both more sophisticated and more widespread in their use. Consequently, as local govern-
ments have identified their communities of concern, they have been able to target their data gathering
and tracking resources accordingly. King County, Washington, is an excellent example of using deep and
rigorous data analysis to increase equity.
26
These priorities were also referenced in the ordinance’s definition of determinants of equity:
‘ Determinants of equity’ means the social, economic, geographic, political and physical environment condi-
tions in which people in our county are born, grow, live, work and age that lead to the creation of a fair
and just society. Access to the determinants of equity is necessary to have equity for all people regardless
of race, class, gender or language spoken. Inequities are created when barriers exist that prevent individu-
als and communities from accessing these conditions and reaching their full potential. The determinants of
equity are:
1. Community economic development that supports local ownership of assets, including homes and
BUSINESSESANDASSURESFAIRACCESSFORALLTOBUSINESSDEVELOPMENTANDBUSINESSRETENTIONOPPORTUNITIES
2. Community and public safety that includes services such as fire, police, emergency medical services and
code enforcement that are responsive to all residents so that everyone feels safe to live, work and play in
ANYNEIGHBORHOODOF+ING#OUNTY
!LAWANDJUSTICESYSTEMTHATPROVIDESEQUITABLEACCESSANDFAIRTREATMENTFORALL
4. Early childhood development that supports nurturing relationships, high-quality affordable child care and
early learning opportunities that promote optimal early childhood development and school readiness for
ALLCHILDREN
5. Education that is high quality and culturally appropriate and allows each student to reach his or her full
LEARNINGANDCAREERPOTENTIAL
6. Equity in county practices that eliminates all forms of discrimination in county activities in order to pro-
vide fair treatment for all employees, contractors, clients, community partners, residents and others who
INTERACTWITH+ING#OUNTY
7. Food systems that support local food production and provide access to affordable, healthy, and culturally
APPROPRIATEFOODSFORALLPEOPLE
8. Health and human services that are high quality, affordable and culturally appropriate and support the
OPTIMALWELLBEINGOFALLPEOPLE
9. Healthy built and natural environments for all people that include mixes of land use that support: jobs,
HOUSINGAMENITIESANDSERVICESTREESANDFORESTCANOPYANDCLEANAIRWATERSOILANDSEDIMENT
(OUSINGFORALLPEOPLETHATISSAFEAFFORDABLEHIGHQUALITYANDHEALTHY
11. Job training and jobs that provide all residents with the knowledge and skills to compete in a diverse
workforce and with the ability to make sufficient income for the purchase of basic necessities to
SUPPORTTHEMANDTHEIRFAMILIES
12. Neighborhoods that support all communities and individuals through strong social networks, trust
among neighbors and the ability to work together to achieve common goals that improve the quality
OFLIFEFOREVERYONEINTHENEIGHBORHOOD
13. Parks and natural resources that provide access for all people to safe, clean and quality outdoor spaces,
FACILITIESANDACTIVITIESTHATAPPEALTOTHEINTERESTSOFALLCOMMUNITIESAND
14. Transportation that provides everyone with safe, efficient, affordable, convenient and reliable mobility
options including public transit, walking, car pooling and biking.
— King County Signature Report,
October 11, 2010, Ordinance 16948
27
The focus on race, income, and language “allows us to look across the landscape at human settlement
and how it relates to opportunity. We know that we have racial structuralization based on race. We
have lack of access to quality schools and differential health outcomes,” said Richard Gelb, performance
measures manager at the Department of Natural Resources and Parks in King County, Washington.
“Different things are revealed by income, regardless of race. And, because ten percent of our popula-
tion has arrived in the last twenty years and we have a lot of limited English proficiency, it bears on
access to services and being linguistically disenfranchised and more removed from political processes.”
While the ordinance flagged gender, distributional equity and gender aren’t particularly salient in the
region. “Even though there may be concerns around gender, that doesn’t typically play out in geograph-
ic considerations,“ said Gelb.
The ordinance committed King County to integrating equity and social justice in all county actions.
To operationalize the focus on people of color, low-income communities, and people with limited
English proficiency, research and tracking resources are allocated accordingly, to provide data to inform
decisions. The county uses sophisticated mapping technologies and demographic analyses to identify
quintiles that are the lowest performing to track progress and focus county programs.
Because King County is absolutely clear about its communities of concern, they are able to effectively
focus their analyses and target their resources, substantially increasing the chances that their equity ef-
forts will have tangible impacts on those who need it most.
Indicators play an important role in framing the concept of sustainability. While some cities have simply
renamed environmental indicators as sustainability indicators, increasingly, health, social, economic, and
equity issues are being integrated into an expanding set of measurements that more accurately reflect the
complexity of sustainability. Tracking indicators over time enables cities to assess whether their programs
and activities are accomplishing their intended positive impacts and to convey developments to residents
and decision-makers alike. Adjustments can be made and goals may be enlarged, based on the direction of
change and the pace of progress.
The city of Dubuque makes the case for the role of indicators:
Sustainability as a concept can be abstract, and without ways to measure progress it is difficult for
cities to truly understand how they are doing. By measuring and evaluating Dubuque’s progress,
the City, its residents, and its businesses can build off Dubuque’s strengths and improve its weak-
nesses. Furthermore, by comparing Dubuque’s progress to other similar communities—Ames,
)OWA$ECATUR)LLINOIS/SHKOSH7ISCONSINAND3T#LOUD-INNESOTA$UBUQUECANGAINABETTER
understanding of what works and what doesn’t, allowing the City to identify best practices and
make strategic improvements.
— Sustainability Progress Report 2012, Sustainable Dubuque and University of Iowa,
School of Urban and Regional Planning
The commitment to regularly-scheduled reporting of sustainability indicators signals local officials’ commit-
ment to accountability for achieving sustainability goals. Reporting within city government is part of internal
GOOD PRACTICE #5
Use indicators to inform the community on progress towards
sustainability, including the reduction of disparities among
demographic groups
28
accountability among the leaders and departments responsible for sustainability programs and the
outcomes that result from them. Furthermore, indicators can build shared ownership beyond local
government employees. They can demonstrate that residents, community leaders, and organizations across
a city and region can take action to contribute to achieving tangible, measureable progress on sustainability.
Indicators are part of a broader planning, data collection, and community engagement process. Usage of the term
ranges wildly across cities. For example, in the city of Dubuque, Iowa, “indicators” name a statistic, and consistent
questions are matched with the indicator to provide a community snapshot. A contrasting example is the city
of Minneapolis, where the term “indicator” names a topic area and uses “targets” to describe numerical goals
and the projected timing for attaining them. Nonetheless, both Minneapolis and Dubuque have integrated equity
and social issues throughout their indicators.
Minneapolis tracks progress on twenty-six sustainability indicators. In its 2012 update, the city named an indicator
of “Lead Poisoning” with targets to “Test all 1- and 2-year-old children for lead by 2014”
and to “Maintain
inspections of all homes of children with elevated blood-lead levels (10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of
blood) through 2014.”
21
Lead poisoning is an excellent example of a sustainability indicator that integrates equity.
The ailment is more likely to occur in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Two sources of
LEADARECONTAMINATEDSOILSANDPEELINGLEADPAINTTHEYREOFTENFOUNDINNEIGHBORHOODSINCLOSEPROXIMITY
to industrial facilities and in substandard housing.
In partnership with the University of Iowa, the city of Dubuque worked with residents to create eleven sustain-
ability principles that are expressed in sixty indicators organized by themes. The indicators are expansive and their
inclusion of gender is notable. While researchers have identified gender disparities in climate change impacts
and other arenas of sustainability, gender is not typically included in community indicators. Dubuque’s report is
an example of how cities are using indicators to make the case for equity by translating statistics in a tangible way.
The Regional Economy principle and Economic Development theme included this indicator and information:
INDICATOR: Gender Wage Gap – Female earnings as a percentage of male earnings for full-
time, year-round workers
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? In a sustainable city, income level does not depend upon gender.
Across the U.S., however, the median female earnings were only 78.3% of the median male
earnings in 2010. Although this statistic does not account for skills or job position, it reflects a
variety of societal influences that contribute to pay disparity. These societal influences include
cultural preconceptions on aptitudes based on gender, the cultural value of work traditionally
performed by women, and unconscious bias about the capabilities of women. The lower
median wage for females reduces equality and increases the vulnerability of single mothers
and their families.
HOW ARE WE DOING? The gender wage gap in Dubuque held constant from the 2005
–2007 time span to the 2008 –2010 time span. In 2005 –2007, female earnings were 71.6%
of male earnings, and in 2008 –2010 female earnings rose to 76.5% of male earnings. However,
this change is within the margin of error, and thus there has been no improvement in the gender
wage gap.
HOW DOES DUBUQUE COMPARE? The gender wage gap in Dubuque is similar to its peer
cities. The confidence interval for each of the cities overlap with one another, and thus the data
does not indicate whether Dubuque’s performance is better or worse than its peers.
— Sustainability Progress Report 2012, Sustainable Dubuque and University of Iowa,
School of Urban and Regional Planning
GENDER WAGE GAP 2010
29
In the United States, guidance from the National Research Council to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
is an additional example of how indicators are being defined.
Translating rigorous, technical data into easy-to-digest information that resonates with the full spectrum of com-
munity audiences is no easy task. Audiences for tracking indicators include community residents, local government
employees, elected officials in city, county, and regional jurisdictions, business leaders, and funders. The degree of
specificity and technicality versus ease of comprehension depends on the audience. In addition, due to the ongoing,
cyclical nature of reporting sustainability indicators, they need to be easily updatable.
In metropolitan Portland, Oregon, the regional government, Metro, has prioritized equity in its work to preserve
and enhance the region’s quality of life for current and future generations. In 2010, Metro’s council adopted equity
as one of six desired outcomes for the region. “We have been charged as staff to develop a concerted strategy to
make an impact in everything Metro has influ-
ence over to advance equity in the region,” said
Pietro Ferrari, Metro’s equity program strategy
manager. “We’re currently in the middle of
a three-year effort that will culminate in the
equity strategy and action plan to be presented
for adoption by Council early next summer.
To this end, we are working on establishing a
baseline of equity indicators that will inform the
strategies we create and propose.”
Metro’s equity indicators are being created by
a working group comprised of six community-
based organizations who received funding for
their participation based on an open request
— Sustainability and the U.S. EPA, Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Research Council 2011
GOAL
METRICINDICATOR
What is specifically
sought to be achieved.
The goal is determined
through the use of
measured indicators.
Example: Reducing
mercury emissions
from electric utility steam
generating units.
A summary measure
that provides
information on the
state of, or change in,
a system, that is, what
is being measured.
Example: Mass of
mercury emitted per
heat energy input,
for example, pounds
per gigawatt hours.
Defines the unit
of measurement or
how the indicator is
being measured
Example: Using the
first definition, an
example metric
would be [grams Hg
(of mercury)/Kwh
(of energy input)].
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL — GOAL, INDICATOR, AND METRIC
BARRIERS DETERMINANTS
OF EQUITY
COMMUNITY
IMPACTS
HIGHER:
t)&"L5)$"3&
$OSTS
t)&"L5)
130#-&.4
t$3*.&
t6/'*--&%
)*()4,*--&%
+0#4
t*/$"3$&3"
5*0/
INEQUITIES HURT EVERYONE.
LOWER:
t0/5*.&
(3"%6"5*0/
tW"(&4
t̓&%6$"5&%
"/%4,*--&%
W03,'03$&
t26"-*5Y
"''03%"#-&
)064*/(
8)&/1&01-&-"$,"$$&S4T05)&%&5&3.*/"/T40'&26*5Y5)&:-"$,
OPPO356/*5Y5)&3&46L5*/(*/&26*5*&4*.P"$55)&8)0-&$0..6/*5Y
GRAPHIC: Excerpt from the infographic, Building Equity
& Opportunity, King County, Washington
30
for proposals. They have worked for nearly a year to identify key equity indicators for all six of
Metro’s desired outcomes and to assess the benefits and burdens of Metro’s policies which will the
foundation of an Equity Baseline report to be completed in the fall of 2014.
Local governments are publishing more regular annual sustainability updates and many of them in-
clude tracking of indicators, similar to the efforts in Dubuque and Minneapolis. Some cities have local
laws mandating public disclosure of specific sustainability data. For example, New York City’s “Local
Law 84 requires annual benchmarking and public disclosure about energy efficiency” for buildings
over 50,000 square feet.
22
While community indicators programs have existed for more than twenty years, the
integration of equity is a relatively recent addition to data gathering and reporting under the sustain-
ability agenda. Finally, efforts to publicize sustainability indicators are being impacted by the advent of
infographics and the growing pressure to create brief snippets of data, including those that are easily
shareable via social media. While the proliferation of decreasing attention spans is lamentable to
many, this pressure is forcing cities, counties, and regions to up their game to create compelling visuals
that convey sustainability data, quickly. In many ways, this is a good thing.
Build sustainability programs on a foundation
of authentic community engagement
GOOD PRACTICE #6
Cities are in the business of community engagement, but they haven’t always lived up to the commitment
of a government for all people, by all people. Equal participation is a core tenet of democracy and, argu-
ably, local governments play the most tangible government role in people’s lives. They manage public schools,
provide clean drinking water, clear roadways, fight fires, inspect restaurants for cleanliness, and much more.
Residents should be able to express their needs and shape the many decisions municipalities make in
playing these roles. In addition, local government decision-makers live and work in their communities. Their
workplaces are a municipal or regional building minutes away, not a capital hours away or across the country.
That said, concrete roles and close proximity don’t equate to substantive engagement. Two-minute public
comment periods with a limited list of speakers are a far cry from a seat at the table setting the agenda
for a community’s priorities.
Sustainability holds great promise for innovation in community engagement. Commitment to equity intensifies
and broadens sustainability initiatives, bringing more people into dialogue and action. Successful community
engagement lays the foundation for procedural equity—inclusive, accessible, authentic engagement and rep-
resentation in processes to develop or implement programs and policies. Many local sustainability programs
were launched by community summits, planning charrettes, and city-wide visioning sessions. Residents are
often asked to start with one question: What does a sustainable city mean to you?
GOOD PRACTICE #6
Build sustainability programs on a foundation of
authentic community engagement
GOOD PRACTICE #7
Provide learning opportunities on the basics of planning
and sustainability, including developing capacity and leadership
in neighborhoods prioritized for engagement
III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT,
CAPACITY BUILDING,
AND COLLABORATION:
Build sustainability efforts on
a foundation of community
engagement, ongoing capacity building,
and collaboration
31
In Cleveland, Ohio, the city sponsored an “I am Sustainable Cleveland” poster campaign to give voice to responses
to that question. “Thirty-five people from across the city created posters on why they’re sustainable,” said Jenita
McGowan, chief of sustainability. Responses demonstrated the breadth of residents’ ownership of sustainability.
“People said sustainability is ‘when I host a block party’ or ‘teaching people to meditate is how I am Sustainable
Cleveland.’ They were all over the place” in a good way, she said.
Similar work took place in San Francisco. “We had listening campaigns with dozens of people. Just listening. Show-
ing up at events and asking, ‘what would a green San Francisco look like to you?’” said Anne Eng, environmental
justice program manager.
To develop their sustainability plans, cities have built on community-wide meetings with hundreds of participants,
including online surveys, focus groups, and door-to-door interviews. In cities like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and Washington, DC, sustainability programs are building off a tradition of neighborhood-based leadership.
Importantly, rather than expecting residents to come to the city, many sustainability programs are going out to
meet people where they are, physically and virtually. Technology-savvy cities are building more expansive websites,
but also moving beyond them. They’re posting reports and updates online, but more cities are creating Facebook
pages and YouTube channels. They’re tweeting, and posting photos on Instagram and Pinterest. They’re using Four-
square and Tumblr. They’re blogging.
The work goes far beyond getting people to show up at hearings. Cities are tracking demographics of meeting
participants to identify the constituents that require additional effort. In Nashville, Tennesee, planners not only
tracked the demographics of participants, they shared the similarities and differences of the issues different groups
prioritized. The community vision process, called NashvilleNext, tracked demographics by gender, age, neighbor-
hood, household type, renter/owner, time in Nashville, birth country, educational attainment, and race/ethnicity.
23
In their report, the city mapped who was overrepresented and underrepresented to identify gaps the city could
address.
Cities are showing up at schools, homeless shelters, farmers markets, and on doorsteps to engage those who
aren’t able to come to them. “We don’t rely just on town hall meetings,” said Mitchell formerly of Raleigh.
“We go to people where they are.” An example is the planning department’s efforts to engage the African-
American community, “We go to churches and community centers. Churches are great partners and there are
well-known and historic black community centers.” Raleigh is also one of the cities reaching out to Millennials
through social media with dedicated staff. “Seventy percent of our population is forty-five and under. They stay
informed via social media,” said Silver.
Despite an expansive process including hundreds of residents engaged via working groups, Washington, DC,
planners realized they “were not getting everyone. We needed targeted outreach and focus groups to have
different conversations,” said Laine Cidlowski, urban sustainability planner in
the DC Office of Planning. “We held focus groups in wards seven, eight,
and five, Spanish speakers, youth, and seniors.”
“Food and kids are the secret ingredients. We know residents are
engaged in schools at pick up and drop off,” said Sasha Curl
of the city of Richmond. The city hosts events and shares
information at schools. “Some are interested in education,
some free energy upgrades for their house. That translates
to a meeting at City Hall,” she said.
An array of activities to inform and engage residents is impressive,
but city after city mentioned the need to adopt a new spirit of listening
as the foundation of community engagement. “Lead by listening. Don’t
32
SPOTLIGHT — ALBANY, NEW YORK
In Albany, New York, the city has tracked the demographics of participants in community planning sessions
to identify constituents who require additional engagement. During the development of their comprehen-
sive plan, planners collected standardized demographic data anonymously, using keypad polling. “People
loved the technology,” said Douglas Melnick , former director of planning and director of the Mayor’s Office
of Energy & Sustainability. The city gathered real-time data on “race, neighborhood, sex, how did you get
here, and income,” he said.
“Technology allowed for immediate feedback. People would gasp, ‘Wow, we only have 4% African Americans
here?’ Then we would compare it to actual city demographics and got the same oh my god response. Same
with income,” said Melnick. “It is essential to track demographics. Without doing that, you’re fooling yourself.
You can’t hold a public meeting and say the community has spoken because they haven’t.
It’s a cop out.”
The city identified the neighborhoods and groups they weren’t reaching and created an altogether different
plan for engagement. “We weren’t getting seniors, African Americans, single mothers. We realized that it
was obvious. Many had no ability or time to go to these meetings.” Planners walked neighborhoods and
went to a homeless shelter conducting mini-surveys. “We got face-to-face input consistent with a three-
hour meeting in a fifteen-minute survey. It was really successful.”
In addition to fulfilling its commitment to engagement of the entire community, the effort was an education
for city staff, consultants, and the Comprehensive Plan board members, some of whom had never been in
some of the focus neighborhoods. “It broke down barriers. People said, ‘Wow, everyone wants the same
thing. They want a safe community. A good future for their kids.’”
“There is no silver bullet,” said Melnick. “It just requires staff time. You have to figure out how to get every-
one. It’s your responsibility.” He acknowledges that this is hard, forever work. “We are not tapping into the
diversity of the community all of the time. When we are keeping the lid on things on a daily basis, we are
doing a fraction of engagement that we should be doing.”
ever swoop into a meeting or community with the answer. That sends the message that no one else has
anything to offer in the decision-making,” said McGowan of Cleveland. Staff in San Francisco agree. “This is
a huge part of environmental justice. There is a big listening component, asking them about their immedi-
ate needs and finding ways to connect it to our mission as a department,” said Anne Eng of San Francisco.
“When we did the strategic plan in Bayview-Hunters Point, the top of their list was violence and trauma.
We wanted to talk about toxics, energy efficiency, food security. But there is so much violence in poor
urban environments. How do we address and talk with partners dedicated to violence prevention related
to sustainability—better buildings and street lighting, energy efficiency as a way to help with security?”
The commitment of staff time is essential for doing community engagement well. True engagement
“is extremely labor intensive. People don’t want to know that. It’s not a one-day meeting and ‘yay, we
engaged’,” said Shawn Rosenmoss, fundraising and grants manager at the city of San Francisco.
“You have to look at who is engaged. It has to be a cross-section, not the usual suspects driving the
conversation. We need to make an extra effort,” said Silver.
33
SPOTLIGHT — SERVICES AND OUTREACH TO LIMITED
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY RESIDENTS
One tangible example of local government action to provide better service across languages is
the fact that Seattle’s boiler inspectors use translation cards during boiler inspections with small
businesses.
25
Limited English proficiency is an obvious barrier to public participation because the vast
majority of written and verbal communication with local government takes place in English. Federal
legislation mandates and a growing number of state and municipal laws force local governments to provide
meaningful access to individuals who speak little or no English. The city of Austin, Texas, provides this
context in its Language Assistance Plan:
4ITLE6)OFTHE#IVIL2IGHTS!CTOFISAFEDERALLAWTHATPROTECTSPERSONSFROMDISCRIMINATION
based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial
ASSISTANCE4ITLE6)REQUIRESRECIPIENTSOFFEDERALlNANCIALASSISTANCETOTAKERESPONSIBLESTEPSTO
ensure meaningful access to programs and services by Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons.
Persons who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to
read, write, speak, or understand English maybe considered LEP persons.
— Language Assistance Plan, City of Austin, Aviation Department, July 2013
Census data show this equity issue is growing in importance. Focusing on LEP constituents is all the more
important because this community suffers from multiple points of disadvantage. “Education, employment
status, poverty status, disability status, and health insurance coverage” are “correlated with English speak-
ing ability. Seventy-three percent of Spanish-speakers with a bachelor’s degree or more education spoke
English ‘very well,’ compared with 71 percent of those who spoke a language other than Spanish for this
same education level.
26
Local governments are heeding to call to pay attention to this facet of community engagement. The
city of Calgary, Alberta, has identified an engagement and empowerment objective in its sustainability
plan with a target to ensure “the City communication and engagement opportunities are available in
multiple formats, channels, and languages.”
27
In Seattle, residents can request free language interpreta-
tion from any city department and all key service information has been translated in the city’s six most
commonly used languages. Seattle provides online information in thirty languages. “The Seattle Channel
WEBSITEOFFERSVIDEOSIN3PANISH#ANTONESE-ANDARINAND6IETNAMESEONRESIDENTIALRECYCLINGFOODAND
yard waste and how to recycle electronic equipment.”
28
In San Francisco, the city’s residents speak over
fifty languages. “We have to be diverse and make our materials accessible,” said Anne Eng. “Across the
department, at one point, we did an assessment and ninety people spoke lots of other languages.”
SF Environment collaborates with other departments on language accessibility including a logical part-
nership with every branch library. “The librarians have to speak all these languages,” said Eng. The city
provides grants to Chinese-speaking organizations to reach Mandarin and Cantonese speakers.
Speakers of Spanish and Mandarin are regular members of the city’s outreach team and partnerships
with the Boys and Girls Club in the Mission and Chinatown neighborhoods engage young native
speakers of those languages. “We’ve had to carve money out of the budget to translate and hold
interviews in Spanish and Chinese. We have special meetings, focus groups, translation. It has become
a large part of our work,” said Eng.
34
Provide learning opportunities on the basics of planning and
sustainability, including developing capacity and leadership in
neighborhoods prioritized for engagement
King County, Washington’s Translation Executive Order requires the following:
s2EVIEWPRINTEDMATERIALSFORBROADDISTRIBUTIONFORCULTURALANDLINGUISTICAPPROPRIATENESS
s!LLDEPARTMENTSIDENTIFYVITALDOCUMENTSANDTRANSLATEVITALDOCUMENTSAND0UBLIC
Communication Materials
s4ARGETEDMATERIALSORMOREOFPOPULATION
s!LTERNATIVEFORMSOFASSISTANCEINSTEADOFTRANSLATIONWHENEFFECTIVE
s#ERTIlEDTRANSLATORS!.$REVIEWER
sLANGUAGESINTIERS
29
Local officials emphasize that translation without cultural knowledge can result in mishaps and, in some
cases, create more harm than good. Effective translation—in person and for written materials—relies on
translators who are familiar with cultural norms and understand the nuances of terms and language that
go beyond the translation of words and phrases.
In Santa Fe, New Mexico, city employees noticed that public meetings drew only English-speaking par-
ticipants. The numbers did not budge despite translation services and ads placed in Spanish. In 2011, the
city hired a well-known activist who grew up in the city and also had strong ties to Mexico. He met with
residents in their living rooms, inviting them to public meetings and encouraging them to commit to par-
ticipate. His credibility and outreach resulted in a new 50/50 balance at public meetings with everything
translated in English and Spanish. “People were talking for the first time, sharing their priorities on health,
especially as it related to children,” said Katherine Mortimer, Sustainable Santa Fe programs manager.
GOOD PRACTICE #7
Sustainability programs are creating new opportunities for learning and leadership and, in many cases,
are focusing their efforts on constituents who have been least engaged, historically, in their efforts. Cities
are partnering across agencies and with nonprofit organizations to build the capacity of the least enfran-
chised and their identified communities of concern.
This work is of critical importance because community processes can be accessible without being
inclusive and authentic for those who lack familiarity with government processes or deep knowledge of
specific issues. Anyone who has attended a hearing where unexplained acronyms and undefined jargon
made participants’ eyes glaze over within minutes knows attendance does not equal engagement. True
engagement requires that community members are informed and knowledgeable about the basics of
the issues under deliberation. It requires recognition of historic and cultural dynamics within communi-
ties that have embedded privilege and disadvantage creating the chronic, cumulative disadvantage at the
heart of structural inequity. For example, housing discrimination against people of color and indigenous
communities locked them out as homebuyers for decades. As a result, homeowners are disproportion-
ately white, in many communities. They are easier to reach and engage than renters, especially those with
the lowest incomes who move regularly. These dynamics need to be acknowledged by local govern-
ments and factored into their actions.
Local governments are partnering with nonprofits and transforming outreach programs into deeper
educational opportunities. They are building capacity by listening to the needs expressed by the very
residents they are prioritizing for engagement. “Public housing residents told us they want jobs, to work
35
“Equity is about fairness and offsetting privilege and being able to provide additional support to
people who are inherently at a disadvantage,” said Freddy Collier, deputy planning director of the city
of Cleveland, Ohio. “The fundamentals of sustainability need to be understood by everyone, including
those who are incarcerated, out of the labor force. We have to educate them on the fundamentals.”
With support from the Cleveland Foundation, the city has partnered with Roots of Success, an
environmental literacy and job readiness curriculum developed by Dr. Raquel Pinderhuges who was
directly involved in the development of San Francisco’s sustainability plan two decades ago. Roots of
Success was developed to serve low-income youth and adults.
“ The curriculum works well for all students but was specifically designed for youth and
adults who are struggling in school or have barriers to employment. Our pedagogical
approach engages students, makes learning relevant, builds on previous knowledge and
experiences, and connects what students are learning in the classroom to real world issues.
The material is not simply presented to students as if they are open vessels ready to bank
information, but as people who learn better when they engage with content that is relevant
to their lives, and participate in rich conversations. Students are given opportunities to
examine society’s most pressing environmental problems, identify innovative solutions, and
develop innovative and entrepreneurial responses to community problems and needs.”
— Roots of Success,
“What We Do”
30
“The curriculum provides a very detailed, digestible explanation of all aspects of sustainability—water,
transportation, energy. The curriculum allows you to teach and add to it but not detract,” said Collier.
City employees have been certified to teach Roots of Success to “onboard, educate, and empower
people to apply sustainability and take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities,” said Collier.
“The bridge is equity. It’s the one thing that is getting to the heart of sustainability,” he said.
SPOTLIGHT — CLEVELAND, OHIO
as navigators in public housing sites,” said San Francisco’s Anne Eng. “We worked with the Mayor’s
office on integrated pest management. We helped them reduce pest infestation without spray-
ing pesticides, then we joined with service providers to train community navigators to help them
access public health and mental health services.”
Capacity building, leadership development, and programs to bring all community residents up to
speed on the fundamentals of sustainability are renewing interest and expanding a true sense of
ownership and engagement.
36
SPOTLIGHT — SAN FRANCISCO, CA
In San Francisco, sustainability staff recognize that civic involvement is essential and thus their
partnerships run the gamut. They need “an engaged citizenship that understands the connection
between issues,” said Anne Eng, environmental justice program manager. “We are really committed
to developing partnerships that may be more focused on workforce development, clean technol-
ogy, environmental justice. We are working with businesses, working with Goodwill, the Boys and
Girls Club, the interfaith community,” she said.
In addition to these varied partnerships, the city has created an innovative environmental literacy
and green careers program called Environment Now. The city’s Human Services Agency created a
Jobs Now program to train municipal workers for entry-level positions. Initially funded by the 2009
federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, top directors were so impressed with its results
that they insisted on keeping the program to focus on outreach and provide job training.
Four years later, Environment Now is housed in the Department of Environment, known as SF
Environment, and more than 100 people have participated in the two-year program, a new cohort
every quarter. Most come from disadvantaged backgrounds, some from short-term workforce
DEVELOPMENTPROGRAMS0ARTICIPANTSARETRAINEDMENTOREDANDPAIDASALARYTHEYAREELIGIBLEFOR
city benefits after a few months. The program “enables participants to have a regular paycheck
and stability in their lives. We provide them with case management services because many of the
applicants are dealing with multiple stressors. We have learned to have these services to make it
work,” said Eng.
Training includes ecological literacy and work with all programs across SF Environment, laying the
foundation for the their role as city outreach workers, especially in “neighborhoods in need.” They
table at community events, walk door-to-door, and lead outreach on city programs on recycling,
composting, energy efficiency, toxics, and food security. Environment Now participants play an
important role in achieving the city’s impressive rate of diverting 85% of its solid waste from land-
fills. The outreach message is both economic and environmental: “It’s not only the environmental
benefits of diversion but how they can save money in how they handle their materials,” said Eng.
Three Environment Now graduates were hired as SF Environment Staff and a few more are
employed by the local waste management company. Others have been hired as mentors for the
program. “They are a vital component” of SF Environment,” said Eng. “It’s not just us helping them.
They are an asset to the department. When we think about equity, it’s how I speak to you. It’s that
I think you’re going to give me as much as I’m going to give you.”
The city is learning as it goes and staff push themselves to reach their entire constituency. “How
do you reach people in a way that they can understand—who don’t consider themselves environ-
mentalists?” asked Eng.. “Do you use “public health messaging, or ‘save a million dollars?’ What is the
sweet spot for anyone with whom I’m talking?” Environment Now is paving the way to create a
new generation of sustainability leaders. “They become missionaries. They’re not people who come
from environmental backgrounds, but they do become environmentalists.“
37
Build an infrastructure of people and entities tasked with
achieving progress on equity in sustainability and foster
collaboration across agencies and beyond
GOOD PRACTICE #8
As equity becomes a more prominent feature of sustainability, more local governments are creating offices
and positions focused specifically on making equity-sustainability connections. As mentioned, in recent years,
ENVIRONMENTALJUSTICERESPONSIBILITIESHAVEBEENADDEDTOLOCALGOVERNMENTPOSITIONSNOWEQUITYANDSOCIALJUSTICE
roles are being added as well. In Albany, New York, the Common Council created a Sustainability Committee
with a Social Equity Subcommittee to serve as community advisors. Among its roles, the subcommittee will work
to ensure social equity is addressed across city operations. Portland, Oregon, boasts the first entirely equity-focused
full-time position within a city sustainability department. The city also combined its sustainability and planning
departments and prioritized equity by creating an entirely new bureau. “Merging sustainability and equity came
from the Portland Plan. The base [of the plan] is a focus on equity and opportunity for all,“ said Susan Anderson,
director of Portland’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability who created the equity specialist position.
Simultaneously, leading cities are expanding traditional civil rights, Equal Employment Opportunity, and Affirmative
Action departments and offices that serve as liaisons to ethnic groups. They are taking on social justice, equity,
inclusion, diversity, and human rights. In some cases new entities are being created around these issues or more
specifically on racial justice, racial equity, women, or LGBTQ communities. For example, in 2011, a city ordinance
created the Portland, Oregon, Office of Equity and Human Rights.
Equity requires leadership from the top, a clear articulation that it is the responsibility of every employ-
ee and department. While additional offices, staff, and resources for equity are a good thing, raising
the bar for communication and coordination is a challenge. Crosscutting issues are often challeng-
ing to integrate in a world of silos. Bureaucracies that haven’t always shared a vision need a culture
shift to instill a more collaborative spirit among city departments. For commitment to flourish in all
corners, someone needs to be on point to take the lead, provide support, and hold people account-
able. People also need to push from within each entity, not just from the top.
A downside of designating a person or department as the lead on a complex issue like sustainability, equity, or
environmental justice is the risk that the issue will be easily marginalized or segregated from the core work. This
conundrum is faced by cities every day. “Is it better to have staff everywhere or in one office? We decided on staff
everywhere with core functions related to sustainability,” said Laine Cidlowski of Washington, DC.
GOOD PRACTICE #8
Build an infrastructure of people and entities tasked with
achieving progress on equity in sustainability and foster
collaboration across agencies and beyond
GOOD PRACTICE #9
Provide professional development to cultivate the awareness,
knowledge, and skills to effectively address equity within local
government
GOOD PRACTICE #10
Develop implementation tools and processes to institutionalize
equity and increase accountability in decision-making, budgeting,
and programs
IV. L OCAL GOVERNMENT
CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
Expand the capacity and infrastructure
for equity in local government
decision-making and operations
equity
requires
leadership
from the
top...
38
To address these challenges, local governments are formalizing structures for interagency communication and co-
ordination as they implement sustainability plans with detailed equity actions. They are being intentional about con-
necting a growing cadre of far-flung employees and departments with equity-related responsibilities. And they are
identifying existing policies and tools that can be leveraged to achieve equity goals. In Calgary, Alberta, their ten-year
sustainability plan includes a community well-being goal with objectives and targets on equity, diversity, inclusiveness
and creativity, healthy and active city, engagement and empowerment, and safety and resiliency. The plan specified
components of the supportive infrastructure that be utilized to work toward the targets. They include the city’s Fair
Calgary Policy, Diversity Policy, Customer Care Framework, and Citizens Perceptions and Expectations Research,
among others.
31
)N7ASHINGTON$#-AYOR6INCENT'RAYCREATEDAh'REEN#ABINETvANDAPPOINTEDTHECITYADMINISTRATORASITS
convener. It was essential to “getting the leadership and the staff bought in from the get go,” said Cidlowski.
“It’s extremely important,” agreed Brendan Shane, chief of the District’s Office of Policy and Sustainability in the
Department of the Environment. Shane manages the office charged with managing implementation of DC’s sustain-
ability plan. “Staff coordination is really important, too. These are key structures.” Funding was another valuable
tool for the mayor. He allocated five million dollars to support a dozen initial sustainability projects, most of them
focused on integrating equity. The funding to departments “was mostly focused on bringing their services to areas
where we weren’t able to serve,” said Shane. It was an opportunity to be “creative about more parks or park-like
gardens in every single ward, anti-idling police cars, targeted in areas with high asthma rates. It created goodwill and
ownership” across city agencies. “It’s now in the purview of their agencies. People are now excited about the initia-
tives in the plan, they see them as a way for their department to lead,” said Cidlowski.
In an ideal world, equity is embedded into every job description, office, and department within local, county, and
regional government, like a fractal’s repeating pattern at every scale. In a few places, this is actually happening. Equity
and social justice are priorities across the board in Richmond, California, and Seattle and King County, Washington.
To implement its Health in All Policies strategy, the city of Richmond, California, is infusing health equity into every
facet of the culture and operations of city government. “Health equity has been morale-building. All city staff are
community clinicians and they’re seeing their work as connected,” said Shasa Curl of the city manager’s office. An
example of this connection is the campaign the city spearheaded to have staff across city departments fill in this
blank: “I Keep Richmond Healthy By _______.” Staff had to name a specific way their work keeps residents healthy.
In addition to internal infrastructure, local governments are building substantial partnerships with local universities,
community organizations, foundations, and the business community to create a team inside and outside of gov-
ernment to move their equity agendas. Richmond’s Health in All Policies strategy was substantially influenced and
supported by community-based organizations and partners at the University of California, Berkeley. In Philadelphia,
the William Penn Foundation has provided funding for a range of equity-related mapping projects. The Seattle RSJI
states it well in their assessment recommendations for 2011-2014. It included the recommendation to “strengthen
partnerships across institutions and community: ”
32
“ Even if Seattle City government were doing everything it could to achieve racial equity, we would not be
able to achieve results on our own. All institutions and the community must work together and share a
similar sense of urgency. Only by joining together in a broad partnership with common goals and strate-
gies can we hope to achieve racial equity in key areas such as jobs, health, education and criminal justice.”
—Racial Equity in Seattle: Race and Social Justice Initiative Three-Year Plan 2012-2014
Inspired leadership and effective structures have great potential to marshal and leverage the contributions of a
growing cadre of employees, offices, and community partners toward achieving local equity goals.
39
The Downtown Street Team’s work in San Jose, California, is an excellent example. Its Clean Creeks, Healthy
Communities project provides employment and social services to more than forty homeless individuals while
cleaning up Coyote Creek in three neighborhoods that suffer from significant urban blight. Homeless resi-
dents living in encampments near the creek are paid to collect trash and litter in the nearby trails and in the
waterway. Affordable housing advocates and city, county, and federal agencies collaborate to provide access
to social services and manage the project. Partners include the San Jose Environmental Services Department,
Santa Clara Water District, US Environmental Protection Agency, Destination: Home, and the eBay Founda-
TIONTHEPROJECTWASSPEARHEADEDBYAMEMBEROF#ITY#OUNCIL3AM,ICCARDO
The project received commendations by Mayor Chuck Reed and Councilmember Xavier Campos for its
innovative approach. By providing jobs and human services, engaging one of the hardest-to-reach popula-
tions, the homeless, and cleaning up a long-neglected creek, the project is the epitome of sustainability. Made
possible by partners with a rich mix of expertise and resources, the project is bringing hope and a lifeline to
its team members..
SPOTLIGHT — SEATTLE, WA
Seattle aspires to end institutional racism in city government. It “is the first city in the United States to under-
take an initiative that focuses explicitly on institutional racism and has become a national leader in efforts to
achieve racial equity.” Because of its expansive goal, the city has created an infrastructure and is building the
panoply of community partnerships to achieve it.
The story of the Race and Social Justice Initiative began thirteen years ago:
“When Greg Nickels campaigned for Mayor of Seattle in the summer of 2001, he asked thousands
of Seattle residents for their perceptions concerning City services and government. The range of their
responses surprised him: some Seattle residents felt that the City served their interests well, while
others saw the City as a remote institution that served their interests poorly, if at all.
There were a number of explanations for the chasm that seemed to divide people, but to future
Mayor Nickels the single overriding factor was race. White people tended to feel engaged and
WELLSERVEDBY#ITYGOVERNMENTPEOPLEOFCOLORTENDEDTOFEELDISENGAGEDANDPOORLYSERVED
Several City departments and many staff members already had been working for years to address
racial disparity and race-based barriers to the use of City services…After Mayor Nickels took office,
he directed staff to address those concerns Citywide. His staff began to work collaboratively across
City departments to develop the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI).”
34
Launched by Nickels in 2004, the initiative was strengthened by the city council in 2009, broadened by Mayor
Mike McGinn in 2010 and 2012, and further expanded by current Mayor Ed Murray in April of this year. It
has been endorsed by every elected official in the city and is codified in executive orders by mayors and city
council resolutions.
According to john powell and Julie Nelson
35
of the University of California, cities need an “infrastructure that
creates experts and teams throughout the breadth and depth of local government.”
36
To powell and Nelson,
successful collective impact requires a common agenda, shared measurement, mutually reinforcing activities,
continuous communication, and a backbone organization.
37
In Seattle, the RSJI is the common agenda. The city’s commitment through the initiative has expanded in the
last decade. Currently, its goals are to:
s%NDINSTITUTIONALIZEDRACISMIN#ITYGOVERNMENT
s0ROMOTEINCLUSIONANDFULLPARTICIPATIONOFALLRESIDENTSINCIVICLIFE
s0ARTNERWITHTHECOMMUNITYTOACHIEVERACIALEQUITY
38
40
4HECITYISCURRENTLYFOCUSINGONSHAREDMEASUREMENTTHEINITIATIVESMOSTRECENTASSESSMENTIDENTIlED
the need to “develop meaningful measures for our racial equity work and set specific targets for elimi-
nating racial inequity.”
39
Mutually reinforcing activities include the requirement that each department must
integrate race and social justice into its work plans and create a Change Team to manage the activities
it outlines. A core team of internal consultants was trained to provide capacity and support across the
city. Continuous communication is facilitated by the Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR). Finally, as the
backbone organization, the SOCR leads an interdepartmental team and manages the RSJI, overall. RSJI
outcomes are integrated into the Accountability Agreements between departmental directors
and the mayor.
As the RSJI evolved, the initial focus on internal culture, policies, and practices pivoted to include the
broader community landscape. This year, the city committed to drafting a new strategic plan for the initia-
tive “aimed at reducing inequities in education, housing, criminal justice, health, community development,
the environment and arts and culture.” In March, they conducted the first racial equity community survey
to track residents’ views on race and equity and to identify key areas of concern for RSJI’s next phase
of development. One conclusion from the survey results is that the city “should continue to focus on
achieving racial equity in the community.”
30
The necessity of community partnerships, as part of the city’s
infrastructure for its race and social justice efforts, is more than apparent.
Careful construction of this kind of infrastructure does not guarantee success and RSJI assessment
reports have been candid about failures. For example, early on, implementation was spotty. The effec-
tiveness of Change Teams and levels of commitment were inconsistent across departments and some
departments did not complete their work plan activities. But no goal as ambitious as the elimination
of racial disparities is achieved easily and the city is in it for the long haul. Officials acknowledge they
will need to be tenacious. In the spirit of continuous improvement, its recent community survey is an
example of how the city is expanding how it solicits feedback.
GRAPHIC: Seattle RSJI Structure
RACE AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE COMMUNITY
ROUNTABLE
CORE TEAM
- Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement
- Workforce Equity
- Contracting Equity
- Immigrant and Refugee Access to Services
Direct Reporting Relationship
Indirect Reporting Relationship
CHANGE TEAMS
CITY DEPARTMENTS
RSJI COORDINATING TEAM
(SOCR)
RSJI SUB-CABINET
MAYOR - CITY COUNCIL
41
Provide professional development to cultivate the awareness,
knowledge, and skills to effectively address equity within local
government
GOOD PRACTICE #9
Making tangible, measurable gains on an issue as deeply entrenched and complex as equity requires
investment in the people tasked with that ambitious charge. Beyond intellectual recognition of
sobering statistics and underneath conscious good intentions, equity is deeply personal. Every indi-
vidual brings a lifetime of experience to this issue. North Americans carry the cultural weight of the
oppression of indigenous and enslaved peoples and at least a general recognition that significant
disparities exist here and across the globe. Colleagues in local government often bring drastically
different backgrounds and a mix of group identities to work. Logically, these varied experiences
shape people’s reactions to the elevation of equity as a local government priority.
Professional development is a nearly invisible component of equity, but its inclusion is at the heart
of long-term, sustained progress. Equity initiatives are often described as strategies, action plans, and
indicators. They are programs that can be implemented, tools that provide analysis, and statistics
that can be tracked. But beneath publicly touted initiatives, attention to equity comes down to the
sensitivity and awareness of individuals and their willingness to engage discomfort, rather than run-
ning away from it. Equity is promoted or thwarted in the daily choices, big and small, of administra-
tors and policy makers. The level of awareness and expertise they bring to these moments can be
influenced by investments in their professional development.
Ironically, local governments often invest more in capacity building for residents than in what they
provide for employees. There are many excellent examples of city, county, and regional initiatives to
educate community members and cultivate their leadership on sustainability and equity. By com-
parison, the number of comprehensive, equity-focused internal training, education, and leadership
programs for local government employees is small.. The best examples in North America are based
in the Pacific Northwest, in Portland and Seattle, and their respective regions where equity, racial
justice, and social justice are becoming hallmarks of local government.
Building the capacity of local government employees charged with leading equity efforts is para-
mount. Participants in a recent two-day peer-to-peer exchange on equity, hosted by Portland, made
this point. The twenty city and county officials representing nine jurisdictions agreed that “the need
for more training was the biggest take-away,” said Desiree Williams-Rajee, Portland’s equity special-
ist. “It’s the tools that everyone wants. ‘Just tell us what to do and we’ll be fine.’ But this work is
about behavior change and that doesn’t happen with just one tool. It takes a shift in thinking.”
This sentiment is echoed in Seattle’s experience implementing its Race and Social Justice Initiative
(RSJI). “No change is possible without at least a basic understanding of the problem that needs to
be fixed,” noted a 2008 city report. “As departments wrestle with developing and implementing
annual RSJI action plans, it is critical that we continue to build the capacity of City employees to
understand institutional racism and to learn to analyze policies, practices and procedures from a
racial justice perspective.”
41
Intensive training has been a cornerstone of the RSJI from its inception. Citywide teams participat-
ed in multi-day workshops to build their knowledge and leadership skills as organizers of the effort.
Managers followed, attending mandatory eight-hour trainings that were rolled out across the city.
Every employee was required to participate. The city used the Public Broadcasting Service series
42
Race: The Power of an Illusion as a starting point. Trainings included a deep dive into dismantling racism, institu-
tional racism, white privilege, inclusive outreach, and public engagement.
“Over 8,000 City employees have participated in training through the initiative and most departments have
trained all their employees.”
42
This intense professional development is now ingrained and ongoing.
The Seattle story illustrates the power of leadership, political will, and accountability to forge ahead in the
face of the resistance that is inevitable when engaging every person within an institution. Then-Mayor Mike
Nichols was instrumental. “Employees who attended antiracism training could not walk out with impunity.
This was work time, after all, and participants were answering to their supervisors, who were responsible to
their directors, who were responsible to the mayor.”
43
The unwavering commitment of city leaders encouraged employees to wade through discomfort and
emerge with revelations and new skills. Trainings were intense and emotional, but they achieved the goal of
creating a foundation of shared understanding and commitment. A 2010 employee survey found that “83%
of the 5,200 respondents said they believe it is valuable to examine the impact of race, and over 3,000 em-
ployees stated they are actively involved in promoting RSJI changes in their workplace.”
44
Undermining the
taboo against speaking about race is a major achievement of the city’s trainings. The ability to discuss race
is an obvious, foundational skill for employees charged with bringing a racial and social justice lens to their
work. Furthermore, the depth of the city’s training fostered a new dimension of interpersonal and profes-
sional dialogue. Coworkers not only have shared frameworks and language, but they also better understand
the privilege and challenges their colleagues bring to work every day, fostering an awareness and empathy
within agencies that can be reinforced and echoed with their constituents.
Portland’s regional government, Metro, created a detailed Diversity Action Plan in 2012. The plan outlines
goals and actions on employee recruitment and retention, public involvement, and procurement in addition
to details on professional development.
Metro’s diversity philosophy is built upon our commitment to creating, establishing, and maintain-
ing a diverse and inclusive culture through increased internal awareness and diversity sensitivity,
employee recruitment and retention, public involvement and citizen advisory committee mem-
bership, procurement, and accessibility. Metro embraces diversity in such a way that it includes
understanding the strength of individual and group differences, respecting the perspectives of
others, and communicating openly. We strive to create an environment where all participants value
and celebrate each other’s contributions, skills, and experience and a workplace where all staff are
encouraged to thrive and reach their highest potential.
— Making A Great Place Together, Diversity Action Plan, Metro
For six years, Metro has offered optional courses from the Uniting to Understand Racism program and
discussion groups convene via an ongoing program called Re-uniting To Understand Racism. Ouch! train-
ings focused on developing skills for identifying and addressing bias and stereotypes are mandatory for all
staff. Facilitators are trained from among the Metro ranks to lead the trainings and dialogues that follow. In
addition, diversity-focused events are held throughout the year and staff are encouraged to participate in
professional development opportunities in the field and with local organizations. “We’re taking a long-term
approach that results in a cultural shift for the organization,” said Bill Tolbert, diversity program manager at
Metro. “I recognize that people are in different places along the spectrum when it comes to this work. With
that in mind, the next phases of the program are being designed to build on the foundation we started to
build. It will include more of the basics for those who are still developing their understanding the concepts
of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We’ll also have more advanced learning for those folks who yearning for
43
deeper and more challenging exploration. Overall, the goal is to build a bridge of understanding
and action from the individual that connects to the organization and systems.”
In the city of Portland, the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability took a different and, at times,
zigzagging path, but the rewards have been substantial. “We’re proof that you can have challeng-
ing experiences along the way and still create a successful pathway to more effective training and
capacity building. When it gets hard, you have a choice to give up on it or realize this is a sign you
need to go deeper. We chose the latter, and now we see understanding and addressing institu-
tional racism and bias as a professional competency,” said Williams-Rajee.
In 2011, the agency participated in a diversity program with local environmental and conserva-
tion organizations. Training for senior leaders and an organizational equity audit—a review of
organizational practices and culture—were two mandatory components of the program. Due
to the size of the bureau, information gathering for the equity audit included a little over half of
the staff. When the audit was completed, it was not well received internally. “Despite the insight-
ful findings of the report, a major problem was that all the staff were not involved. ‘You didn’t
include my perspective,’ was what we heard,” said Williams-Rajee. In response, the bureau cre-
ated a team of employees to serve as facilitators and launched a process that included everyone.
“We turned it into an opportunity to build community, to talk about what resonated and didn’t
resonate from the report and we got great ideas for how to improve the Bureau,” she said.
Recommendations emerged from the extensive series of meetings, including making it a priority
to offer emotional intelligence trainings. Held in 2013, the trainings provided a “great foundation
for communicating better. We got new ideas and new means to have positive working relation-
ships both inside and outside the Bureau,” said Williams-Rajee.
Simultaneously, the Bureau’s Diversity Committee proposed two additional trainings that ended
up providing another learning opportunity, one on “The Language of Race and Racism” and an-
other titled “Handling Oppressive Moments.” In the interest of time and based on the desire to
include the entire agency, the trainings were scheduled for ninety minutes and held during all-staff
meetings. “The intent was for the sessions to be introductory, a chance to dip your toe into the
issues” but employees reacted with frustration and discomfort. “We learned our lesson. You can’t
really talk about those issues in an hour and a half,” said Williams-Rajee. The experience led the
management team to realize these were “much bigger issues that need more time, not less. They
gave their endorsement to do more.”
The Bureau provided a mandatory two-day Dismantling Racism training in May 2014. “The timing
was not what the Diversity Committee had originally planned, but the work on emotional intel-
ligence served as important preparatory work for difficult conversations,” and that investment
paid off, said Williams-Rajee. “The Dismantling Racism training was transformative for us, it gave
us an understanding of how racism as a system works and our role in it. This is what gives you
the power to make decisions differently.” Many staff reported that the shared learning experi-
ence across the Bureau was a key to its success. “Not only did it build community and normalize
the conversation, it created common reference points. This wouldn’t have been possible if we
sent staff to different trainings. Anti-racism, power, privilege, bias are all now part of everyone’s
lexicon.”
44
Another strength was “the training’s focus on institutional racism, rather than individual experiences.
It enabled people to engage in the subject without feeling overly vulnerable, but still connect to the
topic on a personal level, because everyone is impacted by institutions,” she said.
In addition to trainings, the Bureau offers coaching, technical assistance, and guidance from Williams-
Rajee, in her role as equity specialist, to employees’ efforts to integrate equity into their work. “I’ve
seen a substantive shift in our Bureau since the Dismantling Racism training. The conversations are
bolder and more honest. People are willing to ask for help and that, in itself, is a huge step forward
and progress I’m proud of,” said Williams-Rajee.
Develop implementation tools and processes to
institutionalize equity and increase accountability
in decision-making, budgeting, and programs
GOOD PRACTICE #10
The good practices summarized in this chapter are part of a tapestry of work, interwoven
threads that bring the picture of equity to life. Equity is strengthened, deepened, and made more
expansive with every good practice a city or county takes on. But you can lay a foundation with-
out building a house. Ultimately, integrating equity in sustainability requires institutionalizing equity
throughout all facets of local government decision-making. Every issue touching sustainability and
equity must be approached systemically to dismantle historical, cultural, and institutional dynamics
and structures that create chronic, cumulative disadvantage for marginalized groups.
A structure of explicit policies and processes to prioritize equity are necessary to leverage the
knowledge, information, and skills cities develop and nurture in employees through professional
development. A few cities and counties are mandating an equity lens, and in more places tools
are being pioneered to create mechanisms to consistently consider equity in decision-making.
Rather than allowing equity to remain an invisible, generalized intention, these tools make equity
an explicit, deliberate consideration.
The role of implicit or unconscious bias is critically important to understanding how decision-
making tools can facilitate improved equity outcomes. While explicit discrimination certainly
continues, the vast majority of institutional decisions that negatively impact a group are uninten-
tional. They are the result of unconscious bias that is ingrained in policy or practice. Terry Keleher
of Race Forward, a racial justice research and leadership development organization, describes
implicit bias at the institutional level. “In institutions, the bias of individuals is routinely replicated
through collective decisions and actions. It becomes compounded unless it’s consciously coun-
teracted,” she said. “When racial impacts are not consciously considered during the lawmaking/
decision-making process, there is more likelihood that negative racial impacts will result —implicit
bias is the default.”
45
Equity tools are an opportunity to use choice points, “decision-making opportunities that influ-
ence outcomes,”
46
as opportunities.
Using Choice Points to Advance Equity
1. Identify a Choice Point: What is one of your points of opportunity to make or influ-
ence a decision that may affect equitable outcomes?
2. Assess Impacts: What are the impacts of current decisions and actions that may be
unintentionally reinforcing bias, barriers or inequities?
45
3. Generate Options: What are some alternative action options that could produce different
outcomes? (Try to generate several of them.)
4. Decide Action: Which option will generate the most leverage, momentum or gain towards
advancing equity and inclusion?
5. Change Habits: What reminders or “equity primes” can be structured into you routine
practices and protocols to make equity an ongoing priority and habit? What relationships,
supports, incentives or accountability measures could help?
— An Introduction to Racial Equity Assessment Tools, Race Forward
Most equity tools are sets of questions consistently used during decision-making. They are deliberate
REMINDERSTOCONSIDEREQUITYANDTOBECONSCIOUSOFEQUITYIMPACTShDURINGANIMPORTANTCHOICEPOINT
thereby helping to counteract unconscious bias.”
47
Race Forward’s description of a racial equity impact
assessment is excellent and can be broadened beyond race: “A Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA)
is a systematic examination of how different racial and ethnic groups will likely be affected by a pro-
posed action or decision. REIAs are used to minimize unanticipated adverse consequences in a variety
of contexts, including the analysis of proposed policies, institutional practices, programs, plans and bud-
getary decisions. The REIA can be a vital tool for preventing institutional racism and for identifying new
options to remedy long-standing inequities.”
Unaware of choice points
IMPLICIT BIAS
EXPLICIT BIAS
Builds in decision-making guides that evoke
consideration of equity
Fosters active engagement and empowerment
of stakeholders
Gives distinct, specific and sufficient attention
to key disparities/inequities
Supports and implements strategies
to remove barriers
Systematically analyzes potential
impacts on disadvantaged groups
Exclusive of stakeholders
Not attentive to race, gender,
income and other inequities
Ignores barriers to access
Does not consider racial impacts
— An Introduction to Racial Equity Assessment Tools, Race Forward
A combination certification program, resource hub, and learning community, the STAR Community Rating
System (STAR) is a valuable tool for institutionalizing equity in local government operations. “Local lead-
ers use STAR to assess their sustainability, set targets for moving forward, and measure progress along the
way.”
49
STAR provides a structure of goals, objectives, and specific preparatory and implementing actions and
clear performance measures with point ratings.
ENSURES EQUITY: Sustainable communities allocate resources and opportunities fairly so that
all people who do the full range of jobs that a community needs can thrive
in it. Local governments in these communities actively eliminate barriers to full
participation in community life and work to correct past injustices.
SPOTLIGHT — STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM
46
%-"2!#%3$)6%23)493USTAINABLECOMMUNITIESFEATUREATAPESTRYOFPEOPLES
cultures, and economies underpinned by a richly functioning natural environment.
Local governments in these communities celebrate and foster ethnic, cultural,
economic, and biological diversity and encourage multiple approaches to accom-
plish a goal.
— STAR Community Rating System, Version 1.1, January 2014
The STAR Rating System is organized into seven “Goal Areas” including one on Equity &
Empowerment “to ensure equity, inclusion, and access to opportunity for all citizens.” The
goal is broken down into six objectives: Civic Engagement, Civil and Human Rights, Environ-
mental Justice Equitable Services and Access, Human Services, and Poverty Prevention and
Alleviation.
50
In addition to the Equity & Empowerment stand-alone goal area, STAR signals its intent to
integrate equity throughout its framework by the use of these key words and phrases within
the other goals: “for all,” ”equitably,” and “diverse communities.” It also uses the phrase
coined by the environmental justice movement “where people live, work, and play.” The
Health & Safety goal overlaps with equity significantly, and outcomes and actions throughout
the rating system are equity-focused. For example, the Built Environmental goal includes
a Transportation Affordability Outcome to “show that at least 50% of households in the
jurisdiction are estimated to spend less than 15% of income on transportation costs.” Under
the category of Facility and Infrastructure Improvements, actions include: “Increase the
percentage of households with access to Transit Facility and Infrastructure Improvements”
and “Construct or retrofit transportation infrastructure to meet standards in the Americans
with Disabilities Act.”
Promising features of STAR include its convening capacity and commitment to continu-
ous improvement and evolution of the rating system. To create the index, the organization
worked for years, bringing together dozens of local officials and thought leaders to design
the rating system. In 2013, they piloted STAR in thirty-one communities. As STAR continues
to engage city officials leading the integration of equity in sustainability, its equity actions and
measures can only continue to improve, providing much-needed guidance across the United
SPOTLIGHT — EXAMPLES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EQUITY TOOLS IN USE
INCLUSIVE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT GUIDE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Created in 2009 and last updated in 2012, this 29-page publication defines inclusive engagement
and includes a glossary of key terms. The guide provides a Cultural Competency Continuum that
can be used to assess “behaviors, attitudes, policies, and practices,”
51
and explains Six Essential
Strategies for Inclusive Engagement. Actions are suggested and specific questions are posed to
correspond with key process points in the community engagement process. In addition, a step-
by-step process is described for creating an Inclusive Public Engagement Plan and worksheets
are included. A Public Engagement Matrix describes types of engagement along a spectrum of
Inform—Consult—Collaborate—Shared Decision-Making. Finally, the guide provides criteria for
evaluating the effectiveness of public involvement initiatives.
47
Since 2005, the city of Seattle has mandated that all city departments create and report progress on their
Race and Social Justice Initiative workplans. “The City’s Budget Office requires departments to use the Racial
Equity Toolkit to analyze each and every budget proposal. The toolkit helps analyze the Race and Social Justice
impact of policy and program decisions, as well as unintended consequences. City managers have been
trained to use the toolkit to review policies, programs and projects, resulting in hundreds of changes that are
aimed at achieving racial equity.”
52
The toolkit, formally named the Racial Equity Toolkit to Assess Policies, Initiatives, Programs, and Budget
Issues, “lays out a process and a set of questions to guide the development, implementation and evaluation
of policies, initiatives, programs, and budget issues to address the impacts on racial equity.”
53
RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
INFORM CONSULT
TYPE OF ENGAGEMENT
COLLABORATE SHARED DECISION-MAKING
Translation of all key
documents.
Interpretation at events.
- Fact Sheets
- Brochures
- Websites
- Open Houses
- Exhibits/displays
(in public areas)
- Newsletters (mailed/online)
- Newspaper articles
Educate the public about
the rationale for the project
or decision; how it fits with
City goals and policies; issues
being considered, areas of
choice or where public input
is needed.
Message to the Public:
To keep everyone informed.
Gather information and ask
for advice from citizens to
better inform the City’s work
on the project.
Message to the Public:
Will keep everyone informed,
listen to and acknowledge
concerns and provide
feedback on how public input
influenced the decision.
- Focus groups
- Surveys, interviews, and
questionnaires
- Public Meetings
- Door to Door
- Workshops and working
sessions
- Deliberative polling
- Internet (interactive
techniques)
- Citizen Advisory
- Committee/ Liaison Groups
- Visioning
- Consensus building
- Participatory decision-making
- Charrettes
- Implementation Committee
- Citizen juries
- Ballots
- Delegated decisions to
specific representative citizen
body or to voters
Translation of all key
documents.
Interpretation at events.
Provision of Childcare
Culturally appropriate food
Individual meetings with
community leaders
Translation of all key
documents.
Interpretation at events.
Provision of Childcare
Culturally appropriate food
Individual meetings with
community leaders
Translation of all key
documents.
Interpretation at events.
Provision of Childcare
Culturally appropriate food
Individual meetings with
community leaders
Create a partnership with the
public (key stakeholder groups)
to work along with the City in
identifying problems, generating
solutions, getting reactions to
recommend-ations and
proposed direction.
Message to the Public:
Will work with the public to
ensure that their concerns and
issues are directly reflected
in the alternatives developed
and show how public input
influenced the decision.
Decision-makers delegate
decision-making power
to stakeholders or give them
a formal role in making final
recommendations to be acted
upon.
Message to the Public:
Will implement what the
public decides.
Goal of
Participation
Tools/Activities
Inclusive
Engagement
Techniques
GRAPHIC: Excerpt from Seattle Public Engagement Matrix
48
WHEN DO I USE T HIS T OOLKIT?
HOW DO I USE T HIS TOOLKIT?
Early. Apply the toolkit early for alignment
with departmental racial equity goals
and desired outcomes.
With Inclusion. The analysis should be completed
by people with different racial perspectives.
Step by step. The Racial Equity Analysis is made
up of six steps from beginning to completion:.
STEP 1. SET OUTCOMES
STEP 2. INVOLVE STAKEHOLDERS
+ ANALYZE DATA
Leadership communicates key community outcomes for
racial equity to guide analysis.
Gather information from community and staff on how the issue
benefits or burdens the community in terms of racial equity.
What does data tell you about potential impacts?
Analyze issue for impacts and alignment with racial equity
outcomes.
STEP 3. DETERMINE BENEFIT AND/OR BURDEN
STEP 4. ADVANCE OPPORTUNITY OR MINIMIZE HARM
Develop strategies to create greater racial equity or minimize
unintended consequences.
STEP 5. EVALUATE. RAISE RACIAL AWARENESS.
BE ACCOUNTABLE
Track impacts on communities of color overtime.
Continue to communicate with and involve stakeholders.
Document unresolved issues.
STEP 6. REPORT BACK
Share information learned from analysis and unresolved issue
with Department Leadership and Change Team.
GRAPHIC: Excerpted from Seattle Racial Equity Toolkit To Assess Policies,
Initiatives, Programs And Budget Issues
49
EQUITY IMPACT REVIEW TOOL, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
EQUITABLE SOLUTIONS FOR ONE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
Based on its Equity and Social Justice Ordinance, King County must “consider equity and social justice impacts
in all decision-making so that decisions increase fairness and opportunity for all people, particularly for people
of color, low-income communities and people with limited English proficiency or, when decisions that have a
negative impact on fairness and opportunity are unavoidable, steps are implemented that mitigate the negative
impact.”
56
The county’s Equity Impact Review Tool, “is both a process and a tool to identify, evaluate, and communi-
cate the potential impact - both positive and negative - of a policy or program on equity.”
57
The ten-page tool has three components:
Minneapolis has created a racial equity framework to “change the way we engage the community, plan activities,
make policy and deliver services to improve the socio-economic condition for the residents of Minneapolis.”
54
Recruitment and hiring, board and commission membership, and procurement are three focus areas, but “the
framework applies to all work in the city.”
55
Development of the racial equity assessment toolkit began in 2012.
A Racial Equity Assessment and three equity guides are being finalized. They include a Recruitment and Hiring
Guide, a Guide to Engaging Boards and Commissions, and a Guide to Equitable Purchasing.
EQUITY TOOLKIT, BUREAU OF SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING, PORTLAND, OREGON
The City of Portland has created an equity decision tool that has been piloted for the last year. It is currently
under review. The optional tool is available to all Bureau of Planning and Sustainability employees and interest in
its use has increased due to its deliberate linkage to the agency’s recent Dismantling Racism training. The intent
of the toolkit is to remain dynamic and to be used as a facilitation guide for discussion within work groups.
“People want equity tools as a saving grace, but they may not get what they’re hoping for,” said Desiree Wil-
liams-Rajee of Portland, Oregon. “Toolkits are not going to solve this for us. They’re not useful if there isn’t the
proper orientation and training to use it well. You can make things worse. Think of it like a scientific calculator,
if your reasoning is faulty on the input side, the end result will not be what you were hoping for. Developing
an analysis of power and understanding the logic behind institutional racism and institutional bias” all matter as
much if not more.
STAGE 1I
STAGE 1
STAGE III
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON DETERMINANTS OF EQUITY?
The aim of the first stage is to determine whether the proposal will have an impact
on equity or not.
ASSESSMENT: WHO IS AFFECTED?
This stage identifies who is likely to be affected by the proposal.
IMPACT REVIEW: OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION
The third stage involves identifying the impacts of the proposal from an equity perspective.
The goal is to develop a list of likely impacts and actions to ensure that negative impacts
are mitigated and positive impacts are enhanced.
58
RECOMMENDATIONS:
NEXT STEPS
FOR INCREASING
THE IMPACT OF
SUSTAINABILITY BY
STRENGTHENING
EQUITY
51
The good practices in this report are recommendations in themselves. Cities can focus their time,
attention, and resources on embedding equity by implementing as many of the good practices as
possible. Those actions will contribute to sustainability living up to its full potential. Through the
integration of equity, sustainability’s expansive scope can more often serve as an organizing frame
for addressing intersecting issues within a systemic view of community vitality and prosperity.
Beyond the good practices, this chapter notes further opportunities for the urban sustainability
field. An array of actors can follow up on these recommendations, at varying scales. Individuals—
including but not limited to mayors and other elected officials, city and county staff, regional
planners, academics, and national thought leaders—can continue to make the case for equity in
sustainability and spur change within their institutions. City, county, and regional governments can
continue leading the charge to make equity a true pillar of sustainability by operationalizing a
range of practices and policies and focusing intentionally on the organizational culture they create
and sustain. National organizations—including nonprofit organizations across multiple issues not
just environmentally-focused, foundations, and national governments—can play pivotal convening
and funding roles to move dialogue and build momentum for equity.
Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon, but the direction of change can be influenced. The
recommendations in this chapter are specific opportunities for spurring the growth of equity as a
foundational component of sustainability.
Good Practice #1:
Good Practice #3:
Good Practice #2:
Good Practice #1:
Good Practice #3:
Good Practice #2:
Good Practice #1:
Good Practice #3:
Good Practice #2:
RECOMMENDATION #1
Spread what works by expanding opportunities for information
sharing and peer learning on equity in sustainability
RECOMMENDATION #4
Diversify the sustainability field
RECOMMENDATION #2
Multiply and deepen professional development opportunities
RECOMMENDATION #5
Strengthen community partnerships, across sectors,
to accelerate progress on equity
RECOMMENDATION #3
Expand the use of equity measures and support their
increasing sophistication
RECOMMENDATION #6
Push the envelope on equity in sustainability to innovate
on high impact strategies
RECOMMENDATIONS: NEXT STEPS FOR INCREASING
THE IMPACT OF SUSTAINABILITY BY STRENGTHENING
EQUITY
52
A major finding of this scan is the need for a much more expansive array of professional development offerings
within local government on equity.
Decades ago, corporations pioneered diversity training because they saw a direct tie to their bottom line and the
skills of managing diversity. The business case for the private sector was clear. Address diversity, or lose out on the
broader perspectives, creativity, and innovation people from different backgrounds bring. Support people in devel-
oping the skills of working with and managing people who are both similar and different, or face the consequences
of increased conflict and a lack of teamwork. As the demographics of North America continued to shift, diversity,
and now inclusion, have become even more relevant to institutions across sectors and in politics and policy. The
private sector has continued to lead in its intentional focus on diversity, inclusion, and related organizational culture
and human resources initiatives. Corporations have the resources and a business case for their investments in
performance reviews, company values statements, pulse surveys to assess employees’ experience, mentoring and
coaching programs, and affinity groups of employees who bring diversity to the organization.
The sustainability field has work to do to clarify its rationale for why equity, diversity, inclusion, and cultural com-
petence matter to its success. Correspondingly, it needs to make professional development on these topics as a
priority. Professional development is sorely needed because it is an essential component of instilling the will to
make equity a priority and of building the competencies that will translate good intentions into positive impacts.
In Seattle and Portland, city leaders used trainings to sensitize employees to the realities of disparities in their
Multiply and deepen professional development opportunities
RECOMMENDATION #2
s Compile and share more stories and lessons learned from local sustainability efforts integrating
equity, including deeper dives into specific topics, strategies, and tools—via publications, factsheets,
webinars, online interviews, and conference sessions.
s Ensure that sustainability conferences weave equity throughout their programming in plenaries
and concurrent sessions.
s Offer equity-focused sustainability training and learning opportunities for local government officials
and staff including site visits and peer-to-peer sessions. Fundraise for travel, expenses, and staff time
whenever possible.
ACTIONS
A more intentional peer learning strategy could create a dramatic upswing in the recognition that equity needs
to be more forthrightly and intentionally engrained in local sustainability efforts. Leading cities have accumulated
substantial knowledge about how to start or expand equity work, and their wisdom not only needs to be shared,
it should be front and center when community sustainability is discussed. Similar strategies can ripple from city
to city, creating a wake of newfound momentum for equity.
Informal networks pop up whenever people or organizations discover their shared interest in a compelling topic.
Many of the people engaged in the hard, complex work of making cities more equitable and sustainable have
found each other. Most of the time, individuals interested in equity learn of each other’s efforts secondhand
and communicate in one-off conversations. While one-on-one conversations are incredibly useful, by definition,
information conveyed between two people is a small scale. Impacting an entire field one conversation at a time
could take eons. It is imperative to increase the scale and pace of communicating the urgency of equity and the
pathways toward progress.
Spread what works by expanding opportunities for information
sharing and peer learning on equity in sustainability
RECOMMENDATION #1
53
Indicators and metrics provide the specificity that contributes to a deeper understanding of equity. The use
of equity indicators in local government has increased and should continue to be expanded. If sustainability
indicators and metrics are among the most often-used tools for accountability, the integration of equity within
them is absolutely necessary for this leg of the three-legged stool of sustainability to assume its rightful place.
The use of equity indicators by local governments has helped explain the concept to those who perceive
ITASAMORENEBULOUSCONCEPTTHEIREXPANSIONWILLADDDEPTHANDDIMENSIONSTOFURTHERUNDERSTANDINGAND
acknowledging the complexity of equity.
Measurement contributes a sense of control and agency. Moving the dial on specific indicators is a tangible
goal to work toward. But the complexity of equity exacerbates challenges in measuring progress. Acting on
and measuring equity in sustainability is difficult because sustainability programs cannot create procedural, dis-
tributional, structural, and transgenerational equity on their own. In addition, equity indicators and metrics are
complicated enough. How do you measure the intersection of equity and sustainability given the expansive-
ness of both concepts? These conundrums are part of the next frontier for the sustainability field to address in
the years ahead.
Communities creating equity metrics within sustainability plans and programs need additional opportunities to
convene to learn from each other and national organizations including the STAR Index. More detailed publica-
tions and tools providing guidance on developing equity in sustainability measures would be valuable and
contribute to their expanded use. Finally, additional technical assistance and automated mapping tools could
Expand the use of equity measures and support their increasing
sophistication
RECOMMENDATION #3
ACTIONS
s Identify the core competencies needed to achieve equity goals within sustainability, including but
not limited to knowledge of core concepts, community demographics, and equity-related com-
munity data and development of interpersonal skills. Design professional development offerings,
accordingly.
s Encourage and incentivize participation in trainings offered by national, regional, and local organi-
zations on equity, inclusion, diversity, racial equity, dismantling racism, and related topics.
s Build equity-related skills into job descriptions and performance reviews. Create clear expecta-
tions for employees for contributing to sustainability departments’ equity goals and hold them
accountable.
s Create additional collaborative leadership development and training opportunities on equity
in sustainability where multiple jurisdictions can send staff, nationally or regionally.
communities and then to educate them on how the dynamics of difference play out. They dug deeply into
how individual roles, institutionalized factors, and societal systems and structures have created disparities. The
eye-opening experience those cities’ trainings provided translated into higher levels of awareness and buy-in
for their equity and social justice commitments.
Regardless of a city’s level of ambition on equity, carefully planned and executed professional development
opportunities are a foundational component. Equity is simply too knotty an issue and too sensitive a topic
for a checklist. Trainings, workshops, study groups, and coaching create the space for knowledge, awareness,
and learning new skills that are mandatory for progress on equity. In an ideal world, the competencies that
are cultivated through professional development are explicit and also integrated into performance reviews.
54
Diversify the sustainability field
RECOMMENDATION #4
ACTIONS
sCreate additional written guidance specifically focused on equity measures within sustainability.
sLeverage investments by individual local governments by creating shared templates and other
information gathering and tracking tools.
sProvide technical assistance to support jurisdictions just starting out on equity measures and
those who are increasing the sophistication of their work.
Demographics aren’t destiny. A local government agency’s commitment to equity is not dictated by
its percentages of employees who are women, people of color, or from low-income backgrounds.
!TTHESAMETIMETHESUSTAINABILITYlELDISNODIFFERENTFROMANYOTHERSECTORITSINSTITUTIONSFACE
the same crisis of credibility confronting many companies and organizations today. The questions
can be simply stated: Do you represent the constituency you purport to serve? Is your “customer
base” likely to see itself reflected in your institution, including in powerful decision-making roles?
Furthermore, if inclusion is an institutional value or necessity for conducting business, what does it
mean when major segments of the community you serve are not represented within your ranks?
This report aims to make the case that a more expansive definition of sustainability, one that is
true to its own Three Es and triple bottom line definitions, will garner higher levels of engagement,
political support, and positive impact. But messengers often matter as much as a message. Lead-
ership development programs can cultivate and train community members to play roles in local
sustainability initiatives, but the demographics of the people at the forefront of this work are even
more important. Paid employees, especially decision makers, of local government sustainability of-
fices need to reflect the full audience and constituency for sustainability.
In an era where infographics on the diversity of technology companies go viral on their own social
media platforms, no sector or institution is immune to higher levels of scrutiny. University of Michi-
gan professor Dorceta Taylor’s recent analysis of the diversity of the environmental field included
seventy-four federal, state, and local environmental agencies. Because most sustainability-focused
offices are closely tied to or housed within environmental agencies, her data is relevant to sustain-
ability practitioners. Taylor found a clear lack of racial diversity across the board and of women
in leadership in environmental agencies. While women comprise 60.2% of staff in government
environmental agencies, they make up only 33% of their boards.
60
The data on racial diversity show
an even greater imbalance. People of color comprise 6.9% of government environmental agency
board members and 12.4% of paid staff.
61
Taylor’s data confirmed anecdotal assumptions and her
analysis showed little improvement in recent years. In the last three years, participating agencies
reported that 11.7% of hires and 15% of interns, who by their very nature are temporary, were
people of color.
facilitate the tracking of equity metrics. Rather than each jurisdiction across the Canada and the United
States creating manual tables, an automated template could be created to allow local governments to
import their data to map equity-related information and identify trends.
Robert F. Kennedy once lamented that the gross national product measures everything “except that
which makes life worthwhile.”
59
The impulse for measurement is understandable, but Kennedy’s caution
should be noted. As the good practices illustrate, equity is much more than data points and the transfor-
mational work of equity and sustainability is impossible to convey simply through measures, as important
as they are.
55
s Local governments and national sustainability organizations need to clarify a compelling mission-
driven rationale for the importance of diversity and inclusion within their organizations. How do
diversity and inclusion support the achievement of the mission of the sustainability department
or organization? What are the top three or four diversity priorities and why? How do diversity
and inclusion demonstrate commitment to their core values and strategies?
s Building on their clear rationale, these institutions need to create proactive programs to cre-
ate a pipeline of people of color into the field. This includes paid internship opportunities to
develop a cohort of experienced applicants of color for entry-level positions and intentional
efforts to create pathways for experienced professionals to translate their skills and knowledge
into the sustainability field.
s Leadership development programs and anti-bias training for managers should be developed
and offered to address the need to bring more women into senior leadership positions.
s Local government leaders and entities that appoint individuals to boards should track demo-
graphics and conduct proactive recruitment and relationship building to expand the pool of
potential appointees to more accurately represent the community.
s Local government sustainability offices should collaborate with their counterparts in Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity and civil rights divisions to ensure fair and inclusive recruitment
and hiring processes are in place for sustainability jobs. They should collaborate to expand
leadership development and recruiting efforts to bring more underrepresented groups into ap-
plicant pools and ensure anti-bias training is part of the professional development offered
to hiring managers.
s Conference planners should track the demographics of speakers and the integration of equity
and economic issues, especially in plenary sessions, and proactively recruit women, people of
color, and equity and economic experts to play leadership roles at sustainability conferences.
ACTIONS
Municipalities have to clarify what diversity means to them, based on their demographics, the current
composition of their workforce, and an analysis that specifies the groups who are least represented
and engaged. While representation and commitment to equity are not always directly tied, the skills
of engaging effectively with a wide range of residents are more easily cultivated within sustainability
departments when those competencies are part of day-to-day work. Interaction among staff col-
leagues who bring an array of backgrounds and perspectives on how best to engage the full spectrum
of community members on sustainability is a plus. People of color and individuals from low-income
backgrounds, and other subordinated groups, often bring heightened consciousness about equity to
sustainability based on their life experience. Their presence within sustainability departments is an indi-
cator that their institutions truly value diversity and are practicing inclusion, not merely talking about it
or only addressing it as an external task. In many cases, sustainability efforts with a strong equity focus
were spearheaded by mayors of color. They brought the more expansive lens to sustainability and
insisted that equity and their “relevant to all” framing and content imbue its programs.
Finally, diversity is never sustained without inclusion. Organizational culture needs to evolve and the
cultural competencies of everyone within an institution have to ramp up for diversity of any kind to
flourish. Recruiting people who are different only to have them leave, relatively quickly, simply creates
a revolving door. Employees who depart because they felt excluded or dramatically uncomfortable
based on their differences do not leave happily. Intentional effort and professional development to
create an inclusive culture, instill higher levels of awareness, and cultivate new skills are an important
foundation for diversifying any institution.
56
ACTIONS
s Connect to established and emerging regional equity networks to explore participation or
to learn how to launch similar collaborative groups close to home.
s Dedicate staff time to exploring opportunities for funding and community partnerships with
institutions that share a focus on equity.
Because local governments cannot dismantle societal disparities on their own, their ability to
forge long-term partnerships is a key to progress on equity. From Boston to Philadelphia to San
Francisco, foundations have been key partners to local government sustainability offices. They have
funded research and community engagement activities and played important convening roles.
Foundation-led networks focused exclusively on equity have been created in Denver, the Puget
Sound, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis, providing ripe collaboration opportunities for local sustain-
ability offices. Community-based organizations have been pivotal in pushing city and regional
governments to prioritize equity through advocacy campaigns, reports, and equity atlases. Neigh-
borhood-based groups have been key allies to local governments seeking to expand engagement
in underrepresented areas. Universities are a rich source of research, training, technical assistance,
and advice for sustainability practitioners integrating equity in sustainability. And federal govern-
ment agencies have also provided seed funding and the impetus for numerous equity-focused
sustainability programs. In some regions, the private sector is a key partner in equity initiatives
because they see the economic risks of inequality.
Constrained budgets narrow the focus of many local government sustainability offices. When
funding is limited, these offices are more likely to focus on a smaller sphere of work, like energy
efficiency and solar energy projects. A more ambitious agenda, including examples profiled in this
report, depends on a more expansive vision, but it also depends on the financial resources to
broaden the scope of sustainability. Partnerships with foundations, community and neighborhood
groups, universities, federal agencies, and the business community are an opportunity to bring
financial and other resources to the table. Equity is a priority to many of the organizations in these
broader sectors and, in some cases, an equity focus is required for foundation and federal funding
eligibility. These collaborations are win-win. They bring resources to expand sustainability program-
ming and they incentivize a strong commitment to equity.
While collaborations are rarely at the top of a sustainability director’s to-do list, efforts to build
relationships and forge partnerships across sectors hold great potential to enliven and enrich their
equity work and accelerate progress and innovation.
Strengthen community partnerships, across sectors, to accelerate
progress
RECOMMENDATION #5
57
Growing the number of cities doing good work in the realm of equity and sustainability is an important
priority. For equity to take hold, people and institutions in more places need to take it on and apply
what they can where they are. Equity-minded sustainability leaders also need to pioneer additional
approaches. Local governments need to build on current work and discover new good practices. They
need to be innovative and push an even higher level of connection with allies and organizations with
similar equity goals working on related issues.
An important area of innovation is diversifying the rationale for equity in sustainability and the entry
points for this work. Options abound. There is great opportunity to strengthen the pathway into equity
in sustainability via economic prosperity and community development. How can sustainability-related
educational programs contribute to students’ engagement in school and increase graduation rates? Are
there other ways sustainability programs contribute to educational attainment, a core equity priority?
How is sustainability connected to building safe spaces? In addition to safe streets, the focus on making
streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, how does sustainability contribute to increased public safety?
There isn’t a community in Canada or the United States that doesn’t care deeply about economic de-
velopment, education, and public safety. How can sustainability strategies be more deliberate in contrib-
uting to those goals that are so inextricably tied to equity?
Lastly, this report did not delve deeply into local legislative initiatives, focusing solely on those that man-
date equity considerations, but equity-focused policy change is a logical, high-impact priority. A wave of
local legislation on equity in sustainability, from cumulative impact and living wage ordinances to green
jobs targeted to those who need them the most, is a arena that can be further cultivated and seeded
across North America.
ACTIONS
s Encourage interaction and partnerships between sustainability professionals and colleagues in
other fields who are taking equity seriously to cross-pollinate and transfer good ideas and in-
novations into the sustainability field.
s Convene practitioners representing leading local government efforts to identify new fron-
tiers for expanding and deepening equity-related sustainability efforts. In addition to providing
inspiration, assistance, and funding to communities new to equity in sustainability efforts, target
opportunities for those on the cutting edge to push into new territory.
s Share details and lessons from equity-related legislative wins at the local level to encourage
additional municipalities to spread their adoption. Make policy a focus of information sharing on
equity in sustainability.
Push the envelope on equity in sustainability to innovate on
high impact strategies
RECOMMENDATION #6
58
By fully integrating equity, local governments are uniquely situated to make a substantial contribution to the
sustainability field. Equity has been left out of the framing and content of sustainability for too long, but a
new generation of local leaders is bringing it to the fore. With this evolution, the sustainability field has the
opportunity to communicate and brand its work far beyond environmental, scientific, and seemingly wonky
policy approaches that don’t touch people’s daily lives. As mentioned earlier in this report, while sustain-
ability has too often been defined as an interchangeable concept with environmentalism, city officials across
the country are rebranding sustainability in more concrete terms focused on tangible benefits. Their efforts
are creating a bigger, broader constituency for sustainability and newfound understanding of its relevance to
everyone.
Most importantly, many local sustainability leaders are rethinking and redesigning their work. They are using
a structural equity lens to analyze access and opportunity to the determinants of a healthy, prosperous life.
They are addressing distributional equity and uncovering the truths beneath community-wide data by iden-
tifying the groups who are the face of society’s disparities and targeting their resources accordingly.
They are building the capacity of the most disenfranchised groups in their communities to be true partners
in democracy through their efforts to foster procedural equity. They are institutionalizing equity by making it
an intentional, conscious part of their decision-making processes. In doing so, local government leaders are
on the front lines of sustainability. Their lessons learned and cumulative efforts have much to teach those
who are working on state, provincial, federal, and national sustainability policy and advocacy.
Equity is a key to maximizing the potential for sustainability to serve as a galvanizing, interconnected frame
for creating a better world. Our collective future depends on making equity a priority.
“ In the coming decades, it is today’s younger generation who will drive economic growth, whose
tax contributions will support social insurance programs for the elderly and other services, whose
purchasing power will determine the demand for goods and services, who will serve in our
armed forces, and who will act as caregivers to an aging population. The majority of this
generation will be children of color, many of whom will face the legacy effects of past racism
and ongoing inequities of structural racism and implicit biases… The ability of these children to
succeed will shape our shared future.”
62
— The Business Case for Equity
Sustainability has the power to weave the strands that create hope and prosperity, health and wellness,
community cohesion and true opportunity for all. A focus on equity is an opportunity for sustainability
leaders to address some of the thorniest, most deep-seated issues in society and to reinforce the inextrica-
ble ties that bind us in one shared destiny as people on the planet. Local governments have important roles
to play, momentum on their side, and a window of opportunity with their grasp. The benefits of sustainabil-
ity must accrue to all, not just the privileged few.
“ W e must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools.
We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable net-
work of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”
63
—
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution
FINAL THOUGHTS
59
ENDNOTES
1
Racial Equity in Seattle: Race and Social Justice Initiative Three-Year Plan 2012-2014:2.
2
Joseph Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality (New York: Norton, 2013), p. xli
3
Manuel Pastor, “Cohesion and Competitiveness: Business Leadership for Regional Growth and Social Equity,”
OECD Territorial Reviews, Competitive Cities in the Global Economy, Organisation For Economic Co-Opera-
TION!ND$EVELOPMENT/%#$-ANUEL0ASTORAND#HRIS"ENNERh"EEN$OWN3O,ONG7EAK-ARKET
Cities and Regional Equity” in Retooling for Growth: Building a 21st Century Economy in America’s Older
Industrial Areas (New York: American Assembly and Columbia University, 2008).
4
Michael Ash, James K. Boyce, Grace Chang, and Helen Scharber, Is Environmental Justice Good For White Folks?
(Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, July 2010), p. 1
5
Racial Equity: The Responsibility and Opportunity for Local Government. Local Progress and the Center for Popular
Democracy, March 2013, p. 1-2
6
john powell, Racing to Justice (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012)
7
Angela Park, Everybody’s Movement: Environmental Justice and Climate Change (Environmental Support Center,
December 2009), p. 7-8
8
Mike Myatt, “Best Practices - Aren’t”, Forbes, August 15, 2012, Accessed August 1, 2014.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/08/15/best-practices-arent/
9
Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental
Justice Movement (New York: New York University Press, 2001): 16.
10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 11 November 2013. www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
11
City of Richmond, Health in All Policies Strategy 2013-2014, December 2013
12
Data, Indicators, and Tracking Strategies for Implementation of the City of Richmond’s Health and Wellness Element:
An Assessment and Recommendations, December 2011
13
Richmond: Shaping the New 100 Years: Richmond General Plan 2030, 2012 Richmond’s Health and Wellness
Element targets
14
City of Richmond, Health in All Policies Toolkit, Updated 2013
15
City of Richmond, Health in All Policies Strategy 2013-2014, December 2013
16
“About SF Environment.” Accessed December 1, 2013. www.sfenvironment.org/about
17
Note: Silver is now commissioner of the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation.
18
The Los Angeles Equity Atlas: Opportunity Mapped. California Community Foundation and Reconnecting America.
November 2013:5.
19
Alameda CTC, Countywide Transportation Plan/Transportation Expenditure Plan, Briefing Book, March 2011:125.
20
King County Signature Report, October 11, 2010, Ordinance 16948.
21
City of Minneapolis, 2012 Sustainability Report
22
Measuring Progress in the Big Apple: Sustainability Indicators & Benchmarking, September 2011 presentation by
Laurie Kerr, Senior Policy Advisor, New York City Mayor’s Office
23
NashvilleNext Phase 2 Results, October 2013
24
Note: Melnick is now chief sustainability officer of San Antonio, TX.
25
Susan T. Gooden, Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government (M.E. Sharpe: 2014).
26
Camille Ryan, Language Use in the United States, American Community Survey Reports. United States
Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. August 2013:10.
27
2020 Sustainability Direction: The City of Calgary’s 10-Year Plan Toward imagineCALGARY, City of Calgary, Alberta,
2010:16.
28
Race and Social Justice Initiative Accomplishments 2009-2011, City of Seattle, Washington, 2011:5.
60
ENDNOTES (continued)
29
Jo Anne Fox, “Equity Tools: Case Studies in Budget Filters and Community Engagement,” (Presentation at
Governing for Racial Equity Conference, March 2014).
30
Roots of Success. Accessed November 11, 2013. www.rootsofsuccess.org
31
2020 Sustainability Direction: The City of Calgary’s 10-Year Plan Toward imagineCALGARY, City of Calgary,
Alberta, 2010:14-17.
32
Racial Equity in Seattle: Race and Social Justice Initiative Three-Year Plan 2012-2014:4.
33
Executive Order 2014-02: Race and Social Justice Initiative, Office of the Mayor, City of Seattle, Edward
B. Murray, April 3, 2014
34
Race and Social Justice Initiative, Report 2008: Looking Back, Moving Forward, December 2008:1.
35
Note: Nelson is the former director of the Seattle Office of Civil Rights and played an important role in
the RSJI, for many years.
36
john powell and Julie Nelson, “Developing a National Movement of Government: Working on Racial
Equity Strategies and Opportunities for Sustainable Institutional Change” (Governing for Racial Equity
conference, March 2014).
37
Ibid.
38
Racial Equity in Seattle: Race and Social Justice Initiative Three-Year Plan 2012-2014:1.
39
Racial Equity in Seattle: Race and Social Justice Initiative Three-Year Plan 2012-2014:10.
40
City of Seattle Racial Equity Community Survey, March 2014:2.
41
Race and Social Justice Initiative, Report 2008: Looking Back, Moving Forward, December 2008:13.
42
Susan T. Gooden, Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government (M.E. Sharpe: 2014).
43
Bronstein et al. 2011, 161
44
Racial Equity in Seattle: Race and Social Justice Initiative Three-Year Plan 2012-2014:3.
45
T erry Keleher, “An Introduction to Racial Equity Assessment Tools” (Governing for Racial Equity
conference, March 2014).
46
Ibid
47
Ibid
48
Racial Equity Impact Assessment, Race Forward
49
STAR Community Rating System, Version 1.1, January 2014:7.
50
Ibid.
51
Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement Guide, Race & Social Justice Initiative, City of Seattle,
Washington, 2012:6.
52
Race and Social Justice Initiative Accomplishments 2009-2011, City of Seattle, Washington, 2011:1.
53
Racial Equity Toolkit to Assess Policies, Initiatives, Programs, and Budget Issues, City of Seattle, August 2012
54
Report, April 30, 2014: Equitable Solutions for One Minneapolis: A Racial Equity Framework, City of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2014:1.
55
Ibid.
56
King County Signature Report, October 11, 2010, Ordinance 16948.
57
King County Equity Impact Review Tool, King County, Washington, October 2010
58
Ibid.
59
Kennedy, Robert F. “Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968.” Robert F. Kennedy Speeches.
John F. Kennedy Library. Accessed August 13, 2014. www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-
Reference/RFK-Speeches/Remarks-of-Robert-F-Kennedy-at-the-University-of-Kansas-March-18-1968.
aspx>
60
Dorceta E. Taylor, The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs,
Foundations & Government Agencies (Green 2.0, July 2014), p. 80.
61
Ibid, p. 82.
62
Ani Turner, Altarum Institute, The Business Case for Equity, October 2013:13.
63
Remaining Awake through a Great Revolution, by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., National Cathedral,
Washington, DC, March 31, 1968.Congressional Record, April 9,1968.
61
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Great appreciation and admiration go to Lois DeBacker and Jessica Boehland of the Environment Program
of the Kresge Foundation who funded this publication. It serves as an example of their commitment to
equity and the foundation’s focus on the resilience of low-income, urban communities. I am deeply grateful
for their philanthropic leadership.
The interviewees, colleagues, and local governments named in this report are on-the-ground champions
of equity in sustainability. The knowledge, experience, and wisdom they have accrued grew from ambitious
visions, heartfelt struggles, and hard-won lessons. I hope I have captured their collective contributions in
this point in time so that many others will benefit from their efforts and pursue similar endeavors across
Canada and the United States. Special thanks to the interviewees who talked with me in a wide array of
venues as they carved out precious time to share their insights. I am also grateful to the participants of the
EQUITYWORKSHOPHELDATTHE53$.ANNUALMEETINGIN-EMPHIS4ENNESSEETHEIRSTORIESANDIDEAS
added to my initial framing of the scan.
The Steering Committee for this scan wrestled with the mammoth topic of equity in sustainability, provid-
ing leadership and guidance over sixteen months. They pointed me in the right direction, gave specific sug-
gestions, and provided course corrections throughout this project. It has been a gift to get to know them
and their work and I thank them all for their many contributions. Special thanks to Jenita McGowan, Doug
-ELNICK$ESIREE7ILLIAMS2AJEE3ARAH7UAND*O:IENTEKFORTHEIRDETAILEDEDITSTOVARIOUSDRAFTS
Julia Parzen as USDN’s founding managing director is a legend in the local government sustainability com-
munity. I will be forever in her debt for the opportunity she gave me to research and write this report. My
gratitude, as well, to Nils Moe who took over Julia’s role in January 2014 and worked with me to complete
this project. My appreciation for his support and encouragement can’t be overstated. Thank you, Nils.
Many thanks to Alana Jelinek of Farm Creative for her inspired design and round-the-clock work.
I will be forever grateful to Liz Bedell for the coaching, writing guidance, and editorial prowess that brought
this report over the finish line. I will recall our more-than-daily check-ins and weeks-long flurry of emailed
drafts with great fondness. Nils said at one point, “Everyone needs a Liz.” I couldn’t agree more.
Finally, I want to celebrate the unsung s/heroes who use their leadership and agency during big and small
choice points to bring equity into the sustainability equation. The world becomes a more fair, just, equi-
table, loving place through daily acts and the focused attention we collectively bring to dismantling their
entrenched opposites. You are changing the world.
Angela Park
September 2014
