Leadership for Policy Change

Leadership for Policy Change

A PolicyLink Report

PolicyLink is a national nonprofit research,communications, capacity building, and advocacyorganization, dedicated to advancing policies toachieve economic and social equity based on thewisdom, voice, and experience of local constituencies.

Front cover photos from left to right: Sally Gallegos, United Indian Nations, Inc.; Cheryl Casciani, Baltimore Community Foundation;Landon R. Williams, FAITHS Initiative; Lynette Lee, East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation; Juan Sepulveda, The Common Enterprise;Makani Themba-Nixon, The Praxis Project.

Leadership for Policy Change 1

Leadership for Policy ChangeStrengthening Communities of ColorThrough Leadership Development

Principal Authors

Dwayne S. MarshMilly Hawk DanielKris Putnam, consultant

PolicyLink Team

Joe BrooksRaymond ColmenarRachel PoulainTrina Villanueva

All Rights Reserved.Copyright ©2003 PolicyLink


When Michael Wald asked PolicyLink to identify waysto engage more leaders of color in policy change, itprovided an opportunity for us to underscore a corePolicyLink belief: The success of our work–whetherfocused on equitable development, access totechnology, or health equity–depends on the ability ofcommunity leaders of color to take an active, centralrole in developing policy solutions. Yet repeatedly, thisnation’s most talented, credible, and dedicatedadvocates are excluded from critical decision-makingvenues. As a woman of color working at theintersection of implementation and policy regardingissues affecting children, families, and community, Iam constantly amazed by how frequently I am nearlythe only person of color present when policy is beingdiscussed and decided.

While the need for increased leadership of color isclear, the path to achieving it is not. Engaging moreleaders of color in policymaking requires a shift inresources, priorities, and power. Foundations andother institutions can facilitate this shift throughconcerted efforts to prepare and position morerepresentatives from communities of color for policyimpact. PolicyLink is grateful to The William and FloraHewlett Foundation for their confidence and financialsupport, and applaud them for asking the criticalquestions. We hope that this report begins to providethe answers.

Many people contributed to this report. Beyond thededicated efforts of the PolicyLink team, I thank theNational Community Development Institute, whoseteam led by April Veneracion and OmowaleSatterwhite developed the Program Scan and addedgreatly from their vast organizational and individualdevelopment experience. Nicole Gallant of TheHewlett Foundation was a steady liaison whoseinsights proved extremely valuable. Finally, I thank theinterviewees and focus conversation participantswhose wisdom, lessons, analysis, and reflectionscontributed to the richness of this report.

Angela Glover BlackwellPresidentPolicyLink

PrefaceIn 2001, I was asked by The Hewlett Foundation todesign a potential new program focused on childrenand youth. I began by asking hundreds of committedadvocates around the country “why, despite years ofgovernment and foundation efforts, do so manychildren still have bad outcomes?” The most commonresponses were not related to a lack of money orprograms; recurring themes were the need for betterpolicymaking, greater organizational capacity, andmore leadership training.

I then asked Angela Glover Blackwell and hercolleagues at PolicyLink to develop recommendationson how to improve both the policymaking processand the capacities of those providing leadership onchildren and youth issues. Based on past experience,the PolicyLink team was uniquely qualified to examinethese questions.

The resulting analysis and conclusions are insightfuland powerful. Foundations and government currentlyrely on the leadership of African American, Asian,Latino, and Native American communityorganizations to implement programs to help ourmost disadvantaged children and youth. However,few of these highly talented leaders are brought topolicymaking venues or afforded the opportunity todevelop all of the needed skills. Meaningful changefor communities of color cannot be realized withoutconnecting these leaders and their organizations tothe policy table.

The report delineates specific ways that foundations,government agencies, and other institutions cancultivate more robust leadership developmentprograms. Most importantly, it provides a roadmapfor institutions that are committed to improving thewell-being of disadvantaged minority communitieswith options for immediate implementation. Wehope that it will inspire new efforts to fund programsthat provide minority leaders with opportunities toengage in policy change.

Michael WaldSenior Advisor to the PresidentThe William and Flora Hewlett Foundation


Executive Summary

5

Introduction

7

The Importance of Policy

9

The Need for More Leaders of Color in Policy Change

11

Barriers that Prevent Effective Policy Impact

13

Intervention Strategies for Improving Policy Participation

17

A Strategic Option for Leadership Development Programs

25

Fellowship Programs

27

Conclusion

27

A Leadership Development Scenario

28

Appendices

32A Summary of the Leadership Development Program ScanTelling the Story: The Individual and Group Interview ProcessPrincipal Interview ParticipantsFocus Conversation Participants

Contents



Executive Summary

Policy determines the way society organizes itsresources, conducts its business, and expresses itsvalues. In a democracy, all people have a right toparticipate meaningfully in policymaking. Yet,people in low-income communities of colorhistorically have had limited access to thepolicymaking process despite the range of federal,state, and local policies that directly shape theirexistence.

Leaders of Color for Policy ChangeThe Hewlett Foundation asked PolicyLink to assessthe conditions for leaders of color who want toimpact policy effectively, and to recommend howto increase their numbers and influence.Leadership for Policy Change is the result of thateffort. The report documents the need for leadersof color, identifies the barriers to theirparticipation in policy arenas, suggests strategiesfor overcoming the barriers, and recommends astrategic option for leadership developmentprograms. PolicyLink conducted interviews,reviewed leadership literature, and scannedleadership programs and concluded:

• Leaders of color are critically needed toadvance a new generation of policies thataddress the economic and social inequitiesconfronting children, families, and theircommunities.

• Leaders whose values are consistent withcommunity needs and concerns, and who aregrounded in those communities exist, andneed to be supported in their ability to impactpolicy.

• Leadership development efforts that areplace-based have significant potential forlong-term policy impact.

• The full and effective participation of leadersof color in policymaking arenas can be

achieved by specific intervention strategiesthat address existing barriers.

• There are opportunities for existing leadershipdevelopment efforts to enhance the capacityof leaders of color to influence policy.

MethodologyBetween April and August 2002, PolicyLinkconducted interviews with 111 community-based,nonprofit, and philanthropic leaders; electedofficials; academic researchers; businessprofessionals; and leadership developmentprogram administrators from across the UnitedStates. Fifty individual interviews were conductedand five focus group conversations held, one eachin Chicago; Del Ray, Florida; Miami; Oakland; andSan Francisco. The majority of the interviews werewith people of color.

The literature review included more than 70books, articles, and reports on leadershipdevelopment in the nonprofit, business, andphilanthropic sectors. (See page 30 for a partiallist of sources.) A scan of leadership developmentprograms identified 72 with a stated focus eitheron people of color or policy. Websites and printmaterials were reviewed for 32 of theseorganizations, and 10 were given more in-depthanalysis, featuring at least one program staffinterview.

Key FindingsPolicyLink research for this report underscores theneed for leaders of color, the barriers that canprevent their participation in policymaking, andthe interventions that can eliminate or minimizethe influence of those barriers.

Needs. Leaders of color who are grounded in thecommunities they represent are needed to impactpolicies that affect the quality of life. People ofcolor, however, are not the only leaders who canbe effective in promoting such policies, nor willtheir presence guarantee positive policy outcomes


for these communities. The policy arena needspeople who can broaden the discourse, minimizeharmful decisions, and increase the likelihood thatpolicies will have a positive impact. The absence ofpeople of color from the policy arena excludespoints of view that bring new perspectives topolicy discussions that affect the entire nation,such as housing, health care, employment,transportation, education, and the environment.

Barriers. Whether intentional or accidental,barriers prevent people of color from fullparticipation in the arenas that profoundly impactthe daily lives of their children, families, andcommunities. This occurs for a number or reasons,including institutional racism; lack of experiencewith the policymaking process; isolation of leadersof color; few opportunities to attain skills,training, and positioning; limited access toacademic pathways that lead to policymakingcareers; not enough strong organizations andorganized constituencies; and challenges relatedto diverse cultural approaches to leadership.

Strategic interventions. Strategies exist that canaid in removing these barriers and that canbecome part of leadership development programsthat are intentional about supporting leaders ofcolor to impact policy. Programs shouldincorporate a strong curriculum that offersparticipants training and opportunities to developskills, to have mentors, to be exposed to bestpractices in the policy development field, and tohave increased visibility in the policy world.Helping participants understand and use dataeffectively will enable them to bring credibility andstrategic focus to advocacy efforts and policyinitiatives.

Effective intervention strategies will link leadershipdevelopment to actual policy goals in thecommunity, providing leaders with the means forchange by being involved in real policymaking.

Research also demonstrates that “place,” orgeography—the state in particular—plays animportant role in leadership development andpolicy change, and should be a core element inleadership development curricula. A triple focusthat targets individual leadership, organizationalcapacity, and constituency building provides themost strategic approach for developing leaders ofcolor who can impact policy.

The success of these interventions will take time:time to develop leaders, time to developorganizational capacity, and time to realize policygoals. Foundations and organizations interested indoing this work should be prepared to make thenecessary budget allocations and long-term timecommitments.

RecommendationPolicyLink recommends leadership developmentprograms that intentionally recruit people of colorand that incorporate individual leadershiptraining, organizational capacity building, andconstituency development. Such programs includegoal oriented, place-based policy work thatenables participants to develop the skills and toolsneeded for effective policy engagement. Programsshould provide opportunities for formal andinformal mentoring and support networks ofrelationships across boundaries of race, ethnicity,and class.

ConclusionThe wisdom and experience of people of colorhold promise beyond enhancing the quality of lifein communities of color. Leaders in thesecommunities can help create substantive policychanges that lead to greater economic and socialequity across economic and social sectors. Thenation suffers when these voices are not heard.The promise of democracy is fulfilled wheneveryone has the opportunity to be part of theconversation and influence policy outcomes.


I. IntroductionThe impact of public and private policy is notalways self-evident. As individuals search foraffordable housing, better schools, and jobs thatprovide decent standards of living, they havelittle opportunity to appreciate the role that policydecisions play in their daily lives. Yet thesedecisions profoundly affect family and communitywell-being, and misinformed policies often resultin economic and social inequities.

Community service providers, organizers andadvocates, community builders, nonprofitdevelopment corporations, faith institutions, andcivic associations in the low-income communitiesof color most frequently affected are committedto addressing these inequities. Yet when policiesare being developed and implemented, there isa disturbing absence of leaders of color in theconversation, often to the detriment of allcommunities. Opportunities for poor people andpeople of color to influence the policies thatshape their lives are difficult to attain. Committed,talented leaders exist in these communities, butthe chances to develop the skills, access, andexperience to negotiate the places where policy ismade are usually limited.

Increasingly, leadership development isacknowledged as a key element in improvingthe participation of people of color and low-income individuals in policy development. Publicand private policy have long been the province ofgovernment and business leaders operating inarenas of limited access. Leadership developmentprovides the tools and techniques that increaseaccess to these processes.

While the need for increased participation ofleaders of color in the policymaking process isclear, the path to achieving it is not. People ofcolor who wish to take on broader, more

mainstream leadership responsibilities face anarray of obstacles including lack of access toprofessional development, limited fundingresources, cultural differences, racism, andisolation from power. Often missing, too, arestrong, supportive organizations to back theseleaders and the means to build politically viableconstituencies.

The result has been a dearth of leaders who canfind access to policy tables and effectivelyinfluence what happens there. The limitednumbers of leaders of color who have managedto gain access report feeling isolated andoverworked as they try to fulfill policymakingroles in as many venues as possible. If they areunavailable, they fear, the voices of low-incomecommunities of color will be unheard in thepolicy discussion. This has dangerous implicationsnot only for communities of color, but for allsectors of a civil society.

The Hewlett Foundation recognized the need forgreater numbers of well-prepared leaders of colorin policy venues. The foundation asked PolicyLinkto study the issues involved, report its findings,and recommend a strategic option for leadershipdevelopment that could result in an increasednumber of leaders of color who are effectivelyprepared to influence policy. This report,Leadership for Policy Change, is the result of thateffort. It explores the field for leadership

The Cost of Exclusion“What is lost by not havingthose most affected at the tablein the policy discourse? Soundgoverning, good planning,justice.... Everything,ultimately.”

John BoonstraWashington Association of Churches


development among communities of color andrecommends key next steps to improve the abilityof these communities to impact policies.It reveals that:

• Leaders of color are critically needed toadvance a new generation of policies toaddress the economic and social inequitiesconfronting children, families, andcommunities.

• Leaders whose values are consistent withcommunity needs and concerns and who aregrounded in those communities exist, andmust be supported in their ability to impactpolicy.

• Leadership development efforts that areplace-based have significant potential forlong-term policy impact.

• The full, effective participation of leaders ofcolor in policymaking arenas can be achievedby specific intervention strategies that addressexisting barriers.

• Opportunities exist for leadershipdevelopment efforts that can enhance thecapacity of leaders of color through findingsdetailed in this report.

Leadership for Policy Change provides support forthese conclusions and recommends a strategy fordeveloping leaders who are prepared to addressthe needs of low-income communities of color.This report is intended to benefit practitionersengaged in community building efforts, leadershipdevelopment programs that target communities ofcolor, and the foundations that support theseefforts.

MethodologyBetween April and August 2002, PolicyLinkconducted interviews with 111 community-based,nonprofit, and philanthropic leaders; electedofficials; academic researchers; businessprofessionals; and leadership developmentprogram administrators from across the UnitedStates. Fifty individual interviews were conductedand five focus group conversations held, one eachin Chicago; Del Ray, Florida; Miami; Oakland; andSan Francisco.

The majority of the interviews (approximately 84percent) were with people of color who identifiedthemselves as African American (34 percent),Latino/a (10 percent), Asian/Pacific Islander (24percent), or Native American (2 percent).Interviews conducted with individuals who self-identified as white totaled 16 percent.1 Nearly half(46 percent) of interview participants werewomen. Sixteen percent represented emerging orgrassroots leadership.

The literature review included more than 70books, articles, and reports on leadershipdevelopment in the nonprofit, business, andphilanthropic sectors. A scan of leadershipdevelopment programs identified 72 with astated focus either on people of color or policy.Websites and print materials were reviewed for 32of these organizations. Ten programs werereviewed through a more detailed analysis thatincluded an interview with at least one programstaff.


II. The Importance ofPolicy

Policy determines the way society organizes itsresources, conducts its business, and expresses itsvalues. Low-income communities of color facechallenging family and neighborhood conditionsyet have historically had limited access to thepolicymaking process. This comes despite therange of federal, state, and local policies thatdirectly shape their existence. This report isinformed by a belief that all people have a right toparticipate meaningfully in the policymakingprocess and that improving the quality of life forlow-income children, their families, andcommunities of color requires the full participationof those affected by the decision making process.

Public awareness of federal, state, and localgovernment policies is often focused on issuessuch as housing, transportation, economicdevelopment, health, welfare, and education.Private sector policies exert important influenceas well. A company’s decision about where tolocate facilities can have a major communityimpact. Private companies partner withcommunity representatives about job creationand investment needs, and they contributefinancial and human capital for communitypurposes. Company decisions about employeesalaries and benefits greatly determine the well-being of families, and thus communities.

Public and private policymakers often interact withconstituent interests before finalizing policydecisions. There is an inside and outside aspect ofthe policymaking process. Federal, state, and locallegislative, executive, and judicial branchestypically perform the visible inside function.Outside players represent both formal andinformal institutional interests, with constituent

interests represented by professional lobbyists,issue-focused coalitions, public interestadvocacy organizations, think tanks, grassrootscommunity networks, and other organizations—all trying to influence the outcomes of thepolicymaking process.

In this process, groups and individuals:

• identify problems that require a policy changeor intervention;

• establish principles to guide a proposedremedy;

• understand the related substantive issues andclarify the policy needed to address thoseissues;

• develop a policy strategy with related dataand required resources; and

• build coalitions and gain power to win thepolicy change or intervention sought.

Each of these activities can be a point of entry intothe policymaking process. Effective engagement,however, requires understanding how the processworks and how to leverage participation for realimpact. These are skills that more people of colorcan learn and use for overall social improvement.

Putting Policy in ContextThe conclusions reached in this report are largely dueto the analysis of the interviews, program scan, andliterature review conducted by PolicyLink. However,the conclusions are also informed by the success ofpolicy campaigns in which leaders of color playedkey roles. Two such campaigns—focusing oncommunity reinvestment and infant health—aredescribed on page 10 and offer concrete examples ofthe possibilities that exist for policy impact bypeople of color.


People of Color in Policy AdvocacyPeople of color have played significant roles asadvocates and have led policy victories not only fortheir communities, but for the larger society.

Community Reinvestment Act—Then and NowThe 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),which requires financial institutions to make loans indistressed urban and rural communities where theyconduct business, is recognized as one of the mostimportant pieces of economic justice legislation inthe last quarter century. CRA has resulted in over$1 trillion in loan commitments in urban and rurallow-income communities. It was enacted through theadvocacy of a broad, multi-ethnic coalition.

In 1999, Congress passed the Financial ServicesModernization Act, which enabled consumers tobank, buy stocks, and acquire insurance in onelocation. The law represented the greatest threat tothe integrity of CRA to date. The Modernization Actinitially featured several clauses that would severelyweaken the ability of communities to hold majorfinancial institutions accountable for neighborhoodinvestment. Ultimately CRA was preserved.However, its supporters believe that the CRA wouldnot have survived if not for the broad and deepsupport it received during a massive nationalcampaign led by local and national leadersrepresenting diverse low-income communities,housing activists, community developers, and thecivil rights community around the United States.

Observers believe that CRA’s integrity was in seriousjeopardy very late in the legislative process; theClinton administration appeared ready tocompromise. The most damaging provisions of thebanking reform included exempting small banksfrom CRA and limiting continued scrutiny of bankswith solid past performance. Forceful advocacy, thecivil rights community, and the Congressional BlackCaucus directly affected the White House. Theadministration was reminded that minorities mosthurt by diminished community lending had beenamong the President’s biggest supporters. The WhiteHouse returned to the bargaining table to craft betterCRA provisions in the final legislation.

Community Involvement in Healthy StartThe Healthy Start Program was initiated in 1991 bythe US Department of Health and Human Services(HHS), to reduce the nation’s infant mortality rates.Communities with infant death rates at least threetimes the national average were eligible for grants. Amajority of grantee sites were communities of color,particularly African American. Healthy Start grantsencourage resident and parent participation in localefforts to reduce infant mortality, which provide realopportunities for leadership, skill building,participation in governance councils, and centralroles in shaping program practice. Parents of colorwere policy players in an arena that could make adifference.

The community involvement component of HealthyStart was threatened with the possibility of a politicaldecision to fold the program into the Title V BlockGrant process. Increased state discretion could havepotentially minimized the priority placed oncommunity engagement.

Proactively moving to get broader support for theprogram, a coalition comprised mainly of programdirectors and resident and parent participants ofcolor from several sites initiated an extensiveadvocacy campaign. They developed acommunications plan to promote Healthy Start, itsdesign, and accomplishments in the 90 communitiesaround the country that house the programs. Inaddition, the program directors formed a 501(c)(4)organization to increase their advocacy. They reachedout to national intermediaries, including PolicyLink,to build their capacity as they sought policyinnovation. The lobbying message was simple anddirect—maintain the program as is and avoid the riskof moving the program to a block grant. Politicalmomentum culminated when African AmericanCongressman James Clyburn hosted a June 2000congressional briefing to raise awareness of the valueof Healthy Start and the vital role of resident/parentinvolvement in the program’s success.

The victory to maintain the resident/parentparticipation component of Healthy Start wasrealized when President Clinton signed theChildren’s Health Act of 2000, establishing the once-pilot program as regularly funded under HHS, withcommunity consortia as a key component.


III. The Need for MoreLeaders of Color inPolicy Change

Across the country, community service providers,organizers, advocates, community developmentcorporations, faith institutions, and civicorganizations are working to address the socialand economic inequities facing children andfamilies in communities of color. Yet when policiesthat affect these communities are beingdeveloped and implemented, people of color areseldom present for the conversation.

This exclusion is detrimental beyond communitiesof color. It deprives the nation of the wisdom andexperience these communities can offer in solvingsome of the country’s most pressing problems.The absence of people of color from the policyarena and decision-making processes excludespoints of view that can offer new perspectives onhousing, health care, employment, transportation,education, and the environment. Such exclusionrevokes the promise of democracy. Communitieswill experience policies as ineffective orinequitable unless they have opportunities todevelop collective problem solving strategies.Research for this report underscores the need forleaders of color who can use these strategies onbehalf of their communities to influence policy.

Leaders of color are critical in formulatingpolicies that impact their communitiesThe policy arena needs people who can broadenthe discourse, minimize harmful policy decisions,and increase the likelihood that the policy willhave a positive impact. Leaders of color whounderstand the needs and assets of communityresidents and organizations will best be able toeffectively drive policy efforts. They will be mostaware of issues affecting their communities. While

Recognize the Opportunity“Often, in communities of color,we don’t even know that thepolicy table is there.”

Anthony ThigpennAGENDA

the presence of people of color in leadershippositions does not guarantee progressive socialaction, their absence strongly decreases theprobability that the full diversity of considerationswill be reviewed as part of policy development.

Recent history is filled with examples of thesignificant policy impact leaders andcommunities of color have had in the UnitedStates. Consider the role of grassroots leaders andorganizations that were largely responsible forencouraging the national discourse and mobilizingefforts to advance racial equality in the 1950sthroughout the Civil Rights movement. Or, theimportance of having Asian Representatives NormMineta and Robert Matsui, and Senator DanielInouye as elected officials who led a successfulreparations effort for Japanese Americans whowere interned during World War II. “It is good tohave people of color in policymaking positions,”argues Richard Murphy of the Academy forEducational Development. “It is fair, right, andwhen we have diversity, we get strongerdecisions.”

People of color are not consistently presentand visible in U.S. policy discoursePeople who will be affected by policies should bepart of the development of those policies. Yetthere are few people of color in public, private, ornonprofit sector positions where policy is made orinfluenced. More than 80 percent of U.S.congressional leaders, 94 percent of state


governors, and 96 percent of university presidentsin the United States are white men. Throughoutthe 1990s, white men constituted 97 percent ofFortune 500 CEOs.2 In philanthropy, 94.1 percentof all CEOs and 89.5 percent of all CFOs arewhite.3 In the entire history of the United StatesCongress, there have been only 15 senators ofcolor. Only one African American has held agubernatorial position (although 6 ran forgovernor, all unsuccessfully, in the 2002 election).Media play a critical role in influencing policy, yetnewspaper newsrooms are still, at 88 percent,overwhelmingly white.4

Many people interviewed for Leadership for PolicyChange believe there are more people of color inleadership positions in the nonprofit sector,relative to government and business. Whilenumbers were in actuality slightly better thanother sectors, the vast majority of nonprofitexecutives nationally—at just more than 75percent—are white.5 The smaller budgets andstaff size of most organizations led by people ofcolor can negatively impact their ability toinfluence policy.

Voices of color can bring an importantperspective to critical contemporary economicand social policiesRacial and ethnic diversity in policy discussionspaves the way for analyzing fundamental issuesof access, wealth distribution, and resourceallocation from multiple perspectives, and givesrise to a variety of approaches to potentialsolutions. Leaders of color interviewed for thisreport cited education, housing, childcare, andwelfare reform policies as significant recentpolicy failures that could have benefited from amore inclusive approach. Failing to include thevoices of leaders of color from low-incomecommunities in the policy discussion can have adomino effect. Unequal public education, forexample, is related to unemployment andeconomic disparities.

Leaders who share values of justice and equityshould play an active role in policy developmentPeople of color are not the only leaders who can beeffective in promoting policies that positively impactcommunities of color, nor will their presenceguarantee positive policy outcomes for theircommunities. The most effective leaders incommunities of color will be women and men whoshare community values on justice, equity, andinclusion, and who are grounded in the community.What’s important, says Van Jones of the Ella BakerCenter for Human Rights, is “a question of valuesand politics.” Several leaders interviewed forLeadership for Policy Change reported formingalliances with committed white leaders, sometimeschallenging leaders of color whose attitudes andactions could negatively impact low-incomecommunities and people of color.

Regardless of color, leaders who hope to be effectivein efforts to improve the opportunities and quality oflife for all children, families, and communities shouldpossess:

• A set of values focused on justice, equity, andinclusion.

• A passionate commitment to improving thequality of life for all individuals in the community.

• A willingness to bridge boundaries of race,ethnicity, class, and gender.

• An understanding of the importance of anorganized constituency and the ability to build it.

Support the Investment“Even if foundations have anenormous commitment toleadership, they need to invest inresolving the barriers thatchallenge people of color toengage in policy change.”

Joe McNeelyDevelopment Training Institute


IV. Barriers that PreventEffective Policy Impact

Whether intentional or incidental, barriers existthat prevent people of color from fullyparticipating in policymaking arenas.Acknowledging and removing these barriers willenable greater influence by leaders of color andultimately lead to better outcomes for allcommunities, especially low-income communitiesof color.

Lack of experience with the policymakingprocess inhibits participationMany people of color have not had exposure tothe policymaking process or experiences that helpthem to understand how policy is made. Theconcept of “policy” can be confusing and themeans for influencing it can seem complicated.Without access to the right information, it can bedifficult to know what policy is, where it happens,and who makes it. Knowing what policy is andhow to use it effectively are skills that can belearned. Without training and support manyleaders find it difficult to use policy to makechange. Yet, “current power and politicalstructures are not designed to be inclusive aboutpolicy decisionmaking,” observes Jesse King, COOof Daniels Fund. Leaders of color need support inknowing when, where, and how to speak up toinfluence legislation.

Persistent institutional racism is a barrier toleadershipInstitutional racism covertly or overtly resides inthe policies, procedures, operations, and cultureof many public or private institutions, reinforcingindividual prejudices and perpetuating inequities.It results in situations in which people of color feelunwelcome in policy environments, which havetraditionally been bastions of white, typicallymale, leadership. Such homogeneousenvironments are prevalent in private corporations

and to a slightly lesser extent in government.Through intentional resistance, institutionalizedracism, or lack of awareness, such environmentscan be isolating and insensitive to the experiencesof emerging leaders of color. In interviews for thisreport, several leaders reported experiencingfeelings of isolation even in some nonprofitadvocacy organizations whose missions promoteinclusiveness.

Isolation of leaders of color in policy circles isa barrier to participationThe presence of only one or two people of colorat policy tables is a lonely and isolatingexperience. Leaders may fear jeopardizing theirtenure if they are perceived as pushing too hardon issues related to low-income communities ofcolor.6 Leaders interviewed spoke of finding littlesupport for their efforts from others at the policytable while enduring tremendous pressure fromtheir communities to speak out. Several describedfeeling hugely outnumbered much of the timeand able to bring only limited political power tobear on the subjects under discussion.

These leaders described the difficulty ofdeliberating or brainstorming ideas—essentialelements of the policy development process—without the presence of other leaders who sharesimilar values and perspectives. Leaders ofcolor who gain access to the places wherepolicy is made struggle to be everywhere atonce for fear their absence will leave theircommunities vulnerable to the actions of thosewithout a personal stake in the policy outcome.Individual leaders of color who reach high levelsof policy, power, and access, can experience evengreater isolation because the opportunities forthat kind of advancement are so few. Increasingthe numbers and effectiveness of leaders of colorcan provide a means for mutual support, freeingleaders from feeling that they are alone inrepresenting their constituencies.


Lack of skills, training, connections, andpositioning limits participationWhile people of color may feel a strongcommitment to improving outcomes for children,families, and communities, they frequently lackthe skills, training, connections, and positioningfrom which long-term, policy-oriented careers andopportunities can emerge.

• Skills—Policymakers need to be adept at usinga wide range of communications andadvocacy tools; they also need to be savvynegotiators and diplomats. Often, leaders ofcolor have only been in positions to makedemands and draw attention to grievances.Jesse King of Daniels Fund asserts that forevery 500 excellent advocates, there are only afew who can “put down the hammer that gotthem to the table, pick up the pen, andnegotiate with those in power.” Many leadershave also had little experience effectivelycollecting, analyzing, and presenting data toinfluence the policy debate.

• Training—The lack of opportunities to learnthe techniques of policy engagement keepspeople of color from the policy debate. Fewleadership development programs focusexplicitly on the needs of leaders of color,and even fewer include a policy focus.Unless focused attention is paid to recruitingand training people of color for leadershiproles in policymaking, there will continue tobe a dearth of strong leaders.

• Connections—Success in leadership and policyrequires opportunities to engage others whoare established in the policy arena. Manyemerging leaders of color lack exposure tomore powerful leaders who can open doorsand provide opportunities.

• Positioning—When the Democratic andRepublican parties anticipate vacancies inelected offices they position existing andemerging leaders to run for those offices.This kind of positioning influences leadership

selection for foundations, advocacy groups, andother nonprofit organizations. Positioning canpave the way for emerging leaders of color tohave a significant influence on policies thatimpact low-income communities.

Academic pathways that lead topolicymaking careers are not broadlyaccessiblePolicy, public administration, law, planning, andbusiness schools frequently serve as pipelines topolicymaking positions, and there are a number ofpromising programs in universities and collegesthat prepare people of color for leadership inpolicy positions. Some are organized for studentsof particular racial and ethnic groups, others foradvancement in particular professions, some forbroader notions of preparing for civicengagement.

Public institutions in particular have large numbersof persons of color in the student body, includingmany who are in mid-career and are potentiallystrong candidates for leadership development.Many of the programs are very consistent with thegoals of this report, placing students withcommunity-based or advocacy organizations towork on real-world policy issues, or creatingsupport groups and mentoring. Unfortunately,there are not nearly enough of these programs.The schools that have the resources to expandsuch programs are often the ones that struggle tomaintain diversity in the student body.

In addition, choosing a career in policymaking canbe financially risky for many people of color.Completion of a professional graduate schoolprogram that might position one for access topolicy circles is often accompanied by significantstudent loan debt. This leads many professionallytrained people of color into more lucrative legal orcorporate positions. Further cutbacks inaffirmative action programs at colleges anduniversities will exacerbate this problem.


Leaders of color often lack strongorganizations and organized constituenciesMany organizations led by people of color arefocused on service delivery. They are not fundedto do policy-related work such as data gatheringand analysis, production of position papers,educating and organizing constituencies,testifying before legislative committees, andmonitoring progress on legislation. These policyactivities are time intensive, and withoutadditional resources, the organizations areconsumed by fulfilling the baseline function oftheir missions.

Without support for policy activities, organizationsare unable to mobilize constituencies of color,which are often underutilized, unprepared foradvocacy roles, and unconnected to the existingleadership that could champion their issues. Yetbuilding these constituencies is critical to anyorganized effort to support the policy goals of theorganization and its leader.

Diverse cultural approaches to leadershipcan conflict with expectations in policyarenasThe dominant cultural paradigm in the UnitedStates can present a challenge to expandingleadership in policy development. This paradigmhas established standards and expectations aboutwho leaders are (e.g., white, male, vocal,individually oriented) and how policy is developed(e.g., “old boys’ networks” or through campaignsthat require significant financial investment).

Despite the rapidly changing racial and ethnicdemographics in the United States, this paradigmis yet another barrier to the participation ofleaders from communities of color in policydevelopment. For example, the collectiveapproaches of many Asian traditions, or themultigenerational perspective of most NativeAmerican cultures, may restrict people fromadvocating for community needs. “In the United

States, you need to speak up,” says J.D.Hokoyama of LEAP, a multicultural leadershipdevelopment agency in Los Angeles. “This can bechallenging from an Asian Pacific Islanderperspective, where you are taught to listen, toobserve, to take note,” he added. Sally Gallegosof United Indian Nations says, “The very notion ofleadership can be off-putting to somecommunities. It connotes exclusivity. For ourcommunities, family is where the answer lies.”8

Immigrant LeadershipEmerging immigrant leaders face multiple barriers todeveloping leadership skills and obtaining leadershippositions. According to a study by MOSAICA for theHyams Foundation, these barriers can include havinglow income, limited formal education, and little or noability with English, which results in limited accessto leadership development training andopportunities to exercise leadership abilities.Educated immigrant professionals who speak Englishoften struggle for employment access. For bothgroups, the most successful strategies for buildingimmigrant leadership were identified as those thatorganize around issues important to immigrants’lives, bring immigrants together across nationalities,and allow for a “ripple effect” of leadershipdevelopment throughout the community (e.g.,through train the trainer approaches).7


\


Leadership Development and CommunityCapacity BuildingCommunity members are not only the recipients ofsocial policy; they have demonstrated that they canbe the agents and leaders of policy change as well.Many low-income communities and communities ofcolor however, lack the experiences, opportunities,and access to resources needed to assume theseleadership roles. According to research conducted byThe Aspen Institute on comprehensive communitychange, recent community-change ventures havesought to develop residents as leaders, create socialconnections, and organize residents to participate insocial change.9 They recommend that efforts toinvolve residents as leaders should begin with a deepand complete understanding of the community’sexisting leadership structures and provide sufficientsupport to the development of new leaders. Theyidentified the need to create social connectionsamong community residents, as such connections canestablish a basis for civic unity and ultimately socialchange. Finally, they argue that mobilizingcommunities does not mean that all residents areequally engaged. Rather, people will have differentlevels of interest and abilities to commit.

V. Intervention Strategiesfor Improving PolicyParticipation

Research for this report revealed strategies foraddressing the need for leaders of color andremoving the barriers that are obstacles toactive engagement of people of color in thepolicy process. Leadership development programscannot remove all the barriers, but strategicinterventions can help mitigate against them,maximizing the possibilities for leaders of color toeffectively influence public policy.

Design programs that are intentional aboutdeveloping leaders of colorFew existing leadership development programsfocus specifically on developing leaders of color.Those that do—such as Leadership Educationfor Asian Pacifics (LEAP) and the Center forThird World Organizing (CTWO)—areintentional about recruiting people of color andhave been successful in supporting thedevelopment of effective leaders. Successfulprograms involve people of color in programdesign and ensure that training and curriculareflect participants’ strengths and uniquechallenges. These programs incorporate diverseapproaches to leadership and policy change,providing leaders with a heightenedunderstanding of the way in which leadershipstyle can enhance effectiveness in differentpolicy environments. Such programs should offereach leader the opportunity to assess individualstrengths and weaknesses and to follow a tailoredlearning plan in preparation for policy impact.

Recruit leaders of color who are grounded inand accountable to their communitiesLeadership programs that recruit communityleaders who are grounded in, representative of,and committed to serving low-incomecommunities and communities of color will havethe most success in developing effective leaders.To be effective, leaders need to be responsive andaccountable to their communities and rely oninput from resident voices in identifying policytargets. Leaders who are not grounded incommunity will lack the necessary constituencysupport that advancing policy requires. Emergingleaders of color will be well served by leadershipdevelopment programs that recognize the value ofleader and constituency connections.


Leadership Development and WomenLittle literature exists on leadership development forwomen. A recent search on Amazon.com found 756books on “leadership development” but only 13 on“women and leadership development.” Someresearchers, however, have examined the leadershipstyles of women versus men. They found that womenare more likely to adopt a democratic leadership styleversus an autocratic style favored by men. Women’sleadership styles tend to be more transformational,relationship-oriented, and include interpersonallyoriented behaviors such as participatorydecisionmaking, consideration, praising, andnurturing behaviors. Male leaders were found to bemore directive, controlling, and task-oriented in theirleadership styles. Interestingly, little difference wasfound between male and female leadership behaviorsrelated to innovation, problem solving, andcommunicating vision. According to Stetler (2002)women’s leadership styles would work well inorganizations that have flat organizational structuresand team-based management both of which value themore interactive leadership style of women.10

Emerging leaders can also use guidance inbalancing the needs of their communities andthe delicate maneuvering required to remain atthe policy table. “Accountability is a problem,especially for an individual leader of color whogains political access,” says Anthony Thigpennof AGENDA. “At best, she or he will be distracted;at worst, co-opted. Organizing has to buildaccountability. And we have to be conscious ofthe price of compromise.” Leadershipdevelopment programs can help emergingleaders learn how to be effective in policynegotiations without relinquishing accountabilityto constituents.

Link leadership development to actual policygoals in communityThe vast majority of leaders interviewed for thisreport strongly believed that the best way forleaders of color to learn how to change policy isby being involved in actual policymaking.Development programs that structure learningopportunities around real policy goals andobjectives with potential community benefit willbe the most effective. Research for this reportdemonstrates that “place,” or geographic region,plays an important role in leadershipdevelopment and policy change, and should bea core element in leadership developmentcurricula. Place—neighborhood, county, or state—anchors emerging leaders to a constituency andenhances the potential for meaningfulcollaborations and partnerships. Bringing togetherleaders within a geographic region can help buildessential networks for policy support. Conveninggatherings of emerging leaders can provideopportunities to share experiences, develop jointstrategies, and reap the benefits of workingtogether to achieve policy goals.

The state was consistently identified as the arenamost critical for influencing policy issues affectinglow-income children, families, and communities,

and most obvious in its lack of representation byelected officials and policy advocates of color.Devolution has increased the importance of stategovernment, and state policies have profoundimpact on children and families. Stateengagement has traction locally and nationally,and it ensures that impact can occur in numberslarge enough to actually improve outcomes at thefamily and community level. Influencing statepolicy will require greater mobilization of localleadership and constituencies of color. Leadershipdevelopment programs that focus on the statelevel can help create natural networks withinstates and provide opportunities for intra- andinter-state learning. Achieving impact in a numberof key states sets the stage for advancing nationalpolicies to improve outcomes for children,families, and communities.


Many people of color who do state-level policywork feel isolated; others feel state levelengagement is inaccessible. Still others noted anoften unwelcoming feeling in the current mix ofadvocacy organizations, and those organizationsoften struggle to coordinate effectively with theconstituent organizations they need to movepolicy. A state-based leadership developmentstrategy can address these problems by providingopportunities for forming and sustaining alliances.Further, this strategy presents significantopportunities for philanthropic partnerships forleveraging additional financial support.

Support the development of relationshipsand networks across boundaries

Interviews for this report and a growing body ofadditional research identified the need for leaderswho can work across boundaries of race, culture,socioeconomic experience, geography, field, anddiscipline. Efforts by foundations such as Kelloggand Annie E. Casey and organizations like theLeadership Learning Community (a nationalnetwork of leadership development organizationsand funders) incorporate cross-boundary learninginto their programs, recognizing that leadersengaged in policy change will be put intopositions that require negotiation acrossdifferences. They recognize the responsibility thatleadership development programs have forproviding opportunities for participants to acquirethe tools and experiences such negotiationrequires.11 Patti Culross of the Packard Foundationobserves: “There are not a lot of people in powerwho are of color, so if you cannot negotiate withthe people at the table [whoever they may be] youwill not be successful. Even if you want to changethe talk at the table, you have to engage in itfirst.”

Building such relationships within a structuredleadership development program can be a difficultand time-consuming task. Surita Sandosham,coordinator of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Next

Generation Leadership program observes, “Youneed to understand that if you are bringingdiverse people together you must spend timeupfront around team building. You can’t do anyother work until there is a level of trust. In order tobuild the trust, you need to get to know eachother. This takes time.”

Use mentoring to provide leaders of colorwith access, guidance, and supportA study of minority advancement in businessfound that people of color who advanced thefurthest shared one common characteristic: astrong network of mentors who nurtured theirprofessional development.12 Most leadersinterviewed for this report also cited mentorship asan extraordinarily important strategic interventionin the development of leaders of color. TheLeadership Learning Community and theKellogg Foundation both specifically identifymentorship as a critical component of anyleadership program.

Pushing Boundaries Builds Learning Allies“Unlikely allies are alsoimportant. The Chief ofProbation is an ally in ourcampaign work, even though heis also the jailor. We build thepower of the young womenleaving his system.”Lateefah SimonCenter for Young Women’sDevelopment

“Expose people beyond whattheir immediate experience is,so they can see other models thatcan be replicated, have exposureto other solutions, and talk withpeople in other cities.”David PortilloThe Denver Foundation


Jesse King of Daniels Fund notes, “Think of thecharge, the responsibility you feel when you arearound good leaders, you feel the need to keepup.” Beyond motivation, mentors providestrategic guidance, perspective, technicalawareness, access, connection to allies,accumulated professional knowledge, and generallife wisdom. Mentorship does not only occurwithin cultural or ethnic groups. Hedy Chang ofthe Haas Jr. Fund recalls that one of her earlymentors was a white man who provided“important access and skills at a key point in mycareer.” Rinku Sen, publisher of the AppliedResearch Center magazine ColorLines agrees: “Forthe majority of people of color engaged in thiswork, most training has been informal. Having aset of mentors who are older and diverse, menand women, coming out of different experiences,is key.”

Leaders interviewed for Leadership for PolicyChange recommended that programs providementors across generations of movement leaders.Young leaders of color spoke of finding it difficultto find mentors among older generations ofcommunity builders and policy advocates.13

Burnout and a lack of effective venues for sharingexperiences were cited as possible reasons for thelack of exchange. Programs that can help fosterthese relationships, young leaders said, would beinvaluable.14

Focus on the importance of dataand informationInformation is critical to policy development. Itframes the policy debate, surfaces potentialsolutions, and determines who engages in thediscourse. Using data brings credibility, nuance,and strategic focus to advocacy efforts.Unfortunately, the use of data as an advocacy toolis dramatically underutilized by leaders of color,often due to insufficient organizational resources.Without data, groups are often marginalized andconsidered uninformed by those in authority.Providing training and actual experience in datagathering and analysis was seen as a very high

Strength in a Community ofMentors“It is not just mentorship, buthaving experienced,inspirational people around.Having institutional densitycreates a space for being openminded, inclusive, andnurturing.”

Martha MatsuokaPh.D. candidate,University of California, Los Angeles

Strengthening Leadership Through Information and AccountabilityEffective leadership, informed by data, brings insight, sensitivity, and creative problem solving to pressing policyissues.

• Hmong parents in Stockton, California, concerned about prevalent gang activity, negotiated with the policefor two half-time community liaisons in the police department. It was the first formal interaction betweenthat community and local law enforcement.

• The Denver Foundation was criticized for not investing in poor neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color.Looking for ways to engage residents, the foundation created a technical assistance program that extendsbeyond service provision to leadership development through improved data collection.

• The Books Not Bars campaign has brought regional attention to the planned development of a “super prison”for youth in Alameda County, California, forcing new policy discourse on alternatives to youth incarceration.


Knowledge is Power“Currently, the technocrats stillcontrol the data. A multitude ofeffective programs in inner citiesaround the country exist, but wedon’t have the evidence. Ourability to advocate for them isgreatly frustrated. Data can be anengagement mechanism in low-income communities.”

Joseph YoungbloodTrenton Board of Education, now with the Watson Institute

priority by those interviewed. Additionally,community leaders and researchers often do notcommunicate well with each other, wastingvaluable chances to coordinate efforts.

Organizations that serve children and families inlow-income communities of color need assistancein developing the capacity to collect and managequantitative data on the status of communitiesand populations served. They also need tobecome proficient in collecting and presentingqualitative data that reflect diverse culturalexperiences and that can help shape publicperception through media and public education.Without accurate neighborhood-level information,organizations may not develop the most strategicpolicy.

The ability to collect and interpret data internallycan be useful to organizations with the capacityto do so. “In-house research capacity became apriority when we realized we had to developcampaigns that require data to keep a firm graspon the issues,” recalls Anthony Thigpenn. Someorganizations may need to find other ways tocollect the data, perhaps through collaborationsto acquire the services of independent researchorganizations. The community should have inputinto how the data will be collected and evaluated.Community members should also be part of thediscussion about how the data will be used.Marian Urquilla of the Columbia Heights/ShawFamily Support Collaborative, says “A lot of timesit is about bringing information to a community ina way they have not seen it and allowing them tohave the discourse. They can think throughalternatives and drive policy transformation.”

Provide a strong curriculum that offersparticipants skills, training, visibility, andexposure

• Skills and training—The leadershipdevelopment curriculum should includeanalysis, negotiation, diplomacy, and advocacyas well as tools to support creative and criticalthinking and public speaking; collection,management, and presentation ofinformation; use of technology; and thedevelopment of media and public educationstrategies. David Portillo of the DenverFoundation cites the importance of “mediacoaching and training for front line people ofcolor.” J.D. Hokoyama singles out training tohelp immigrant leaders cope with challengingcultural experiences. “We want to help peoplemaintain their values,” Hokoyama says, “butstill develop new skills that can help themnavigate the dominant society.”

• Visibility, positioning, and exposure—Leadership programs should pay particularattention to opportunities for increasing thevisibility of leaders of color (throughinteractions with elected officials, businessand labor leaders, and community members)and positioning them to assume greaterleadership responsibility at the program’s end.Programs can provide site visits to othercommunities, opportunities to participate in


exchanges with other successful programs,mentoring and relationship-buildingopportunities, and introductions to otherleaders in the area.

Focus on the development of individuals,organizations, and constituenciesLeadership development efforts that combine a“triple focus” on individual leadershipdevelopment, organizational development, andcommunity or constituency development canenhance the effectiveness of leaders of color.15

Several leaders interviewed for this report talkedabout the limited financial and technicalresources in many organizations led by peopleof color. These limitations leave the leader withouta strong base from which to implement a visionfor the community. Organizations with limitedresources are vulnerable to the loss of theirleaders, who also need an involved constituencyto engage in substantive policy and social changeefforts.

Individual. For nonprofit leadership, individualand organizational development are closely linked.A recent study of nonprofit executive directors infive cities across the United States found that lessthan one-half would take another executivedirector role. The reasons for refusing anotherleadership position included lack of confidence intheir skill levels and lack of job enjoyment (due tohigh stress, long hours, and concern over agencyfinances).16 Reports from grassroots, emerging,immigrant, and nonprofit leadership developmentprograms underscore the need for providingorganizational capacity building simultaneouslywith individual development. One study, forexample, found that the most significant barriersto immigrant leadership included insufficientorganizational resources, limited staff time andexperience, and limited management experience.17

When organizations are in crisis, or when theleader is spending the majority of time managing,there is little time to create, implement a vision,and lead.

Organizations. Few leadership developmentprograms address organizational effectivenessissues, and few organizational capacity buildingprograms address leadership needs. Examples ofprograms that combine both include the EurekaCommunities Fellowship and social entrepreneurprograms such as the Echoing Green FellowshipProgram. Their leadership development programsinclude such organizational capacity buildingstrategies as mission planning, strategic planning,fundraising, financial management, boarddevelopment, and communicating effectivelywith diverse audiences. Capacity building supportcan include core operating funding, which canfurther the organization’s efforts to create andimplement a policy agenda.

The simultaneous focus on individual andorganizational development can facilitate futureleadership needs and long-range planning byencouraging the development of leaders of colorfrom within an organization. Lynette Lee of EastBay Asian Local Development Corporationadvocates “developing an organizational cultureto grow more people and leaders of color.” TheDevelopment Guild’s study of emerging,community-based leaders found that barriers toemerging leadership included lack oforganizational commitment to nurture newleadership voices, an inability to adapt tochange, and current leadership that isthreatened by new leadership.18 Leadershipdevelopment programs can incorporate strategiesthat help organizations improve their ability toidentify, mentor, and develop emerging leadershipfrom within the organization’s junior or middlemanagement, thus creating a pipeline toleadership that can sustain the organization intothe future.

Constituencies. Constituencies and communitiesthat are organized can engage in the mostaggressive policy development. Particularly incommunities of color, leaders need constituencies


to build political momentum and gain access topolicy circles. Constituencies need leaders toadvocate on their behalf in the places wheredecisions are made. Constituencies andcommunities are often underutilized, unpreparedfor advocacy roles, and unconnected to existingleadership and organizations that can championtheir issues. Leadership programs that provideemerging leaders with strategies for engagingconstituencies will enable leaders to servecommunities more effectively.

The boundary-crossing experiences describedearlier can help leaders engage constituencies.Leadership development programs can alsoinclude strategies for using popular education,organizing, collective leadership, communitycapacity building, and collaboration as tools inbuilding constituency. Craig McGarvey, an experton civic engagement, commented on communityleadership development strategies amongimmigrant communities in California’s CentralValley, saying “Many organizations take theresponsibility to encourage and train new leaders,and in doing so, the established leaders makethemselves invisible so that other leadership canemerge.”

Popular education (the attempt to inform andengage residents around issues that arerelevant to their way of life) is an important toolused to organize constituencies. “Where populareducation and organizing are effective, they use aproblem people can understand and worktogether to solve,” explains McGarvey. Typically,when residents are engaged through organizingand popular education, their interest in policy-related issues remains heightened.

Connect emerging leaders to movementbuilding strategiesLeaders and communities of color can benefitfrom exposure to best practices in the policydevelopment field and apply lessons learned

from those practices. Exposure to these bestpractices provides a visceral understanding aboutwhat policy is, who makes policy, and howindividuals and communities can influencepolicies that support other program activities.Learning from others is an excellent means fordiscovering the career paths that lead to greaterpolicy involvement and for observing firsthandhow policy goals are developed, implemented,and used to create the next policy developmentopportunities.

Connecting to policy-oriented best practices canalso lead to movement-building, as a policy-influencing strategy. Taj James, of MovementStrategy Center, believes that “Too many effortsare organization driven. Movement-identifiedefforts hold promise for engaging in long-termpolicy change.” Peggy Saika of Asian PacificIslanders in Philanthropy adds “When we are in anorganizational posture, we are able to addressservice needs. But at the end of the day, even ifwe are effective at feeding, clothing, and housing,are we really participating in democracy? That iswhere movement building comes in.”

Be prepared to make necessary budgetaryallocations and long-term commitmentsLeaders interviewed for this report noted thatmany leadership programs targeting people ofcolor lack the resources to provide the breadth

Social Change“There aren’t a lot of resources tosupport advocacy and organiz-ing. Most resources are forservice provision. There is amisconception that nonprofitscan’t or shouldn’t do advocacy.”

Taj JamesMovement Strategy Center


and depth of experience needed to help emergingleaders learn how to craft strategies and policytargets that are relevant to local communities.There is a need for additional financial and humanresources to support programs that enablewomen and men of color to develop effective andpolicy focused leadership.

Recognizing the problems of inadequate fundingprompted these leaders to stress that realizingsuccessful program results requires a long-termcommitment. It takes time for existing andemerging leaders to build competencies andincrease their understanding of how to wieldinfluence. Time is needed, too, for the leaders’organizations to build capacity to be an effectiveparticipant in the change process. More time isrequired for targeted communities andconstituencies to organize, engage in policywork, and realize desired outcomes. Many see thisas a ten-year process that requires a foundationcommitment of several multi-year grants, and thewillingness to support programs for several yearsbefore significant results can be seen.

Interviews for this report were unanimous inagreeing about the need for leaders of color whocan effectively influence policy. They were also inagreement that barriers exist that must beeliminated—or at least minimized—so that agroup of leaders of color can emerge.

The literature on leadership and a scan ofleadership development programs identifyprogrammatic elements that have provensuccessful in developing leaders, although withinnarrower parameters than those envisioned bythis report. The strategic option for leadershipdevelopment programs that follows builds on theknowledge of previous efforts and incorporates

the thinking of leaders interviewed for this report.The result is an approach to leadershipdevelopment that is intentional about developingleaders of color who—with the support oforganizations and constituencies—are prepared toeffectively influence policies that impact childrenand families who live in low-income communitiesof color.


VI. A Strategic Option ForLeadership DevelopmentPrograms

PolicyLink recommends the following strategicoption as the best approach to leadershipdevelopment for leaders of color who caneffectively impact policy. This option grows out ofunderstanding the challenges to the developmentof leaders of color and from the analysis ofprogram approaches discussed in the literaturereview, program scan, and interviews. Theprogram elements are designed to support thedevelopment of leaders of color prepared toadvance a new generation of policies to benefitthe lives of residents in low-income communities.

Goal: Place-Based Leadership Developmentfor Policy ChangeSupport the development of leaders of color toimpact policy by providing leadership training,organizational capacity building, andconstituency development in the context of goaloriented, placed-based policy work in a programthat intentionally recruits people of color.

Potential participantsEmerging and existing leaders who are all focusedon a similar issue (e.g., youth transitioning out offoster care), who approach the issue fromdifferent institutional perspectives (e.g.,community-based advocacy, transitional housingprovider, Department of Social Services), and whowork within a common geographic area (e.g., city,region, state). The majority of participants shouldrepresent the nonprofit sector, but leaders in thepublic and business sectors could be included asappropriate to the policy issue. Participants wouldbe individuals with organizational affiliation whocan be influential within the organization or inthe communities with which the organizationworks.19 These participants would represent and

be grounded in communities, and would havedemonstrated leadership and commitment tosocial justice. The cohort should be comprisedprimarily, but not entirely, of people of color.

Benefits to participantsParticipants receive individual and cohort-wideleadership development and policy trainingthrough curriculum, site visits, network-buildingactivities (e.g., quarterly dinners with policymakersand elected officials), analysis of policy victories,mentoring, and by working together to reach acommon policy goal, such as drafting legislationor making policy recommendations. Participantswill have an opportunity to cross boundaries byworking with individuals and organizations notusually perceived as allies. This work:

• builds understanding of issues that affecttargeted policies;

• provides specific skills around the use of data,media, and writing;

• develops the use of timing, framing, andstrategic planning; and

• shares coalition building and other techniquesthat will aid in the ability to move complexagendas and engage constituency.

Benefits to participants’ organizationsThe nonprofit organizations of each participantwill participate in a systematic assessment oforganizational needs and receive organizationalcapacity building assistance to increase theireffectiveness in the policy arena. For example, anorganization might need improved informationtechnology systems,20 guidance in how to shiftfrom service provision to policy advocacy, orsupport in developing its board.

Benefits of this approach

• Intentionally recruits leaders of color—Whilethe focus of this strategy is to build theleadership capacity of people of color, it is notrestricted to them. The cohort should include


participants who bring different perspectivesto the program and who will contribute toboundary crossing and relationship buildingexperiences.

• Unified policy focus—PolicyLink researchindicates that leaders of color are most likelyto engage in a leadership developmentprogram that is structured around an actualpolicy agenda. The agenda can encourage across-section of leaders (the participantcohort) to work together across racial, ethnic,socioeconomic, gender, and culturalboundaries toward a common goal.

• Focus on place—Geographic region shouldbe the focus of the policy agenda. Manyleaders of color interviewed see state-levelpolicy engagement as most important.

• Addresses concerns identified in the research:Opportunities to build networks andrelationships across boundaries;Mentoring;Use of data and information;Comprehensive skills building curriculum;Triple focus on individual, organization,and constituency development; andOpportunities for learning lessons frombest practices.

Anticipated outcomes

• Leaders of color prepared to impact policy—Leaders of color will develop theunderstanding, skills, competencies, networks,linkages, resources, exposure to influentialleaders, and strengthened relationships incommunities to effectively impact policies thataffect children and families in low-incomecommunities of color.

• Healthier organizations—Community-servingorganizations (of the leader participants) willbenefit from tailored needs assessment andcapacity building assistance. It is anticipatedthat organizational infrastructure will bestrengthened and the capacity of theorganization to address and shape policy willbe enhanced.

• Informed constituencies—Without engagedconstituency, leaders are rarely able to buildsustainable policy change. It is intended thatthis strategy will specifically incorporate toolsfor public education, civic engagement, andleadership accountability as part of theprogram.

Actual policy change might also be an outcome ofthis leadership development strategy. However, inthe context of the program, activities to achievepolicy change are a venue for individual andorganizational leadership development, not agoal. Program success will not depend onreaching the policy goal, which might not berealistically accomplished within the programtimeline or might be prevented by uncontrollablefactors (e.g., state fiscal crisis or world events).

Implementation considerations

• Clarify foundation priorities—Identify policyissues that support and advance thefoundation’s programs and focus ongeographic areas that are of interest to thefoundation.

• Contract with an intermediary organization—Identify an intermediary organization thatbrings leadership development expertise todevelop, manage, and administer theleadership development program.

• Conduct significant due diligence—Determinethe appropriate policy issue, the relevantgeographic area(s) of concentration, and theright “mix” of leaders currently working onthe issue within the geographic area.Understanding the existing politics among thecohort is important, as present and pastexperiences among them and theirorganizations can impact group dynamics.


VII. Fellowship Programs

In the course of research for this report, it becameclear that many institutions interested inleadership development for communities of colorhave chosen fellowship programs as the methodfor providing support and training. Theseprograms typically recruit candidates fromprofessional schools in policy, planning, health,law, social welfare, business, and related fields.Many recruit beyond these areas, however, andseek out nonprofit employees, business sectorrepresentatives, and recognized communityleaders.

While there are innumerable fellowship programmodels, the most effective complementelements of the programs described in thestrategic option above. They place people of colorin policy organizations that are working forimproved outcomes for children, families, andcommunities of color. One challenge of fellowshipprograms described in the research is the difficultypolicy organizations have had in retainingparticipants. Reasons cited for this difficultyincluded financial constraints, lack of attention tothe needs of fellows early in their professionaldevelopment, and inadequate preparation of thehost organization to manage its responsibilities tothe fellow. Many interviewees felt that theenvironments of the host organization weresometimes unwelcoming. Some cited inadequateorientation and interaction for fellows.

Focus group conversations suggested that thefellowship experience might begin with cohortsof 10-12 fellows going through a collectivelegislative “internship” experience that groundsthem in the policy context they will addressduring the remainder of a two-year fellowship.Throughout the program, fellows receive skillbuilding training, experiential learning, andprofessional development that prepares them fora career in public service and policy advocacy. Theorganizations that host fellows receive customized

technical assistance that builds their capacity asadvocacy organizations.

Programs should allow fellows and key staff ofparticipating policy organizations to regularlyconvene for leadership, policy training, andexperiential learning. Opportunities to interactwith experts, public intellectuals, philanthropy,business, and media leaders support thedevelopment of fellows’ networks and access tokey policy arenas beyond the fellowship.

Effective fellowships can complement therecommended strategic optionFellowship programs can address the paucity ofpeople of color who are pursuing training andskills development that qualify them for effectivepolicy advocacy. It also responds to thechallenges that many policy organizations havefaced in recruiting and retaining advocates ofcolor. Fellowships allow individuals to build skillsaround policy development and advocacy, valuesclarification, public speaking, communityorganizing, media training, and data andresearch preparation in the context of aparticular organization. The policy organizationhas the opportunity to provide long-termemployment opportunities for fellowshipgraduates at the end of the program.

VIII. ConclusionPrograms structured around place-based policygoals, that are tailored to individual needs, andthat build networks of relationships acrossboundaries of race, ethnicity, and class providethe best means for successful leadershipdevelopment for people of color. These programsshould provide opportunities for formal andinformal mentoring. These key points are thefoundation of this report, and are the means forimproving the ability of leaders of color tosuccessfully impact policies affecting children,families, and communities of color.


Cecilia Rodriquez Honored:Transit Development Provides Benefits forEast End Residentsby Marcus Robinson, Public Policy Quarterly

More than 1,300 people attended the annual CAUSEdinner, which has become the premier nonprofitadvocacy award ceremony in the SomewhereMetropolitan Region. One of this year’s recipientswas local activist Cecilia Rodriquez. She wasprominent in the leadership group that led asuccessful campaign that brought $67 million ininvestments, from Somewhere Rapid Transit Agencyand private investors, into East End for the creationof a Transit Village. The Transit Village developmenthas generated extensive economic activity and newhousing, with minimal displacement of the low-income or immigrant residents. In fact, many of theseresidents have obtained employment in the Village orhave begun small businesses there. Additionally,more than half of the Village constructioncontractors have been women and minorities.

In the last seven years TransJustice, the organizationCecilia founded, has become a major player in thedevelopment of transportation policies in the regionand state. In addition to East End Transit Village,TransJustice was the driving force behind thedevelopment of the recent state policy thatguarantees 25% of publicly funded transportation

projects be set aside for resident ownership and othercommunity benefits. As CEO of TransJustice, Ceciliahas marshaled a diverse staff, an engaged community,and a committed funding base to ensure that low-income residents benefit in multiple ways fromtransportation investment. Ms. Rodriquez wasinterviewed before receiving the award.

MR: Cecilia, this state policy regardingcommunity benefits would not have advancedwithout the organized participation of peoplefrom low-income communities. How did they getinvolved?

CR: The short version is that people of color, like me,who had credibility in those communities becameinvolved early. And the truth is, I’m not sure that Iwould have become engaged if I had not beenrecruited. I joined a cohort of nearly twentycommunity-based leaders recruited by theCommunity Foundation as part of the Foundation’seffort to help leaders of color have policy impact.They selected a group to participate in an intensivetwo-year training that built on our individualnetworks and skills and also helped us strengthenour organizations and engage local constituencies inpolicy initiatives. The cohort decided pretty early inthe process that we would focus on the opportunitiesthat could be generated by the planned transit stopin East End.

A LeadershipDevelopment Scenario

A comprehensive leadership developmentprogram, as outlined above, is the most effectiveway to target leaders of color who can becomeeffective policy advocates for children, families,and communities. This option incorporates thenecessary elements for successfully supportingleaders of color to have impact on policymaking.How this option can play out in the real world isthe focus of the scenario that follows.

In a fictional interview, reporter Marcus Robinsonof an imagined Public Policy Quarterly, interviewsCecilia Rodriquez on the eve of her award forcommunity leadership in the Somewhere region.Cecilia was a key player in guaranteeing benefitsto East End residents from transit development inthat community. She also helped ensure that therewas minimal displacement of Somewhere’s low-income and immigrant residents. The story Ceciliagives the reporter is a portrayal of the way leadersof color can influence policymaking for the benefitof low-income communities.


MR: How does a foundation help leaders havepolicy impact?

CR: Well, the process was always steady anddeliberate. After we identified our common interestin the transit station in East End, we began to focuson building our capacity to engage the issue. Not allof us were transportation advocates, but we allclearly saw how transit issues affected our work.There were organizers like me, serviceproviders…most of us were people of color. It wasimportant to create the space to explore those issuesfrom our own experience. Early curriculum helped usto gain an understanding of the policy process at thesame time it showed us what other communities hadbeen able to achieve. We also studied effective policycampaigns across the country. We knew policy wasimportant. We just needed help figuring out how toget at it. As we progressed, we got into specificstrategies to advance policy campaigns and began tothink about targets that could produce collectivebenefit.

MR: So, it was important that the programactually focused on real policy goals.

CR: Yes, policy goals in our community; but we hadto work at the regional level and also at the statelevel. Our region was growing, but ourneighborhoods of color were being left behind. Therewas a sense of urgency to see if we could catch up.We had to learn fast because the big decisions werebeing made at the state level and none of us hadmuch experience working there. And all of thishappened while the East End transit stop wasstarting to be planned without our input. We couldnot have gotten in the mix as quickly as we didwithout help from a lot of people. The support wereceived from seasoned policy advocates who thefoundation made available to us was extremelyimportant.

MR: What other things were key to your success?

CR: During and after the program, the programhelped me not only to develop my personal skills, butalso to build the kind of organization I would need tobe effective in the policy arena. Good policy work

requires a certain familiarity with data and studies;also, you have to be able to be impressive in and afterthe meetings. That means having staff to do thingslike prepare written testimony, issue press releases,and help those out front feel confident to act whenopportunities emerge. The capacity building grantsthat we received from the Community Foundationallowed us to hire the staff to do these things. Butconstituency is key and the program also helped memaintain the engagement of residents even as issuesgot increasingly complex. I think that a combinationof individual skill, organizational capacity, andconstituency development is critical to policychange. The networking that we were able to dowithin the cohort also turned out to be very valuable.In the future, as alumni we can bring a lot of weightto bear on an issue, and policymakers know it.

MR: What’s next for these leaders?

CR: [Laughs] No rest for the weary, no? Well, firstthis very positive experience needs to be shared. Ourplans for maintaining the momentum and leveragingthis experience include building a constituency-based statewide policy advocacy organization thatbeyond transportation, will address affordablehousing, displacement, reinvestment, wealthbuilding, and workforce development. We havecommitments from several foundations to supportthis work for multiple years. The CommunityFoundation has been a fantastic partner. In additionto helping us get funding for the new venture, theFoundation is planning to share lessons learned fromthe experience with other funders across the countryand with professional schools that can recruit peopleof color and incorporate the skill-buildingcurriculum of our cohort into their own. Lastly, inour private lives, some of us are joining with laborand political groups to find ways to culitvate electedofficials from our community. We are starting byrunning a candidate for the transportation board.There is a lot to do and this is only the beginning.


Endnotes1 Numbers will not add up to 100 percent because somepeople identified themselves as belonging to more than onegroup or did not self-identify.2 Numbers for elected positions tallied by PolicyLink staff fromcongressional listings; CEO data from Fortune 500 and fromFeminist Majority Fund, 1996; university data from AffirmativeAction Review by Labor Secretary Reich, 1995.3 Burbridge, L. and colleagues. The Meaning and Impact ofBoard and Staff Diversity in the Philanthropic Field. JointAffinity Groups, 2002.4 According to 2002 survey by the Radio-Television NewsDirectors Association.5 CompassPoint Nonprofit Services. Daring to Lead: NonprofitExecutive Directors and Their Work Experience. San Francisco:Peters, J., and Wolfred T., August 2001, p. 11.6 Drawn from several of the individual interviews.7 MOSAICA: The Center for Nonprofit Development andPluralism. “Research on Barriers and Opportunities forIncreasing Leadership in Immigrant and RefugeeCommunities.” A public report. Boston, April 2000.8 Shared during the Oakland Focus Conversation,August 7, 2002.9 The Aspen Institute. Voices from the Field II: Reflections onComprehensive Community Change (2002).10 Stetler, N.J. “Gender Differences in Leadership: CurrentSocial Issues and Future Organizational Implications”[electronic version]. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2002, 8(4), p. 88.11 Findings come from three sources: (1) The Annie E. CaseyFoundation. Building Leaders for Change: An overview of theAnnie E. Casey Foundation’s Children and Family Fellowship.Baltimore, MD, 2001, 6.2; (2) Beineke, J.A. and Sublett, R.H.(1999). Leadership Lessons and Competencies: Learning fromthe Kellogg National Fellowship Program. Proceedings of theInternational Leadership Association 1998 Annual Meeting,21–26; and (3) Crossing Boundaries: An Exploration ofEffective Leadership Development in Communities (a fundermeeting on August 2, 2002, organized by the SouthernCalifornia Association of Philanthropy and the LeadershipLearning Community).12 Thomas, D.A., “The Truth About Mentoring Minorities,”Harvard Business Review, April 2001, pp. 99–107.13 Seven of the nine emerging leaders interviewed less than 35years of age noted these challenges.14 Among the emergent leader respondents who recognizedthe need for this were Lateefah Simon and Van Jones.15 The “triple focus” approach was coined by the KelloggFoundation to describe an approach to grassroots leadershipdevelopment. See Campbell, J.C. Grassroots CommunityLeadership: A Guide for Funders, Battle Creek: W.K. KelloggFoundation, 1998.16 CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, p.20. Cities surveyedwere San Francisco, Fresno, Washington, DC, Honolulu, andDallas.17 MOSAICA: The Center for Nonprofit Development andPluralism. “Research on Barriers and Opportunities forIncreasing Leadership in Immigrant and RefugeeCommunities.” Public report. Boston, April 2000. p. i.

18 Development Guild/DDI, Inc. Engaging New LeadershipVoices for Catalyzing and Sustaining Community Change. Areport prepared for the Leadership Cross-Cutting Theme.Brookline, MA: W. K. Kellogg Foundation, November 2001,pp. vi–vii.19 It is not required that a participant be affiliated with anorganization, but if s/he is not so affiliated, connecting her/him to the appropriate organization for her/his policy interestwould be a priority of the leadership development effort.20 Evidence of the value of information and technology incommunity development is detailed further inBridging the Organizational Divide, Kirschenbaum et al.PolicyLink, 2001.

Sources

Adams, L. “Transforming Unions and Building aMovement.” In Bill Fletcher Jr., Whose Democracy?Organized Labor and Member Control. New York, NY:Monthly Review Press, 1998, pp. 202–215.

Asian Pacific American Women’s Leadership Initiative(n.d.). Leadership challenges and opportunities: AnAsian American and Pacific Islander Women’s Lens.www.apawli.org/.

The Aspen Institute. Voices from the Field II:Reflections on Comprehensive Community Change,2002.

Bridging the Organizational Divide, Kirschenbaum etal. PolicyLink, 2001.

Beineke, J. and Sublett, R.H. Leadership Lessons andCompetencies: Learning from the Kellogg NationalFellowship Program. Proceedings of the InternationalLeadership Association 1998 Annual Meeting, 1999,pp. 21–26.

Burbridge, L., and colleagues. The Meaning andImpact of Board and Staff Diversity in thePhilanthropic Field. Joint Affinity Groups, 2002.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Building leaders forchange: An overview of the Annie E. CaseyFoundation’s Children and Family Fellowship.Baltimore, MD: 2001.

CompassPoint Nonprofit Services. Daring to Lead:Nonprofit Executive Directors and Their WorkExperience. San Francisco: Peters, J., and Wolfred T.,August 2001, p. 11.


for increasing leadership in immigrant and refugeecommunities: Public report. Boston, MA: 2000.

National Community for Latino Leadership. Reflectingan American Vista: The Character and Impact ofLatino Leadership. 2001. Retrieved June 15, 2002,from www.latinoleadership.org.

Ospina, S. and Schall, E. Perspectives on Leadership:Our Approach to Research and Documentation forthe Leadership for a Changing World Program.Washington, DC: Advocacy Institute, 2001. Locatedat http://leadershipforchange.org/research/papers/perspectives.php3.

Putnam, R. D. “Bowling Alone: America’s DecliningSocial Capital.” Journal of Democracy, 1995, 6:1, 67.Retrieved May 7, 2002, from http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_democracy/v006/putnam.html.

Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday,1990.

Stetler, N.J. “Gender differences in leadership:Current social issues and future organizationalimplications” [electronic version]. Journal ofLeadership Studies, 2002, 8 (4), p. 88.

Stewart, P. “Responding to the Voice of BlackWomen: Black Women’s Unique Style of LeadershipEnables Them to Meet the Challenges of Academe.”Black Issues in Higher Education, March 2002.

Themba, M. Making Policy, Making Change: Howcommunities are taking law into their own hands.Oakland, CA: Chardon Press, 1999.

Thomas, D.A, “The Truth About MentoringMinorities,” Harvard Business Review, April 2001,pp. 99–107.

Vogelsang-Coombs, V. and Miller, M. Developing thegovernance capacity of elected officials. PublicAdministration Review 59 (3), May/June 1999.

Walker, W. Leadership in cross-cultural perspective: Aliterature review and discussion paper presented tothe staff of California Works for Better Health, aproject of The California Endowment and TheRockefeller Foundation. Unpublished document,2000.

Zimmerman-Oster, K. and Burkhard, J.C. (n.d.).Leadership in the Making: Impact and Insights fromLeadership Development Programs in U.S. Collegesand Universities. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. KelloggFoundation. Retrieved June 27, 2002, fromwww.wkkf.org.

Development Guild/DID, Inc. Engaging newleadership voices for catalyzing and sustainingcommunity change: A report prepared for theLeadership Cross-Cutting Theme. Brookline, MA: W.K.Kellogg Foundation, November 2001.

Gardner, J.W. On Leadership. New York: The FreePress, 1990.

Gerber, R. (personal communication, August 12,2002).

Gould, S. and Malachowsky, J. “Why Invest inGrassroots Leadership Development?” In, GrassrootsLeadership Development: A Guide for GrassrootsLeaders, Support Organizations, and Funders. Adams,T. (Ed.), Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation,2001, pp. 8–9.

Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership (n.d.).“What is Servant-Leadership?” Retrieved April 25,2002, from www.greenleaf.org/leadership/servant-leadership/What-is-Servant-Leadership.html.

Grove, J. and Population Leadership Group.Examining Success and Meaning: A Framework forEvaluating Leadership Development Interventions inGlobal Health. Berkeley, CA: 2002.

The Heritage Foundation, Young Leadership Network.Retrieved August 13, 2002, fromwww.heritage.org/yln/index.html.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Leading change in the newmillennium: A call to action. Conference report fromthe W.K. Kellogg Foundation Leadership Forum, April2000.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (n.d). Grassroots leadershipdevelopment: A guide for grassroots leaders, supportorganizations, and funders. Battle Creek, MI.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.J. The LeadershipChallenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Leadership Institute. Retrieved August 13, 2002, fromwww.leadershipinstitute.org.

Meehan, D. Emerging Wisdom in ProgramDesign: Successful Designs, Innovations,Cautions and Challenges. February 9, 2002.Retrieved April 24, 2002, from LeadershipLearning Community website:www.leadershiplearning.org/pools/theory/html/emerging_wisdom.htm.

MOSAICA: The Center for Nonprofit Developmentand Pluralism. Research on barriers and opportunities


A Summary of theLeadership DevelopmentProgram Scan

IntroductionEngaging those most affected by policy in a newgeneration of policy development is a beginningstep for reversing negative trends affecting low-income communities. Many organizations andfoundations nationally have been supportingprograms and initiatives to develop leaders andtheir capacity to sustain social and economicchange. This research presents an overview ofrecent activities in the leadership developmentfield with an emphasis on policy. It serves as astarting point for the program recommendations.A detailed analysis is available on the PolicyLinkwebsite at http://www.policylink.org. The AsianPacific American Legal Center has produced anexcellent guide that focuses on the broader fieldof leadership development, entitled CrossingBoundaries: An Exploration of Effective LeadershipDevelopment in Communities.

Purpose of the ScanThis program scan provides a baseline review ofexisting leadership development models, identifiesexisting gaps in programming for people of color,and presents best practices and lessons learnedfrom the field. The following questions guided theresearch:

• What are the predominant program models forachieving leadership development?

• What is the current state of leadershipdevelopment programs for people of color?

• What are the key design elements ofsuccessful programs?

Landscape of ProgramsThe research revealed three predominant programmodels:

• Individual development

• Organizational development

• Community development/building

Individual development programs focus ondeveloping the personal capacity of individuals tobe effective leaders. Organizational developmentprograms focus on improving organizationalfunction and the effectiveness of leaders toaddress areas of governance, finance, operations,and programs. Community development/buildingprograms focus on building community capacityto increase the civic engagement of residents.

The matrix on pages 35-36 categorizes programsbased on the three predominant program typesfound in the research.

Key FindingsAmong the many things that need to beconsidered in the program planning phase are the“what” and “how” of a program. The “what” ofthe program are the major programmaticelements including target population, selectionprocess, learning methods, and skill-buildingcurriculum. The “how” is the operationalinfrastructure needed to implement the project,beginning with having a set of clear short- andlong-term expected outcomes, allocatingappropriate staff and financial resources, anddetermining key partners. The examination ofthe ten programs revealed major considerations,described below.

Programmatic Elements

1) Determine the target population. Selection ofa target population is an outgrowth of theintended outcomes.


2) Establish appropriate selection criteria. Peopleof color historically have not had access topowerful institutions and networks that aremore readily open to elites through wealth,family background, and higher education.

3) Convene selection committee. Participantselection is crucial. Many of the programsused a selection committee comprised ofprogram administrators and a panel of peers.Each needs to be intentional about selectingand screening participants based on theestablished selection criteria.

4) Determine learning approach or methodology.Programs customized approaches based onoverall program goals and target populations.Three typical approaches to achieving learninggoals include: 1) Skills training by outsideexperts or trained facilitators; 2) Peer-to-peernetworking to encourage peer learning, buildnetworks, and make connections, often withan emphasis on solving community problems;and 3) Field placement to encourageexperiential learning by doing projects such aspublic policy, organizing, or communitybuilding with a law firm. The most effectivemethods use a combination of all threelearning approaches to promote effectiveleadership development in communities ofcolor.

5) Develop experiential learning opportunities,such as field placement.

6) Develop mentorship opportunities. Becausepeople of color, especially emerging leaders,may not have the same access to andexperience working in nonprofitorganizations, a considerable amount of timeneeds to be allocated to developing ongoingmentorship relationships for participants.Alumni networks and connecting participantswith other established leaders is important.

7) Establish core competencies for leaders.A range of skill building competencies are

needed among individuals seeking to createpolicy or legislative change.

a. Values clarificationb. Self-awareness and reflectionc. Public speaking/media savvyd. Relational/coalition-building skillse. Facilitation/conflict resolutionf. Constituency building/community

organizingg. Public policy/legislative trainingh. Statistical knowledge

8) Support organizational capacity of sponsoringor affiliated organization. By and large, theredoes not appear to be a strong emphasis onbuilding the capacity of the field placementorganizations.

9) Develop appropriate compensation incentives.Design incentives with the target populationin mind. It may be important to create forlower income people, new immigrants, andthose without higher education, additionalsupports, such as childcare, transportation,translation, and additional training regardingthe function of public policy.

10) Create measures of success. The programstypically measure their success by two factors:(1) the impact of the projects undertaken byfellows, and (2) the percentage of graduatesthat go on to take positions in the fieldtargeted by the fellowship program. There is anotable absence of a formal evaluationprocess in most programs.

Operational InfrastructureMany of the operational infrastructure findingsare typical of new or emerging organizationstrying to implement a program.

1) Identify long-term outcomes. Programdesigners need to consider the impact thatleadership development training can have onthe long-term outcomes they are trying toachieve. For foundation-sponsored programs,


planners need to consider the integration ofthe program with the foundation’s othergrantmaking activity.

2) Use theory of change to guide thedevelopment of the program. Increasingly,foundations and other program designers areutilizing a “theory of change” or a “causalmodel” to design initiatives. In this approach,the program designers identify a set ofoutcomes for the initiative and then developthe appropriate set of activities.

3) Decide whether to keep a program in houseor support an operating intermediary.

4) Secure adequate staff and financial resources.Key costs for these programs include thefinancial incentives for the fellows, staffsupport, training resources, andadministration.

5) Create ongoing support for fellows in thefield. An additional program consideration isthe degree to which the sponsoring programprovides support for its fellows in the field.Provide technical assistance to the fellows tohelp them implement their projects, such ascrafting effective media campaigns orsuccessfully mobilizing residents.

6) Partner with existing programs. Effectiveprograms may be brought on to conducttrainings in a particular area such ascommunity organizing.

7) Consider cultural competency andappropriateness. All programs consideredcultural diversity as an overarching value butits implementation varied from one programto another. Some considered it in the selectionof individuals; others infused this value intothe development of their curriculum.

ConclusionsMany leadership development programs areattempting to build the capacities necessary forchanging policies that impact children, youth, andcommunities. In designing a program, designersneed to consider key programmatic andorganizational infrastructure issues that cansupport learning and skill development for leadersof color. Changing societal conditions calls for anew leadership paradigm that brings togetherindividuals, organizations, and their communities.


AN ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

APPROACH

EXAMPLE(S)

DESCRIPTION

Individual

Skill building Coro Fellowship

Leadership Education for Asian Pacific Americans

Have a specific curriculum with a clearly articulated set of core competencies. Usually skill building programs use traditional models and methods such as training and workshops by expert trainers to transfer knowledge to participants.

Networking American Leadership Forum—Senior Fellows Program

Greenlining Academy

Next Generation Leaders

Focus on bringing together people from different backgrounds to build mutually supportive relationships. Forge relationships across sectors, race, class, and gender. Inspire transformational learning based on shared interests and greater understanding of different perspectives. Intentionally utilize group learning methods and activities that promote relationship building.

Research fellowships

HUD Minority Fellowships

Build knowledge by investing in individuals who conduct research projects that have implications for the field. Knowledge is built through published reports and other forms of information dissemination.

Issue/ Constituent-oriented

Asian Women Leadership Institute

Center for Young Women’s Development

National Council for La Raza Leadership Training Institute

Focus on a particular issue or segment of society (e.g. youth) and the development of individuals in the selected group. Build confident individuals within a supportive, same group setting.

Professional/ Career development

Human Capital Initiative

Build the workforce through training in a particular field. Often sponsored by private corporations or industries to support a pipeline of individuals to enter the professional field.

Public sector recruitment

Presidential Management Intern Program

Truman Scholars and Urban Fellows Program

Have a focus similar to professional development and pipeline programs. Popular with public sector and civil service agencies, these programs help to fast track program participants into high level positions in government without going through the standard civil service process.

Recognition California Wellness Foundation

Promote individual achievement usually through financial support or exposure. These programs provide emerging leaders with visibility to support future professional work.

Foundation-sponsored initiatives

Leadership for a Changing World Leadership for Community Change Next Generation Leadership (NGL)

Provide support to individuals as a way to leverage current grantmaking and capacity in the field. The methodology and program focus vary based on the goals of the foundation and often utilize a combination of program strategies to promote individual development.


AN ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

APPROACH

EXAMPLE(S)

DESCRIPTION

Organizational

Sponsored placement

Skadden Public Interest Fellowship

Fund a highly skilled individual to work in a community based organization. Increases organizational capacity to function more effectively in specific areas, such as law or business.

Social entrepreneur-ship

Echoing Green

Denali Initiative

Support individuals with an interest in building entrepreneurial organizations. Often born out of a venture capital model where investors base their investment decisions on the experience of the management team. Venture philanthropists seek a social return on their investment.

Community leaders

Center for Community Change New Voices Initiative

Eureka Fellows

Build the skills of individuals, usually organizational leaders such as the executive director or board chair, to create sustainable organizations. Assist executive directors in gaining insight about organizational management issues through a variety of individual and organizational support strategies. While many executive directors are passionately committed to issues of community need, they are not prepared for the day-to-day challenges of managing an organization.

Community Development/Community Building

Community organizer training

ACORN

Center for Third World Organizing

Industrial Areas Foundation

Pacific Institute for Community Organization

Focus on increasing resident engagement in addressing issues that affect their lives. Often based on the belief that residents should be involved in making changes in their own neighborhoods. When trained and organized, marginalized communities can and do exercise their power in numbers.

Community capacity building/ collaboration

American Leadership Program Collaborative Leadership in Action

Devolution Initiative

FAITHS Initiative

Koshland Program

Focus on bringing together individuals from different sectors to promote social change. In recent years program developers have expanded their understanding of the conditions and connections needed to make social change.


Telling the StoryThe Individual and GroupInterview Process

“This is the agenda for the rest of my life.”Interviewee

This sentiment, widely shared by the women andmen interviewed for this report, underscores theserious responsibility the project team felt toreflect the diversity of perspectives on leadershipdevelopment. The report answers the questionshared by many of this nation’s most progressiveadvocates for social change: how do we deepenour policy impact? The 250-plus hours ofinterview transcripts held many answers. Theassignment for the leadership developmentproject team was to analyze the interview resultsand develop appropriate recommendations.

Interview SelectionOne of the most difficult tasks involved in theproduction of this report was narrowing the list of341 potential interviewees to the targeted fifty.The interview list needed to be as representativeof this nation’s leadership landscape as possible, adifficult task given the number of selectionvariables to be considered: geography, gender,age, ethnicity, experience, sector, formalleadership training, constituency base, positionwithin their organization, political affiliation, andmany more. While challenging, this selectioneffort proved inspirational as the team reviewedthe breadth of committed and emerging leadersworking in numerous capacities to promote justiceand equity. Nonetheless, the process of selectingfifty interview subjects took nearly twenty days ofintense meetings and included some of the team’smost heated discussions.

Interview ProcessScheduling interview time with such predictablybusy people proved daunting. Ninety-six percent,however, were able to allow time for the fullinterview. The team contacted a few dozen othercolleagues and experts for good measure. The fullinterview, guided by a thoughtful surveyinstrument, was scheduled to last fifty minutes,but often ran to seventy or more. About 70percent of the interviews were conducted intandem, to get the benefit of multipleperspectives on what was discussed. Many wereconducted by phone. The prolific travel itinerary ofPolicyLink staff allowed for several conversationsacross the country to happen in person.

Throughout the 13-week interview process, theproject team met almost weekly to share findings,discuss observations, and refine the workingtheory of change that would eventually drive therecommendations. The team found the passion,candor, and conviction of interviewees energizing.It was refreshing to hear this accomplished anddiverse group of people squarely addressingfundamental questions of race and class inAmerica.

Interview ResultsThe essence of what the interviews revealed isreflected in the report; it would be impossible,however, to convey the full richness andcomplexity of the dialogue. Some of the findingswere immediately evident—the questions hadonly to be asked to reveal answers: that leadersshould be connected and accountable toconstituency, that data is critical in policydevelopment for leaders of color, and theimportance of place to these communities.

Others required a bit more synthesis: What is theexact nature of mentorship that specifically helpsleaders seeking to influence policy? Why is thestate the geographic arena that holds the mostpromise for impact? Finally, there were tenets of


progressive social justice efforts that intervieweesimplored us to reinforce to audiences withinfluence: the value of civic engagement, publiceducation, and community organizing; the needto develop a solutions orientation that is asset-based; the elevation of individual and familyneeds to a larger framework that integrates thoseconcerns into the collective good.

Successful leadership, the kind with lasting policyimpact, starts with tactics proven effective andpushes the envelope of those experiences,crossing boundaries in an effort to reshapedecision making. It raises the standard ofexcellence expected of advocates. It extendsbeyond the nonprofit arena into the private andpublic sectors. Each person interviewed sharedthese characteristics of leadership and possessedtheir own distinctive systems analysis of policydevelopment. Yet these perspectives resonatedhighly with those of their fellow participants.Finally, regardless of accomplishments achievedand accolades accumulated, to a person, nonewere satisfied with their work to date. Theywanted more progress.

Most of the interviewees had strong messages forphilanthropy, mainly regarding the scope ofinvestment in leadership, the flexibility of availableresources, and the composition of the leadershipwithin philanthropic institutions. Ultimately, thisinterview process proved to be a dialogue aboutpower—understanding it, using it, and changingthe rules to ensure its more equitable distribution.

Focus ConversationsDetailing the process behind the focusconversations could merit its own section in thereport. Suffice it to say that the regions of thecountry where conversations were held wereselected to address constituencies, geographicbalance, and other characteristics not sufficientlycovered by the fifty primary interviews. LocalPolicyLink partners played a key role in thelogistics and facilitation of each session.Comprised mostly of residents, participants in theoriginal four sessions were compensated for theirtime and thoughtful input. Each focus groupsession was progressively more assertive aboutthoughtfully responding to information collectedand shared from the previous group. The firstsession included two hours of the team listeningto focus conversants and thirty minutes ofconversation proposing alternative strategicoptions; by the fourth session that ratio had nearlyreversed. A fifth session occurred while the reportwas in final editing, which allowed the projectteam to present the strategic option and receivefeedback from an audience of foundationprogram officers and leadership developmentpractitioners concerned with policy impact. Theirthoughtful comments were invaluable.

Focus conversation in Del Ray, Florida


Principal Interview Participants

Name Organizational Affiliation Title Geographic

Location John Barros Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative Executive Director Boston, MA Vida Benavides Independent Political Consultant San Francisco, CA John Boonstra Washington Association of Churches Executive Minister Seattle, WA Cheryl Casciani Baltimore Community Foundation Director of Programs Baltimore, MD Hedy Chang Haas, Jr. Fund Senior Program Officer San Francisco, CA Genie Chough State of California, Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Sacramento, CA Miguel Contreras Los Angeles County Federation of Labor Executive Secretary-Treasurer Los Angeles, CA Patty Culross Packard Foundation Program Officer Los Altos, CA

Kitty Epstein Independent Leadership Development Facilitator Berkeley, CA

Jim Field Community Renewal Society Program Director Chicago, IL Marguerite George Arizona State University PhD Candidate Tempe, AZ James Gibson Center for the Study of Social Policy Senior Fellow Washington, DC Gregory Hodge California Tomorrow CEO Oakland, CA J.D. Hokoyama Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, Inc. President & CEO Los Angeles, CA Taj James Movement Strategy Center Executive Director Oakland, CA Van Jones Ella Baker Center National Executive Director San Francisco, CA Jael Kampfe Formerly of Four Times Foundation Executive Director Red Lodge, MT Jesse King Daniels Fund Chief Operating Officer Denver, CO Christopher Kui Asian Americans for Equality Executive Director New York, NY Stewart Kwoh Asian Pacific American Legal Center Executive Director Los Angeles, CA Joselito Laudencia Asian Pacific Environmental Network Executive Director Oakland, CA Barbara Lee United States Congress Congresswoman Oakland, CA Lynette Lee East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation Executive Director Oakland, CA Martha Matsuoka University of California at Los Angeles PhD Candidate Los Angeles, CA Craig McGarvey Formerly of James Irvine Foundation Program Director San Francisco, CA Joe McNeely Development Training Center President Baltimore, MD

Richard Murphy Academy for Educational Development Center for Youth Development and Policy Research Vice President & Director Washington, DC

Fabio Naranjo J.D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Program Officer Chicago, IL Jacqueline Novogratz Acumen Fund Chief Executive Officer New York, NY Manuel Pastor UC Santa Clara Latin American & Latino Studies Chair Santa Cruz, CA Arnold Perkins Alameda Public Health Department Director Oakland, CA Jane Pisano Natural History Museum of Los Angeles President & Director Los Angeles, CA David Portillo Denver Foundation Program Officer Denver, CO Chuck Ridley Mad Dads Executive Director Miami, FL Kwesi Rollins Institute for Educational Leadership Project Director Washington, DC Peggy Saika Asian Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy Executive Director San Francisco, CA Rinku Sen ColorLines Magazine Publisher Oakland, CA Juan Sepulveda The Common Enterprise President San Antonio, TX Kathleen Sheekey Advocacy Institute President & CEO Washington, DC Lateefah Simon Center for Young Women's Development Executive Director San Francisco, CA

Donna Stark Annie E. Casey Foundation Director of Leadership Development Baltimore, MD

Makani Themba The Praxis Project Executive Director Washington, DC Anthony Thigpenn AGENDA Executive Director Los Angeles, CA

Tunua Thrash Madison Park Community Development Coorporation

Business Development Organizer Boston, MA

Connie Tucker Southern Organizing Committee for Economic & Social Justice Director Atlanta, GA

Marian Urquilla Columbia Heights/Shaw Family Support Collaborative Director Washington, DC

Landon Williams Tessa Rouverol Callejo

FAITHS Initiative (Joint interview)

Director Associate Director San Francisco, CA

Joseph Youngblood Formerly of Trenton Board of Education Executive Director Trenton, NJ


Focus Conversations

Del Ray Beach Miami

Henry Saldana Latino Leadership Institute, Inc. Modesto Abety Miami-Dade Children's Services Council

Kevin Ballard Community resident Tanya Dawkins Collins Center for Public Policy

Wayne Barton Community resident Garciela Dewar Collins Center for Public Policy

Courtney Cain Community resident Charisse Grant Dade Community Foundation

Evelyn Dobson Community resident Hilary Hoo-You Miami-Dade Health Policy Authority

Freddy Gonzalez Community resident Cordella Ingram Local Initiatives Support Corporation

Tony McCray

Northwest Community Development Corporation, community resident Jocelyn McAdory United Way

Lisa Patterson Village Academy Kathleen Mitchell Collins Center for Public Policy

Klebert Petitfrere Community resident Chuck Ridley Mad Dads

Jose Ramirez Community resident Maria Rodriguez Human Services Coalition Union of the Uninsured

Juana Ramos San Castle Community Leadership, Inc. Kristopher Smith

National Conference for Community & Justice

Sabrina Rich Ingraham Community resident Muriel Wong Lundgren National Institute for Innovative Leadership

Frandy Roserts Community resident James Watson Pyramid Books

Chicago Oakland

Nilofer Ahsan Center for the Study of Social Policy Tammeil Ailkerson The Greenlining Institute

Denise Dixon ACORN Lew Butler Formerly of California Tomorrow

Jim Field Community Renewal Society Kendra Fox-Davis Center for Third World Organizing

Jesus Garcia Little Village CDC Sally Gallegos United Indian Nations Inc.

Sarita Gupta Jobs with Justice Martina Gillis Coalition for Ethical Welfare Reform

Sarah Jane Knoy Organization of the Northeast Michael Harris Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights

Fabio Naranjo J.D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Francisco Herrera Caminante, Inc.

Angelique Orr Target Area Development Council Martha Matsuoka University of California at Los Angeles

Antonio Perez Center for Neighborhood Technology Kim Miyoshi Kids First

Tom Walsh Organization of the Northeast Belinda Reyes Public Policy Institute of California

Patricia Watkins Target Area Development Council Retha Robinson The San Francisco Foundation

Leadership for Policy ChangeStrengthening Communities of ColorThrough Leadership Development

PolicyLink National Office:101 BroadwayOakland, CA 94607Tel: 510/663-2333 Fax: 510/663-9684

Communications Office:1350 Broadway, Suite 1901New York, NY 10018Tel: 212/629-9570 Fax: 212/629-7328

www.policylink.org

Documents

Leadership for Policy Change