Engaging Communities for Equitable Economic Recovery

Collaborative governance—or “co-governance”—offers a model for shifting power to ordinary people and rebuilding their trust in government. Co-governance models break down the boundaries between people inside and outside government, allowing community residents and elected officials to work together to design policy and share decision-making power. Cities around the world are experimenting with new forms of co-governance, from New York City’s participatory budgeting process to Paris’s adoption of a permanent citizens’ assembly. More than a one-off transaction or call for public input, successful models of co-governance empower everyday people to participate in the political process in an ongoing way. Co-governance has the potential to revitalize civic engagement, create more responsive and equitable structures for governing, and build channels for Black, brown, rural, and tribal communities to impact policy-making.

Still, co-governance models are not without challenges. The hierarchical and ineffective nature of our current governing structure is difficult to transform. Effective collaboration between communities and politicians requires building lasting relationships that overcome deep distrust in government. So far, effective models of co-governance tend to be local and community-specific—making it critical that we share stories of success and brainstorm ways to scale.

In this series, we share stories of co-governance in practice. For this interview, New America’s Hollie Russon Gilman and Sarah Jacob spoke with Faduma Fido, Marcy Bowers, and Deric Gruen about the community assemblies set to take place in Washington state.

Can you describe the origins of this project and how you built this coalition of partners?

Faduma: The work began in 2021 with an interest in addressing economic and environmental disparities in frontline and low-income communities. Specifically, we wanted to focus on supporting community self-determination, sustaining effective collaborations, and leading with equity. In result, People’s Economy Lab joined forces with Front and Centered and Poverty Action Network to engage directly with communities most impacted by systemic injustices.

We formed a leadership committee of frontline community members to envision and recommend actions for an equitable economic recovery during COVID-19. The goal was to ensure these communities had a genuine voice in the decision-making process.

This effort evolved into developing what we call the “cornerstones of co-governance.” This emphasized centering the well-being of all communities and tasking governments to support community self-determination. Our approach involved a continuous cycle of co-designing and addressing gaps to develop a shared power framework. This framework aims to be inclusive yet targeted in directing investments.

We recognized the need for tools like assemblies as a means to operationalize the cornerstones of collaborative governance. This, along with other tools, has served as a catalyst for good governance. It highlights the importance of building community capacity to lead, participating in decision-making, co-designing policies, and creating equitable practices based on lived experiences.

Deric: As part of the preamble—we’ve collaborated in the past on projects with People’s Economy Lab, Poverty Action Network, and Washington State Budget and Policy Center, focusing on systemic drivers and opportunities to develop a new economy for Washington state. This collaboration, known as the New Economy Washington project, identified key drivers needed for a more transformative agenda in Washington.

From the state’s perspective, there’s an initiative to align the work more closely with community interests. Specifically, there’s a push for a data-driven approach to move beyond traditional economic recovery statistics post-COVID. The goal is to shift towards a community-grounded and evidence-based understanding of economic recovery. This has also been a driving motivation for our work.

Marcy: One significant effort by Poverty Action Network was our involvement in the governor’s poverty reduction workgroup. We facilitated a steering committee comprised of individuals with lived experience of poverty. This committee played a crucial role in providing policy recommendations and guidance.

Our collaboration with state agencies through this workgroup has been both challenging and enlightening. It highlighted the need for a different kind of conversation, one that includes the voices of those directly affected by poverty. One strategy that emerged from this effort was the importance of involving people with lived experience in policy discussions. This idea gained traction and influenced other initiatives.

How did you receive funding for this project?

Marcy: The funding for our project largely came from a partnership with the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), our state’s social services agency. They were instrumental in initiating funding opportunities with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and have been strong partners throughout the project’s development.

Why did you choose to move forward with this specific model of engagement, and what other models did you research?

Marcy: We focused on establishing a community leadership group to determine the project’s scope and needs. Our goal was to identify and research models that align with the key principles and cornerstones identified by this group, rather than exploring every possible civic engagement model globally. Our approach was to build upon existing work, defining clear definitions and cornerstones to guide our research. This helped us focus on models that could effectively address the needs and goals outlined by the Community Leadership group.

Faduma: Initially, we adopted an internal approach, recognizing that our community members brought valuable expertise from their lived experiences. For the first three to four months, we engaged in conversations about how individuals “experienced” the economy. Many were accustomed to thinking of the economy in abstract terms like inflation, employment, and taxes. Our goal was to demystify these concepts, helping people see how they contributed to the economy and identifying the benefits they were missing out on.

We conducted community listening sessions with representatives from various groups, including incarcerated communities, ministerial communities, tribal youth organizations, and farm workers. There was a broad range of perspectives brought in to reflect on how individuals in Washington “experienced” the economy.

Our focus was on addressing the disparities exacerbated by COVID-19 in Washington state. The framework we developed was based on iterative conversations, exploring collaboration at the local level, understanding its successes, and identifying challenges.

Our approach emphasized understanding the lived experiences of individuals. This framework was flexible enough to cater to various communities. We aimed to foster democracy beyond just voting, creating spaces for deliberation and discussion to inform targeted investments.

Instead of solely relying on data, we fostered meaningful engagement and co-creation of policies. One model we studied to operationalize these ideas was assemblies. Our main intent was to engage the community meaningfully and ensure a wide variety of voices. We aimed for meaningful engagement where individuals felt heard, there was follow-through, and folks themselves reflected in policy decisions.

The key question we posed to the community leadership was: How do we define, measure, and build accountability for a just transition through economic recovery? Our funding was annual, allowing the project to evolve and develop as it progressed.

Deric: The concept of a “just transition” stems from the climate and environmental justice movement. This movement has traditionally focused on two main aspects. First, it looks at the outcomes in terms of who is affected by environmental harms or benefits. Second, it emphasizes procedural equity, questioning who gets to make decisions.

How are the community anchors selected?

Faduma: Currently, our focus is on engaging frontline communities. To achieve this, we’re developing a process with specific criteria, with the DSHS handling much of the groundwork due to the involvement of government funding. We aim to work closely with communities that have deep relationships and can identify two or three key issues they want to address through deliberation. This will lead to assembly outputs, such as policy recommendations or programming suggestions.

Our priority is to create an inclusive space. Internally, we’re deepening our expertise in various assembly types and developing a guide to help facilitators (assembly anchors) conduct well-structured and intentional deliberative sessions.

Our goal is to empower communities to lead these deliberative processes effectively. Anchor selection involves a commitment to social justice and a focus on placing people in decision-making roles.

How did you arrive at this partnership with the state government?

Deric: Achieving a legislative appropriation for the work was a result of several factors, primarily collaboration and the longstanding reputation and power-building efforts of our organization (Front and Centered) and Poverty Action Network, as part of state-centered coalitions with influence in our state capitol. Our track record helped build credibility over time.

On the other side, the DSHS played a role by proposing the funding appropriation as an agency request. Although it wasn’t approved in the first year, the groundwork was laid for success this year. Additionally, the formation of an Environmental Justice Council, consisting of both community and agency representatives, was crucial. The law associated with this council required recommendations for fund allocations, adding significant weight to our proposal.

It’s important to understand that these successes are the result of long-term efforts by community-based organizations to build political power. The legislation ultimately reflected a commitment to prioritizing community voices. Bringing all these elements together enabled us to secure the necessary appropriation.

Faduma: We’re fortunate to have some fantastic government partners who have been incredibly supportive. They’ve encouraged us to integrate our community engagement plans into their implementation strategies. The Environmental Justice Council, for instance, sees the value in what we’re doing and voted to incorporate governance language into their internal documents.

Marcy: While we’ve been fortunate to have strong support from state agencies and legislators who sit on the budget committee, there’s still uncertainty about where the sweet spot for policy change will lie. Will we see administrative changes at the agency level, or will legislators increasingly buy into our initiatives and champion them?

It’s likely that the initial momentum will come from agency-level changes. As for the level of legislative involvement, that remains to be seen. Legislators and agencies operate with different perspectives, understandings, and political climates. It’s an intriguing question to consider how these dynamics will evolve over time.

We’ve seen more consistent support from agencies so far than from legislators. While I’m hopeful for greater legislative buy-in, the reality is yet to unfold. This is more of an open question for us at this point, and it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

You’ve been working with diverse communities from various ethnic backgrounds. As you’re also considering creating a general guide for these assemblies, how do you navigate the specific needs of each community while co-creating a larger assembly format that all can adopt?

Faduma: We’re approaching this in two distinct ways. Firstly, Front and Centered is spearheading the creation of a detailed, step-by-step guide tailored for the coalition’s use. This guide draws on our existing knowledge of coalition building and is designed to cater to organizations that may require more structured support and guidance. We’ve included resources and tools like templates and learning guides to help with planning, outreach, community engagement, and selecting educational materials. This hands-on approach positions Front and Centered as a movement partner, offering capacity development and support to these organizations.

Secondly, People’s Economy Lab is developing a more generalized anchor guide aimed at two experienced organizations piloting assemblies at the city level. These organizations already have strong relationships with labor unions and require less coordination but more information on the unique aspects of community assembly.

The depth and effectiveness of each assembly depend on the expertise and engagement of the anchor organization. For instance, if a community has not previously discussed climate resiliency, the anchor might need to incorporate educational elements, perhaps through testimonials or data presentations, to facilitate meaningful discussions.

So, while some guides offer more tailored, hands-on support, others are broader, focusing on the overall process. Ultimately, it’s the anchors that bring their unique knowledge, expertise, and understanding of the community to make each assembly truly distinctive.

What were some of the challenges you faced?

Marcy: One significant challenge was helping community members grasp the potential of our project. In the early stages, many questions revolved around the complexities of applying for government grants. People were used to more straightforward, transactional relationships with state agencies or government partners, often based on receiving services. Transitioning to a collaborative approach with government required building trust and faith in a new way of working together.

A broader challenge we faced was the lack of existing models or blueprints from other states for a project of this scale. We needed to create a blueprint that aligned with our values and principles, identified in partnership with community members. This task required a leap of imagination to envision what a collaborative approach with government could look like.

This is an interactive process, we’re approaching our work as a series of pilots. We’re investing heavily in the initial stages, acknowledging that everything we’re doing is somewhat experimental.

Anything you also want to share that you’d like to let other people know about this process?

Faduma: For us, conducting listening sessions and town halls is nothing new; we have years of experience engaging communities and facilitating these types of conversations. What sets this pilot apart is the broader ecosystem it’s situated in. We aim to leverage existing relationships and trust while also addressing any new tensions that may arise.

A key difference in this initiative is the role of government. It’s not just about providing resources but also committing to act on the outcomes of the assemblies. We’re not making empty promises; there’s a genuine commitment to creating feedback loops and influencing policy development.

Additionally, engaging participants in monthly online meetings wasn’t easy. Coordinating schedules, sending reminders, and troubleshooting technical issues posed their own set of challenges. While some might argue that in-person meetings could have been easier, the online format did offer a level of accessibility. People could join from the comfort of their homes, which might have increased participation for some. We’re continually adapting and learning from these experiences to improve our approach moving forward.

We would like to thank Faduma Fido, Marcy Bowers, and Deric Gruen for their incredibly helpful comments and editing support. Thank you also to Kelley Gardner and Maika Moulite for their communications support. This would not have been possible without them.