INTRODUCTION
Following this completion of our economic analysis in 2019, several foundations joined together to form the Oregon Funders’ Fiscal Health & Equity Circle to learn together about how fiscal and civic issues will impact Oregon communities. The Oregon Funder’ Fiscal Health & Equity Circle (OFFHEC) includes Meyer Memorial Trust, Northwest Health Foundation, North Star Civic Foundation, United Way of the Columbia-Willamette, and the Women’s Foundation of Oregon as learning partners — and more partner discussions are underway.
In July 2019, we launched a “landscape assessment” process to inform both internal and collective decisions about how we engage as funders and thought leaders with Oregon’s complex civic and fiscal crisis.
We interviewed leaders in business, labor, community based organizations, regional economic development organizations, research centers and state, local and tribal governments. We also surveyed political leaders, relevant polls and campaign metrics over the last decade, and national messaging best practices.
Download the landscape assessment PDF.
Top Level Findings
1. Addressing Oregon structural budget deficit at the state and local level is urgent & meaningful work that requires upstream leadership. Although respondents represented a varying levels of engagement in that work, all articulated an interest in deeper engagement and interest in a “new approach”, drawing connections to the wellbeing of the communities they serve or represent. Respondents across a range of geographies and organizations also expressed concern that budget stresses are limiting the potential of our communities and hampering our ability to address emerging challenges and elevate new ideas.
2. A narrow group has been defined as leaders in this space. Community leaders — particularly in rural areas and in communities of color — do not feel heard, invited, or valued. Respondents described a lack of access to the agenda-setting spaces, and acknowledged current capacity constraints — staffing levels, fiscal policy experience, organizational budget — on their abilities to lead in those spaces.
3. We are in a unique moment to advance community leadership and non-partisan solutions. Interviews with individuals and groups outside of state government surfaced clear interest, a sense of urgency, and a call for “a new approach.” Conversely, respondents who are aligned with state-level politics lacked consensus around next steps related to this area of policy, and many expressed a “lack of political will” for significant action. This dynamic points to an opening for emergent leadership, ideas, and solutions to break through.
4. There is a need for targeted support to address technical complexity and confusing systems. Civic and community leaders, research centers, economic development groups, and lawmakers at all levels of government lack capacity to address how state and local budgets relate to each other, or to develop strategies to address the fiscal strains that local governments are navigating today and are projected to experience over the next twenty years. Although some aspects of the structural deficit have been deeply researched, many respondents cited the need for locally relevant and culturally specific data, information, and tools to help visualize and share technical information with a broader audience. Additionally, those most familiar with the management of local governments called for a new research capacity serving local communities and providing analysis across local and state programs.
5. There is a need for messages that de-politicize & de-polarize the issue environment, from defining what problems need solutions to charting strategies for engagement. For many, the structural budget deficit is synonymous with PERS — and that historic frame has led many to view this work as “political,” “contentious,” “loaded,” and “polarized.” We heard a broad assessment that the communities and leaders that want to engage in a new way fear getting politicized in the process. Many respondents reflected new optimism and openness to engagement when provided with a new framework based on full data, including: (1) New research that clarifies the differences between a payment plan for legacy commitments and the costs of current benefits for workers, and (2) The concept of an upstream problem-solving process that explores a mixture of strategies (public policy, civic education, etc.).
6. There is a need for research, messages, leadership and convening that center the voices and experiences of communities of color and of non-metro communities. Rural economic development organizations, rural community leaders, and culturally specific community based organizations do not see their voices, values, and experience clearly represented in the research design or research findings and analysis related to this issue.
7. Civic leaders — across communities, sectors and geographies — should be the primary focus for systems change work and leadership development. Communities of color, rural communities, and low-income communities have little or no representation at decision-making tables, both at the state and local levels. Many interviewees observed that their communities’ values and interests are often not represented or researched. Respondents with strong backgrounds in constituency and voter engagement view direct outreach and education of citizens as a secondary priority because of the technical nature of the challenge. They recommend focusing efforts on supporting civic leaders’ education and engagement as a first step, and then relying on those trusted community-based messengers and conveners to connect to the community at large.
We identified sector-specific trends, positions, and capacities to contribute to problem solving in this space. Please contact caitlin@northstarcivic.org for information about these findings.
Opportunities to Act
Based on this landscape assessment, the Oregon Funders’ Fiscal Health & Equity Circle (OFFHEC) intends to develop a strategic investment initiative to foster the civic knowledge, capacity, and will to address Oregon’s fiscal realities in ways that cultivate trust in civic institutions, build bridges across cultural divides, and lead to equitable solutions supported by data.
Areas for collective investment are revealed by this landscape assessment:
1. To develop shared resources that increase collective capacity, particularly serving rural communities and black, indigenous, and other communities of color. This capacity is needed to address fiscal and civic health, but is also valuable for other civic and community purposes. Collective capacity includes: Shared resources for messaging, data visualization and sharing, community-led (or informed) research, facilitated collaboration, and strategic planning. (These investments may be further leveraged by partnership/collaboration with other collective investment strategies.)
2. To cultivate and support the leadership capacity of specific organizations to allow greater direct involvement in this work over the next 2-5 years. Leadership capacity includes: Direct investment in staff roles that are focused on executing collaborative strategic priorities (deputy director, strategic director); training and best practices sharing; trainings and leadership development relevant to the issue area; “train the trainers” type workshops to prepare leaders to connect with broader communities. (These investments may be further leveraged by partnership/collaboration with other collective investment strategies.)
3. To cultivate belonging and knit together communities across difference. These community programs should address the underlying questions of belonging, community obligations, and racial and generational equity at the heart of the structural budget challenges facing Oregon communities. Examples: Inclusive community conversations designed to build skills and experience connecting across difference; cohort experiences in which diverse participants build skills and leadership together. These programs could have a focus on community fiscal health and problem solving, designed for a general audience.
4. To provide technical skills, training and leadership development for individuals closest to the fiscal management challenges. Example: Public finance trainings for municipal and state lawmakers; best practices skills sharing across jurisdiction teams; tools to develop equity impact analyses of projected program cuts; etc.
5. To fund university research centers focused on connecting state and local economic development goals with racial equity and community impacts.