Happy Martyr’s Day!

Growing up in northern California, at a small public school nestled among the redwoods, we used to frequently have all school assemblies where we would discuss upcoming issues and topics of note. Some other day I’ll tell you all about this magical three room school house that grew from 50 to 75 students over the nine years I attended.

But, today, I’ll share the story that one teacher used to share with us during all school assemblies just past the days of early February.

St. Valentine was a kind man, he told us.

St. Valentine was a Catholic priest in a time and place that was venomously anti-Catholic. The state had outlawed Catholic marriages on the theory that if a good Catholic isn’t married…he or she cannot reproduce.

But St. Valentine believed in love, so he held private wedding ceremonies, consecrating the love of his brethren in darkened caves, hidden from the eyes of the state. But St. Valentine was discovered. He was caught and imprisoned and told he would answer for his crimes.

St. Valentine was a kind man. All the neighborhood kids loved him and missed him and wanted him to be free. So they wrote little notes of encouragement and dropped them through the bars. And the notes fell down into the pit where St. Valentine was imprisoned – this is where the idea of sending “valentines” came from.

St. Valentine read these notes and he was deeply moved by the love of his community.

Then he was beheaded.

~The end~

Perhaps this story was the inspiration for Game of Thrones. I couldn’t say. And perhaps it’s because I heard this story every year for eight years, but – I always found Valentine’s Day a little weird.

I mean, I’m pretty snarky about love to begin with, but then you add on a dude beheaded for his religious beliefs and…I don’t think I’ll ever figure this day out.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

2014 Public Participation Interview: Lessons from Hollywood

We recently started reading a terrific interview series from the talented team at Collaborative Services on public participation lessons they have learned in the last year, and we wanted to share their insights with the NCDD community. The second interview in the series features the reflections of Corri Planck of West Hollywood’s Social Services Division, who talks about the award-winning engagement project the Division ran in 2013. You can read the interview below, or find the original on Collaborative Services’ blog by clicking here.


Taking the Study to the People:
Successful Public Participation the “WeHo” Way

collaborative services logo There’s no place like home. This is true for the residents of the vibrant and eccentric city of West Hollywood, or “WeHo” as it’s lovingly known. When the City of West Hollywood’s Social Services Division conducted its 2013 Community Study it discovered that 90% of its residents responded that they have a good or excellent quality of life. Can you say the same about the place you live?

West Hollywood is home to the Sunset Strip, Santa Monica Boulevard, and the Avenues Design District. It has a land area of less than two miles. Here you can run errands and get to and from restaurants, bars, shopping and services all without a car. It is one of California’s most walkable cities according to Walkscore.

Its population of around 35,000 is as diverse as its land uses. Its residents are known for being socially minded. They are made up of various cultures, ages, religions and sexual orientations. It is also the second most concentrated Russian-speaking region in the United States.

With a city this compact and diverse, which services are most important? That was the question. The City’s Social Services Division set out to engage, listen to and learn from its residents during its 2013 Community Study to develop recommendations for the allocation of general funds and to update the city’s demographics. The Social Services Division used creative and flexible opportunities for public participation to bring the Study to the people. This type of engagement helped the City of West Hollywood to win one of the two 2013 International Association of Public Participation USA Core Values Awards for Project of the Year.

This week we hear from Corri Planck, the Program Administrator for the City of West Hollywood’s Social Services Division. She shares with us the unique and collaborative approach to public participation that was used with the 2013 Community Study. An approach to public participation that is sure to be part of the city’s legacy.

- — -

What is the Social Services Division’s role at the City of West Hollywood?

The Social Services Division for the City of West Hollywood has a rich and deep history of ensuring service and support for our community members. Though a collaborative funding process, the Social Services Division monitors $4.2 million annually in social services contracts.

In addition, the Division manages a variety of transit programs; develops and coordinates social and educational programming for a diverse range of issues and populations; and responds directly to constituent needs.

What findings were you hoping or expecting to gather from this year’s Community Study?

The purpose of the study was three-fold. We wanted to update our City’s demographics; develop actionable recommendations for the $4.2 million of general fund dollars allocated for social services contracts; and make sure we could continue to best understand West Hollywood and its residents.

What was your outreach approach and how early did you begin generating interest in the Community Study?

This was an exceptionally ambitious project – in its scope, in its commitment to unprecedented community engagement and certainly in its timeline. We began in January, and held our last community event in March. A preliminary summary report was issued in April, with the full, final report published in early August.

Our planning for the Community Study included a thorough outreach and communications strategy that utilized a full range of the City’s resources to get the word out. Our commitment was to consistent, constant communication.

There were the standard flyers, postcards, and posters as well as banners in our two major City parks. We crafted nine news releases on various stages of the process, placed an article in the City newsletter, worked with our Public Information Office to script a special episode of #trending, a magazine style talk show, exclusively dedicated to the Study on WeHo TV. We created a social media presence, and all printed materials were available in English, Russian and Spanish (including the survey itself). We created a special webpage dedicated to the Study that was updated throughout the process, and benefited from the e-mail signatures with the Community Study logo and hyperlink that our City staff members added to their outgoing messages.

We also relied on old-fashioned, face-to-face communication. Our Social Service staff and the City’s Human Service Commissioners visited every City Advisory Board and Commission, some more than once, during this process to keep them informed. We were able to utilize the Neighborhood Watch e-mail lists to engage residents, and did direct outreach to the West Hollywood-serving social service agencies. In addition, staff members generated multiple e-mails and phone calls to invite community members to participate in a number of the opportunities, from focus groups to stakeholder interviews to attending community meetings.

This year’s Community Study attracted a record high number of responses. Is there a single tactic or public participation event that created more interest to have the influx of new survey participants?

Our commitment to consistent and constant communication aided us across the board in increasing the level of participation.

We added pop-up workshops to this year’s process, guided by the idea of taking the public meeting to the people. We “popped up” in multiple locations throughout the City on various days and times.

Participants were able to engage in multiple activities, all designed to solicit their priorities for social services – target populations, service areas and budget priorities. It allowed people to give us their time as they chose – one of the activities could take 10 seconds, and others could engage people for 15-20 minutes. It was a really great way for us to hear from people who might not ever attend a traditional community meeting.

A pop-up workshop booth at the City of West Hollywood City Hall lobby
(Credit: PMCWorld.com)

The last Community Study was conducted in 2006. What are the most notable differences in how the Community Study was carried out between now and then?

The major difference was the addition of the community engagement activities — pop-up workshops — which took the study to the people.

Were you surprised by any of the feedback you gathered?

More than surprising, there were moments in this process that were completely inspiring, and it was absolutely affirming of the City of West Hollywood’s core values.

We found that 88% of residents rated as excellent or good the job the City is doing to provide services, and 90% rated their quality of life as excellent or good.

Last year, nearly 10,000 of our community members utilized a social service – whether it was a home-delivered meal or an HIV test or a shelter at night or an after-school program or any number of other services we provide. That’s nearly one-third of our total population.

The City’s commitment to social services is clearly a source of pride for our community members as well. The provision of social services is part of the City’s legacy and our residents feel a sense of shared ownership in this core value, in this ideal.  An email signature used by City of West Hollywood staff.

How do you plan to share the Study’s findings with the West Hollywood community?

The findings of the Community Study were put to immediate use by the Human Services Commission, our City Council and prospective partner agencies as part of the funding process for our Social Services contracts. The needs that were articulated in the Community Study process were directly addressed in that funding process – resulting in new providers, increased access to mental health services, and additional options for substance abuse services and programs.

We continue to report back to various City advisory boards and commissions, to our City staff and the Study itself has been made available to the public since it was published.

Some of the findings were just so great that we felt we should find additional, creative ways to share the info. We created a series of graphics to utilize via social media and as e-mail signatures.

What changes will you make, if any, to your next outreach campaign?

Because the City has a history of conducting these Community Studies, there are elements that will remain the same over time, primarily to ensure the consistency and validity of the comparisons over time. That said, it’s probably too early to commit to potential changes in outreach, given the speed at which technology and communications is changing. Our primary commitment, however, will remain the same – to secure the highest levels of community engagement possible.

Credit: The City of West Hollywood

What do you think is the most important act a local government can do to foster constructive public dialogue?

To foster engagement on a regular basis — provide information, ask questions, and listen. To ensure that we truly engage with our community and that we strive to do so in real, meaningful and purposeful ways.

- — -

Thank you Corri for sharing your insights with us. Taking the Study to the people is a great way to make it easier for them to get involved.


This interview is part of a blog series from Collaborative Services, Inc. - a public outreach firm in San Diego, California that brings people together from their individual spheres and disciplines to improve communities and help people adapt to an ever-changing world. The firm uses inter-disciplinary efforts to manage and provide services in stakeholder involvement, marketing and communications, and public affairs. The firm’s award-winning services have spanned the western region of the United States from Tacoma, Washington to the Mexico Port of Entry.

We thank Collaborative Services for allowing NCDD to learn along with them, and we encourage our members to visit their blog by clicking here. You can find the original version of the above article at www.collaborativeservicesinc.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/taking-the-study-to-the-people-successful-public-participation-the-weho-way.

what Google Streetview has mapped

When I need to occupy 10% of my brain and not get distracted by emails, I have recently been playing the BBC’s Geoguessr game. It drops you randomly on a stretch of road that has been photographed by Google Streetview, and you have to guess where you are. Here is my current high score (click through to see if you can beat me).

bbc

I started to wonder which roads Google has photographed so far. Certain kinds of scenes kept coming up, whereas vast nations (India, China, Nigeria) are entirely missing. Here is the breakdown based on 100 locations.

Streetview

It’s very much an index of road mileage per country in the nations that have been mapped so far, which, in turn, tend to be the wealthier nations of the world. So Australia has roughly 0.3% of the world’s people but 21% of the Google Streetview mileage. (Those “kangaroo crossing” signs are dead giveaways.)

Very common scenes: stretches of two-lane US or Australian highways going through arid open land; long, straight, traffic-less roads through boreal forest; Brazilian highways with lots of trucks and motorcyclists. Almost all the European roads wind through old villages–I’ve never hit a city or a stretch of wilderness in Europe.

Based on this sample, I’d say our world is a beautiful place. If you’re randomly dropped on a stretch of road that has been photographed by Google, at worst, it will be in somewhat bleak wilderness. And best, you will have a stunning view of ancient stone farmhouses, snow-capped peaks, or palm-fringed seashores.

The post what Google Streetview has mapped appeared first on Peter Levine.

Lessons from the Corporatization of Couchsurfing

For a while, Couchsurfing had an amazing run, connecting travelers with hosts and helping strangers become friends.  Until around 2011, it was a way-crazy gift-economy for hospitality on a global scale, with more than five million members (now seven million) in 90,000+ cities.  Who would have thought that a loose non-market community could ever get so big while retaining its ideals and ethical stance?

Alas, Couchsurfing’s popularity created some new problems of its own, and the site was plagued by some dubious management decisions, technical challenges, and the lack of funds.  At Medium.com, Roy Marvelous explains what happened in 2011:

Basically, Couchsurfing owed tax money (its tax-exempt status as a non-profit was not approved), it needed far more investment in servers and it needed to hire more engineers to reprogram the site to make it scalable. And apparently, the only viable solution was to become a for-profit, sell a portion to venture capitalists and have it run by professionals.

The problems were real but I’ll be blunt: Couchsurfing was stolen from its members. This was code, content & community built by the members, for the members. None of those volunteers, working for free under the false pretense that Couchsurfing would stay non-profit, received any equity in this new corporation. Why couldn’t there have been another way? I would have donated money. I would have been happy with advertising. They could have moved Couchsurfing HQ to Berlin or Chang Mai or Santiago rather than be based in San Francisco, one of the most expensive cities in the world.

The moment Couchsurfing was sold, it stopped becoming a community and started becoming a service, not unlike Yelp or Meetup or Facebook. And herein lies the problem: Couchsurfing now has an identity-crisis.

After the Internal Revenue Service refused to grant Couchsurfing tax-exempt nonprofit status – formally known as “501(c)(3)” status under the tax code – Couchsurfing decided to become a “Certified B Company,” or “for-benefit” corporation.  As Marvelous points out, this was apparently the only way to move forward.  (But is this true?)  By 2012, Couchsurfing had raised more than $22 million in venture capital money and it was on its way to becoming another profit-oriented corporation in the “sharing economy.”  (The so-called sharing economy, it should be noted, is less about sharing than about micro-rentals of things that previously could not be marketized.)

read more

Flux Continuum

I spent some time today talking about political affiliations – and how complex they can be.

No one is as simple as a “left” or a “right.” But do more axes more accurately describe a person?

The Political Compass aims to address the “overly simplistic” one-dimensional model by adding another axis – a spectrum of authoritarian to libertarian. It’s a fun quiz, and the results are interesting. Go ahead and check it out.

While this quiz is great and the model is helpful, it somehow feels…insufficient. Four boxes are better than two, but it still doesn’t change the fact that at the end of the day you’re getting put in a box.

And maybe that’s unavoidable to some extent. You really can’t talk about groups of people or about changes and trends without putting people in boxes. But these static boxes support – or may lead to – polarization. It can be a helpful heuristic, no doubt. But is boxing people really the optimal solution?

Even a complex system – with say, 16 boxes instead of 2 – just puts people in neater, more well-defined boxes.No one puts Shugars in a corner, and I don’t really like the idea of being in a box either. My opinions and politics are subtle, varied, complex, and changing.I wonder if we could come up with continua that accounted not only for different aspects of politics – whether you’re authoritarian or libertarian, individualistic or collective – but accounted for shifts in those opinions.What situations make you act selfishly? Which make you act selflessly? What personal flaws do you have that you wish you could overcome? I have my ideals, but I also have my realities, and both make me the person that I am. If we could capture these complex, changing, subjective views…well, it might be too complicated to be practical, but it should would be interesting.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

the Common Core and civic education

The Common Core is a powerful reform movement in education. State standards are regulatory documents that prescribe the expected outcomes, the content, and (to some extent) the pedagogy used in our public schools. The forty-five states that have adopted the Common Core are revising their standards for mathematics and English/language arts with the goal of making them more coherent, more demanding, and more similar across the states.

Since the Common Core is about math and English, not other subjects, I and many colleagues have written a voluntary framework for states to revise their social studies standards, the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework. But some thoughtful and well-informed people believe that the Common Core itself provides sufficient impetus for strengthening the social studies. I have heard that argument made by the social studies coordinator of a very large urban school system, the lobbyist for the main teacher’s union in a major state, and others. They point to valuable provisions in the Common Core’s English/language arts standards. For example:

  • The Common Core includes standards for speaking and listening that encourage deliberation, which is a fundamental democratic skill. “CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.11-12.1b Work with peers to promote civil, democratic discussions and decision-making, set clear goals and deadlines, and establish individual roles as needed.”
  • The Common Core is not a curriculum, and it does not prescribe content, but it frequently uses classic civics texts as illustrative examples. “CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.4 Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including analyzing how an author uses and refines the meaning of a key term over the course of a text (e.g., how Madison defines faction in Federalist No. 10).”
  • Again, although the Common Core generally avoids mentioning specific texts and assignments, it gives explicit attention to “seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses)” and to “seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century foundational U.S. documents of historical and literary significance (including The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address) for their themes, purposes, and rhetorical features.”
  • It has been typical to teach reading through fiction alone at the primary grades, but the Common Core requires experience with nonfiction texts all the way from k-12. By high school, it explicitly requires reading civics texts. “CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.9 Analyze seminal U.S. documents of historical and literary significance (e.g., Washington’s Farewell Address, the Gettysburg Address, Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech, King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’), including how they address related themes and concepts.”

I believe that these provisions and others in the Common Core are valuable, and I appreciate what groups like Street Law Inc., have done to demonstrate how good civics teaching aligns with the Common Core standards. But I do not agree that adopting the Common Core will suffice to strengthen civics. It may even cause unintended harm if social studies teachers are enlisted to teach the Common Core’s vision of literacy while the separate goals of the social studies are forgotten.

These are my main concerns:

1. The Common Core reflects a remarkable focus on the formal analysis and “close reading” of excellent texts. In literary theory, this approach would be classified as “New Criticism.” I don’t particularly object to it for high school-level English. I actually prefer close reading to the book-club style, in which one mainly reacts to situations and characters in books as analogs to one’s own life. However, close reading will not achieve the purposes of history and civics.

For example, the Common Core standard quoted above that mentions the Federalist Papers comes under the heading of “Craft and Structure.” The main goal is to understand how Madison constructs an argument and uses phrases like “faction” in Federalist 10, treated as an example of excellent prose. Indeed, Federalist 10 would be a good text to assign in an English class to teach argumentative writing. But it was written for a purpose (to convince readers to support the Constitution), by a person who held specific roles (an author of the Constitution, a future president), to a particular audience (prospective voters in New York State), at a particular time (after the Revolution and the degeneration of the Articles of Confederation), in a broader intellectual and political context (the Enlightenment, the age of European empire). These are not matters that one can explain with a footnote to help the reader with formal analysis. Each of these topics requires days or weeks of study. We do not study them in order to analyze Federalist 10 as text. We study them for their own sake and because they help us to understand our current political institutions.

An American student might learn about Queen Elizabeth I to explicate a Shakespeare play. But she should study the American Revolution because of its intrinsic importance and its current implications. The textual analysis of documents from the founding period is of secondary importance in a history, civics, or government course. The text helps us to understand politics and history, not the other way around.

2. All Most of the texts mentioned as examples in the Common Core are “seminal” or foundational, and the list in CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.11-12.9 explicitly ends with the nineteenth-century. I yield to no one in my respect for history, but students must also understand that history continues; they play a role in it. The curriculum should not stop at 1900 or even at 2010. Students must learn to read, analyze, evaluate, and criticize speeches by Obama and Romney (and Putin and Snowden) as well as Washington and Lincoln.

3. I am enthusiastic about the deliberative standards in the Common Core’s “Speaking and Listening” sections. In fact, if those standards really influence instruction, I might accept the Common Core as a net benefit for civics. But much will depend on assessment. Right now, private firms are developing tests aligned with the Common Core for consortia of states. I am completely outside that process, but rumors hold that the tests will use conventional formats, except that they will be taken on computers instead of on paper. Choosing multiple-choice responses–or writing short or even long essays completely on one’s own–is no way to demonstrate this kind of skill from the Common Core: “Work with peers to promote civil, democratic discussions and decision-making, set clear goals and deadlines, and establish individual roles as needed.” That requires interaction with actual other people.

I fear that even though the standards evoke the idea of civil and constructive interaction, the tests that really count will not measure it. That would be acceptable if social studies teachers could still assign deliberations, service projects, mock trials, and other interactive experiences in their own classrooms while English teachers taught the Common Core. But resources are flowing to math and English, and social studies teachers are already saying that they must follow the Common Core in their courses. Once the tests are ready, they will have to prepare students to pass Common Core assessments. The net result could easily be harmful for civics.

The post the Common Core and civic education appeared first on Peter Levine.

Registration open for Special NCDD Confab on Everyday Democracy’s Approach to Change

We’ve got a special treat in store for you for next month’s NCDD Confab.  On Wednesday, March 26 from 2:00 to 3:00 Eastern (11-noon Pacific), we’ll spend time with the staff of one of NCDD’s founding members, Everyday Democracy. We’ll explore what Everyday Democracy has learned over the years, through their close work with community partners, about how to create dialogue and change.

Everyday Democracy, led by my good friend Martha McCoy, is one of the most respected organizations in our field — though in my opinion they’re pretty low key and humble about their expertise. This is a wonderful opportunity for NCDD members to learn more about Everyday Democracy’s innovative work in hundreds of communities across the country (I’m sure you’ve heard of the “study circles” approach they’ve pioneered), and take a look at tools and features on their new website that are designed to provide change makers with resources for creating change in their own communities.

Malik Russell, Communications Director, and Carolyne Abdullah, Director of Community Assistance, will be presenting in the webinar.

Confab bubble image

More about Everyday Democracy…

Everyday Democracy helps communities build their own capacity for inclusive dialogue and positive change. Everyday Democracy’s ultimate aim is to create a national civic infrastructure that supports and values everyone’s voice and participation.

Because structural racism and other structural inequities affect communities everywhere, Everyday Democracy helps community groups use an “equity lens” in every phase of dialogue and change – coalition building, messaging, recruitment, issue framing, facilitation, and linking the results of their dialogues to action and change. They provide advice, training and flexible how-to resources on a wide range of issues – including poverty, racial equity, education, building strong neighborhoods, community-police relations, violence, early childhood, and community planning.

Glance at the EvDem/Study Circles tag in the NCDD Resource Center to get a sense of the breadth and depth of work these folks do!

Register today at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3303617182457564161. All NCDD members and potential members are welcome to attend!

Piece by Piece

“The first step,” someone said to me today, “is to not hyperventilate.”

That seems like generally a good place to start.

But it’s not always an easy place to start. Projects seem so monumental. Objectives so overwhelming, that it’s easy to go straight to panic mode when faced with the monumental.

In most of my work, this is challenge is relatively easy to overcome. Experience has taught me the guideposts and given me capacity to prepare for multiple contingencies.

Right now, for example, I am chairing the event committee for The Welcome Projects’ YUM: A Taste of Immigrant City event (save the date: April 10!). This is a relatively large fundraiser, with lots of people involved and lots of moving parts. But since this is my third year chairing, and since I’ve planned other events, I know more or less what to expect. There’s a lot of work involved, sure, but overall it’s not too stressful. I can take it piece by piece, working with a great team to put it all together.

And this type of strategy is also applied to community organizing.

You don’t start just trying to change the big thing on day one. You start with a little thing. A tangible project. You talk to people, get others involved, and grow your movement. You celebrate every victory. And you slowly chip away at your larger goal. Change takes time.

That’s all well and good, but the challenge is making sure your little victories really do culminate in the big change you are looking for.

Shifting culture is not the same as planning an event. You can gain experience from organizing and learn important lessons from historic progress, but there’s no 1-year checklist that you complete in order to meet your goal. There’s not event a 10 year checklist.

Our communities and our cultures are constantly changing. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. And you need to focus on that big picture to ensure social change efforts are on the right track.

But don’t hyperventilate. Just take it piece by piece.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Earning Trust in Public Institutions

DavenportInst-logo

We recently read an interesting post on the inCommon blog run by our partners at the Davenport Institute – an NCDD organizational member – about trust’s relationship to engagement. You can read the post below or find the original here, and we also recommend you take a look at the study on trust the post refers to.

The Rand Europe Spotlight on 2013 is a bit broad, but the theme, “Building Trust in Policymaking,” is certainly relevant to civic engagement:

The relationship between citizens and public bodies relies on trust: we trust them to make good decisions on our behalf and implement them well. But public faith has been severely shaken in recent years. A global barometer of trust in institutions found that only 48 percent of people trust governments to do what is right, and that only 16 percent trust them a great deal…

The projects featured this year highlight three different ways in which policymakers can gain trust:

  • Working across boundaries to anticipate new strategic challenges.
  • Using robust methodologies to ensure that policy is grounded in sound evidence.
  • Providing effective, adaptive local delivery. (3)

Two sections are especially relevant to public servants in local government. One is “Grounding Policy in Evidence”:

Tight budgets, rising expectations and greater focus on accountability all add to the pressure on policymakers to show that their decisions are informed by sound evidence – whilst also addressing local needs, values and agendas.

But what constitutes evidence? While the tide of information increases daily, public [skepticism] of official figures is also high. Timeliness, relevance and data integrity are essential to build trust and refute the old charge of: ‘Lies, damned lies and statistics.’ (15)

The other is “Earning Trust at Delivery”:

At an individual or community level, all policy is personal. Whether policies are delivered directly by central government or local authorities, or through private or third-sector providers, good relationships are essential. Trust is created by getting the details right for successful local implementation. (23)

You can download the e-book at the Rand website here.

You can find the original version of this post at www.publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/davenport-institute/incommon/index.php/2014/02/europe-spotlight-trust.

We are the Ones on WPFW

WPFW 89.3 FM (Pacifica Radio in Washington, DC and environs) has chosen “We are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For” as the theme of their pledge drive this year. People who pledge $50 to the station this morning get a free copy of my book by the same name (and the station keeps the whole $50). Here is the audio of me on WPFW’s “Community Watch & Comment,” discussing the book. My segment starts halfway through, at about the 33:34 minute mark.

The special offer from WPFW will not last long, but I encourage DC-area folks to support the station.

The post We are the Ones on WPFW appeared first on Peter Levine.