Creating an Environment for Healthy Lifestyles in Brownsville

This four-page case study (2014) from The Intersector Project outlines how the University of Texas School of Public Health used cross-sector collaboration with local clinicians and the City Health Department to create opportunities for healthier lifestyles in Brownsville, Texas.

From the Intersector Project

In 2001, the University of Texas School of Public Health (UTSPH) Brownsville campus began clinical research to identify and quantify what health risks existed in Brownsville. They found 80 percent of residents were either obese or overweight, one in three were diabetic (50 percent unknowingly), and 70 percent of residents had no healthcare coverage. After initiating a community media campaign called Tu Salud Si Cuenta, UTSPH formed a Community Advisory Board (CAB) in order to speak about the findings and promote change in the Brownsville community. They involved local clinicians, including Dr. Rose Zavaletta Gowen, an Obstetrician Gynecologist, to inform clinicians and encourage them to get involved. After agreeing actions needed to be taken, a team of UTSPH, the City Health Department, a local community health clinic Su Clinica, and Rose organized and designed a farmers’ market, with the goal of making fresh fruits and vegetables accessible and affordable to every income level in the city. The Brownsville Farmers’ Market opened in 2006 followed by an integrated network of initiatives including The Challenge, an annual weight loss event; CycloBia, an open streets program; policy changes including Sidewalk ordinance, Safe Passing ordinance, Complete Streets Resolution, and Smoking ban ordinance; and a Master Bike and Hike Plan aimed at providing a trail within one half mile of every residence in the city. The CAB, which today includes over 200 members, is actively involved in all of these programs in a variety of capacities to promote a healthier Brownsville.

IP_Brownsville“For cross-sector collaboration you might need to talk in terms that you’re not necessarily familiar with, but you have to do your research in order to find those connections to other areas and harness those partners. That is how we were able to make our projects work with very little funding and no line item in the city budget for what we were doing.”— Dr. Rose Zavaletta Gowen, Brownsville City Commissioner

This case study, authored by The Intersector Project, tells the story of this initiative.

More about The Intersector ProjectThe Intersector Project
The Intersector Project is a New York-based 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that seeks to empower practitioners in the government, business, and non-profit sectors to collaborate to solve problems that cannot be solved by one sector alone. We provide free, publicly available resources for practitioners from every sector to implement collaborative solutions to complex problems. We take forward several years of research in collaborative governance done at the Center for Business and Government at Harvard’s Kennedy School and expand on that research to create practical, accessible resources for practitioners.

Follow on Twitter: @theintersector.

Resource Link: http://intersector.com/case/health_brownsville/ (Download the case study PDF here.)

This resource was submitted by Neil Britto, the Executive Director at The Intersector Project via the Add-a-Resource form.

The Politics of Public Restrooms

There’s something deeply political about public restrooms.

First, as the name implies, these spaces are public. Private, perhaps, once inside, the public restroom is inherently part of the public sphere.

Truly, they are shared spaces.

At some point I will post a treatise praising co-created wall art in public restrooms – commonly referred to as graffiti – but today I’d actually like to take the conversation in a different direction.

As my mother recently informed me, the first public women’s restroom in Britain were opened in 1909 as part of the revolutionary Selfridges department store in London.

To get a sense of that in time, let’s back up to get a broader history of public restrooms in Western culture.

As it turns out, the bodily functions which inspire restrooms have been an element of human nature for quite some time. The Romans, who pioneered architectural innovations such as aqueducts and roads, are often credited with the public restroom as well – a feature that could be found in many Roman baths.

But the modern public toilet revolution really began in the early 19th century. Paris had public restrooms as early as 1820. London installed it’s first flushing public toilet in 1852.

That’s right – London had public toilets by 1852, but the first restroom allowing women wasn’t opened until 1909.

As my mother put it, “Before that, if a woman had to use the restroom – she would just go home.”

I’m not sure that’s entirely accurately – that is, I’m not sure how much women were wandering around town before then. Also, in 1852 I imagine it would be challenging for a woman to go to the bathroom by themselves – due to the layers and complexity of a Victorian woman’s clothing.

By 1909 women’s fashion was changing, public attitudes towards women were changing, and a young entrepreneur named Harry Gordon Selfridge introduced a new department store concept. One that included “entertainment, restaurants and services. Customers were invited to spend the day inside at their leisure and buy at their pleasure.”

And those shopping women clearly needed somewhere to pee.

Fast forward another 100 years and we finally have gender parity in restroom availability.

But not really.

We have men’s rooms and we have women’s rooms.

And anyone who doesn’t identify with one of those categories – or who identifies with a category other than what strangers judge them to be – has a serious problem.

For example, a proposed bill in Florida would prevent transgender Floridians from using the restroom of their choice.

And the brilliant hashtag #IJustNeedToPee details the struggles people in the trans community face every day as they are shunned from public restrooms.

Like the women of 1850, if the need to use the restroom – they just have to go home, I suppose.

So public restrooms say a lot about us as a culture – how we define gender, how we expect identified genders to act. Not to mention how we feel about race and cross-cultural interaction.

It seems like such a small thing, so simple, so innocuous – but nothing says you’re not welcome to stay like the lack of a restroom you are welcomed to use.

So lets make public restrooms truly accessible to all members of the public – of all genders, gender identities, and physical abilities.

Let’s have the public in public restroom truly mean its for everyone – not just some segment of the population deemed worthy for such a throne.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

The Politics of Public Restrooms

There’s something deeply political about public restrooms.

First, as the name implies, these spaces are public. Private, perhaps, once inside, the public restroom is inherently part of the public sphere.

Truly, they are shared spaces.

At some point I will post a treatise praising co-created wall art in public restrooms – commonly referred to as graffiti – but today I’d actually like to take the conversation in a different direction.

As my mother recently informed me, the first public women’s restroom in Britain were opened in 1909 as part of the revolutionary Selfridges department store in London.

To get a sense of that in time, let’s back up to get a broader history of public restrooms in Western culture.

As it turns out, the bodily functions which inspire restrooms have been an element of human nature for quite some time. The Romans, who pioneered architectural innovations such as aqueducts and roads, are often credited with the public restroom as well – a feature that could be found in many Roman baths.

But the modern public toilet revolution really began in the early 19th century. Paris had public restrooms as early as 1820. London installed it’s first flushing public toilet in 1852.

That’s right – London had public toilets by 1852, but the first restroom allowing women wasn’t opened until 1909.

As my mother put it, “Before that, if a woman had to use the restroom – she would just go home.”

I’m not sure that’s entirely accurately – that is, I’m not sure how much women were wandering around town before then. Also, in 1852 I imagine it would be challenging for a woman to go to the bathroom by themselves – due to the layers and complexity of a Victorian woman’s clothing.

By 1909 women’s fashion was changing, public attitudes towards women were changing, and a young entrepreneur named Harry Gordon Selfridge introduced a new department store concept. One that included “entertainment, restaurants and services. Customers were invited to spend the day inside at their leisure and buy at their pleasure.”

And those shopping women clearly needed somewhere to pee.

Fast forward another 100 years and we finally have gender parity in restroom availability.

But not really.

We have men’s rooms and we have women’s rooms.

And anyone who doesn’t identify with one of those categories – or who identifies with a category other than what strangers judge them to be – has a serious problem.

For example, a proposed bill in Florida would prevent transgender Floridians from using the restroom of their choice.

And the brilliant hashtag #IJustNeedToPee details the struggles people in the trans community face every day as they are shunned from public restrooms.

Like the women of 1850, if the need to use the restroom – they just have to go home, I suppose.

So public restrooms say a lot about us as a culture – how we define gender, how we expect identified genders to act. Not to mention how we feel about race and cross-cultural interaction.

It seems like such a small thing, so simple, so innocuous – but nothing says you’re not welcome to stay like the lack of a restroom you are welcomed to use.

So lets make public restrooms truly accessible to all members of the public – of all genders, gender identities, and physical abilities.

Let’s have the public in public restroom truly mean its for everyone – not just some segment of the population deemed worthy for such a throne.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Discovering Justice and civics for young children

Screen Shot 2015-04-02 at 11.33.00 AM The Annual Benefit dinner for Discovering Justice is this evening, and I’d like to take the opportunity to highlight the organization, on whose board I serve. It is the most significant and effective group in the US that supports the civic education of younger children, grades k-8.

Relatively little is known about the lasting effects of civics at the lower grades–or even about what works best. Certainly, “civics” for younger children overlaps with character education, interpersonal skills, and personal behavior. It’s not all about laws, systems, and social issues. Discovering Justice takes a holistic approach. Still, even if we define “civics” narrowly, it is an appropriate topic for elementary students. The C3 (College, Career, and Citizenship) Framework identifies fairly specific civics content for grades k-2, shown at the right.

Kids are definitely able to learn these things. I cannot demonstrate that if they do, it will make a difference once they’re 30–especially if they get no reinforcement in between. But I’d be willing to bet that teaching these topics in elementary school is one component of an effective civic education. And the only way to find out is to develop, refine, improve, and test k-8 civics, which is the role that Discovering Justice has taken on.

The post Discovering Justice and civics for young children appeared first on Peter Levine.

Registration open for April 23rd Confab with Pete Peterson

Join us on Thursday, April 23rd for NCDD’s next “Confab Call.” We’ll be talking with NCDD Member Pete Peterson about lessons learned from running for office on a “civic engagement” platform. The confab will take place from 1-2pm Eastern (10-11am Pacific).  Register today to secure your spot!

PetePetersonPete Peterson is the Executive Director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy in Malibu, California. In 2014, after earning one of the “top two” slots in the primary, Pete became the Republican candidate for California Secretary of State, running on a platform of increasing informed civic participation and using technology to make government more responsive and transparent. Throughout the campaign, he highlighted many of his experiences at the Davenport Institute as unique qualifications for this statewide office.

Although he finished second in November’s general election, he managed to earn more votes (3.2 million) than any other Republican in California for the 2014 cycle, and along the way, earned the endorsement of nine of the ten largest newspapers in the state.

In their endorsement of Pete, the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board noted that Peterson “possesses an almost evangelical passion for public participation, which is exactly what the office needs.” The government/technology website, techpresident.com, named Pete, “the most tech savvy candidate running for statewide office this year.”

In this confab, Pete will talk about what it was like to run for statewide office on a platform he described as becoming California’s first “Chief Engagement Officer” and what promise and challenges the civic participation field faces when translated into a political context.

NCDD’s Confab Calls are opportunities for members (and potential members) of NCDD to talk with and hear from innovators in our field about the work they’re doing, and to connect with fellow members around shared interests. Membership in NCDD is encouraged but not required for participation. Register today if you’d like to join us.

Activity to Explore the Impact of Skin Color

ED_Activity_Skin ColorEveryday Democracy released this activity to show how participants’ may have different experiences based on their skin color. The goal is to prompt thinking about the different experiences because of skin color and provide an opportunity for dialogue. Part One is a true/false skin color survey and Part Two is a dialogue prompt about privilege.

From the intro…

This activity is meant to help us go deeper in our discussion about race. It may make some people uncomfortable and some may think this is contrived. Remember, one of the goals is to put the issues some people in our community are thinking about on the table. After the activity, we will discuss your reactions, thoughts on the issue, and how it impacts our community.

More about Everyday Democracy Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools.

We have learned that some of the key components to ensuring racially-equitable systemic change include building relationships, establishing a diverse coalition, having trained peer facilitators during dialogues, building on assets, and linking actions to individual, community, and policy change. We provide online tools and in-person trainings on organizing, racial equity, facilitation, communications, and action planning. We act as a catalyst and coach for communities, knowing that the people of each community are best suited to carry out and sustain the work that will make a difference.

The communities we serve are the focal point of our work. Our ultimate aim is to help create communities that value everyone’s voice and work for everyone, and to help create a strong national democracy that upholds these principles.

Follow on Twitter @EvDem.

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/resources/activity-explore-impact-skin-color (Available for download)

Should the Public Rate & Review Engagement Projects?

We recently saw a post on NCDD organizational member the Davenport Institute‘s Gov 2.0 Watch blog featuring a piece penned by Matt Leighninger – a long-time NCDD supporting member. Matt’s article asks the question “What would happen if the public could rate and review public engagement projects like it can restaurants and stores?” We encourage you to check out the article below or find the original Davenport post here.


DavenportInst-logoA Yelp for Public Engagement?

Over at Tech President, Matt Leighninger discusses why just having public engagement options available isn’t enough – we also need a way for people to give feedback about how these processes are working.

What if your residents could “Yelp” your latest engagement process?  How would it rate?

Unfortunately, we have trouble separating productive from ineffective opportunities for civic engagement, in part because of the way we try to measure it. We focus almost entirely on assessing the impacts of discrete projects and tools, when we should also be giving citizens the chance to evaluate their civic environments. People now have the power to rate all kinds of products and services: if they had similar opportunities to rate their opportunities to participate in public life, democracy would improve.

You can read more here.

Lessons from Trayvon Martin

Last night I had the honor of hearing from Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton – perhaps better recognized as the parents of Trayvon Martin.

It’s been three years, one month, and two days since their son’s death.

They are powerful advocates, determined to make something good come from their tragedy. “I needed to do more than cry,” Fulton explained.

They spoke about gun violence, about how no parent should loose a child, and importantly – they spoke about race.

At first, Fulton said, she wanted to believe the media reports. She wanted to believe her son was targeted primarily because of his hoodie.

She wanted to believe it was the hoodie because she didn’t want to believe it was the color of his skin.

“I didn’t want to believe our country hadn’t come far enough,” she said. “I cannot take off the color of my skin.”

“We thought we had done everything in our power to raise our sons to be good, upstanding citizens,” Martin added.

And they had.

But it didn’t matter. As Fulton described:

“I didn’t want to believe my son was dead, deceased – murdered – because of the color of his skin. Something he couldn’t change. It didn’t matter what I taught Trayvon.”

“It’s not about me or how I carry myself,” she added, “it’s about someone else perception.”

That’s what it really means to be powerless.

And as if that wasn’t enough, I was really struck by something Tracy Martin said:

“People say the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree. So if we appeared to be destructive, people would say, ‘that’s why Trayvon was killed.'”

I’d been surprised by Fulton and Martin’s calm, somber tone. People act and react in all sort of ways, but somehow I’d expected them to have more fire.

I thought of the advocates who emerged from Sandy Hook and Columbine. Grieving parents who’d been irrevocably radicalized by the terrible loss of their children. Advocates who’d willingly shout down Senators, who would fight anyone in their way, and do whatever it takes to prevent another parent from experiencing what they had experienced.

Fulton and Martin were passionate…but somehow subdued.

And suddenly it all made sense.

Not only had they been robbed of any agency in determining the fate of their son, not only had they realized that there was nothing they could have done – the context of race also determined how they had to respond.

It’s no coincidence that the advocates who emerged from Sandy Hook and Columbine were white. They were people of privilege who enjoyed the freedom to express themselves genuinely.

Not everyone has that luxury.

As one student of color put it during the question and answer discussion, “there is so much suffering and so many people who are privileged to be immune to that suffering.”

And that’s what makes systemic racism so insidious, so intractable.

It’s not enough that a young, black man was murdered in the street. Systems of justice and public opinion all conspire to ensure the continued oppression of black America.

And perhaps that is why white allies – or whatever term you prefer – are so important. Some of us do have the privilege to speak out, have the power to confront power. We should be careful not to steal the stage – not to use that power to keep ourselves the center of attention.

But we can speak up when others can’t. We can create space for those forced to the sidelines.

Sybrina Fulton said she didn’t want to believe our country hadn’t come far enough. She didn’t want to believe that we lived in a place where a person could be killed because of the color of his skin.

She didn’t want to believe that.

No one wants to believe that. It’s too much, too terrible, to believe.

But we have to learn to believe – and we have to work together to change it.

After all, as Fulton said:

“We have American citizens who are afraid to walk down the street. That’s a problem. I shouldn’t have to go through life afraid.”

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Benkler on the Uber-ification of Services

Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler gave attendees at the World Economic Forum in Davos a dire warning about future instability if the “Uber-ification of all services” continues.  In his intense six-minute talk, “Challenges of the Sharing Economy,” Benkler notes how open networks and collaborative production models have led to the “destabilization of the firm," and ultimately threaten to bring about “the potential reorganization of the entire services sector.”

In light of this epochal shift, he declares, the critical question is: “Will [this shift] allow embedding economic production in the same kind of social solidarity trust models that we saw with the emergence of Wikipedia? Or will the externalization of risk onto the people formerly known as employees create severe disruption?” 

The big challenge today, he argued, is that the social and the political have diverged, as demonstrated by the Occupy movement. And this leads to worrisome social pressures that the political system is disinclined to address.

I realize that Benkler must have been under a strict time limit -- he was talking quite rapidly for this talk -- but it sure would be nice to hear his proposed solutions for re-integrating the social and the political in functional ways, and how he proposes moving that agenda forward.  But at least the Davos crowd was alerted to this fundamental political challenge. Whether they will deign to recognize the issue and move beyond their adulation for the Uber, Airbnb and other lucrative forms of network monopoly is another matter.

read more

Democracy In Practice: Democratic Student Government Program in Cochabamba, Bolivia

Author: 
This case collectively examines the three pilot projects of Democracy In Practice’s student government program which ran February through November of 2014 in three schools in the Cochabamba area of Bolivia. This program involved replacing student elections with lotteries in which government members were randomly-selected to serve a given term...