Www.givingforum.org



To:Census Field Group Meeting Attendees From:Freedman Consulting, LLC Date:December 2016Re: Recap of October 17 Census Field Planning Meeting This document provides a summary of the October, 17 Census Field Planning Meeting at the Bauman Foundation—a convening of stakeholders involved in carrying out the field operations related to census policy work. Please send any corrections or additions to Luke Freedman (luke@). The memo is organized as follows, reflecting the structure of the meeting:Introduction and OverviewTop Census Policy IssuesOverview of the Plan for Field ActionBuilding Tactical Responses from State CoalitionsBrainstorming Ideas for Engaging Groups in Non-Target StatesMoving Forward: Areas of Agreement and Next Steps Final CommentsAppendix: List of participants and agenda from the meetingI. Introduction and Overview Gary Bass of the Bauman Foundation and Ethan Frey of the Ford Foundation welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Democracy Funders Census Subgroup has developed a Plan of Action for ensuring a fair and accurate census count in 2020. The plan is divided into three major portions: policy work, funder and partner outreach and engagement, and Get Out the Count efforts. Current efforts focus on the policy aspect of the work and making sure there is adequate federal funding and smart policy around the census. The plan proposes funding state-based census projects in four states (California, New York, North Carolina, Ohio) and overall field, organizing, and communications work in other states as well. To guide this policy work, the group has developed a draft Policy Framework document that is divided into three phases: message and material development, engaging allies and outreach, and policy advocacy. Gary Bass ran through key elements of the Policy Framework and noted that much of the day’s discussion will flow from the Policy Framework. Based on the conversation, Gary noted that the Policy Framework would be updated and finalized.II. Top Census Policy IssuesThe morning session focused on an overview of the key census policy activities and issues that will lay the groundwork for the advocacy work. Census and American Community Survey (ACS) Public Opinion ResearchPhil Sparks of the Census Project described public opinion research, funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, that will help guide messaging strategies. The research is being conducted by Lake Research Partners.Focus groups of African American likely voters and white likely voters were conducted in Richmond, VA on September 7, and a focus group of Latino likely voters was held on September 12 in Philadelphia. This will provide information for developing a survey of likely voters (with oversampling of African Americans and Latinos) after the November election.The findings from this research will not be released to the news media. Instead, the findings are intended to help those who are working on census issues better prepare for talking about the subject.Key findings from the focus groups include:“It’s in the Constitution” was an effective messaging strategy, but no message is a complete home run. However, few know that the census is required by the U.S. Constitution.African Americans and Latinos were more persuaded when the census was connected to the broader importance of fair representation and allocation of resources, particularly for schools.Latino voters were also very worried about the prospect of a Trump presidency and indicated that they would be worried that by filling out the form the administration could use the data against them. It makes sense to talk about the ACS and the census together. No one in the white or African American group had heard of the ACS, and very few in the Latino knew about the ACS.Discussing “undercount” “overcounts” creates confusion.Some participants thought it would be valuable to also oversample the Asian American Pacific Islander population for the survey. In the immediate aftermath of the meeting, the Census Project checked with Lake Research Partners and decided to do the AAPI oversample.Race and ethnicity questionsArturo Vargas of the NALEO Educational Fund provided an update on the Census Bureau’s redesign of the way they collect and use race and ethnicity data.The Census Bureau has been experimenting with and testing several potential changes to the 2020 Census questions, including moving from two separate race and ethnicity questions to a combined question and adding a new Middle East–North Africa (MENA) category. At the end of September, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a notice for public comment (open through October 31, 2016) on its intent to consider limited revisions to the Standards for collecting and publishing federal race & ethnicity data. The scope of potential revisions reflect, in part, findings from the Census Bureau's National Content Test. The Census Bureau will release detailed findings from the NCT in early 2017. OMB will issue additional Federal Register notices with proposed revisions to the Standards in the coming months.The civil rights community is concerned about OMB’s apparent interest in an accelerated process for revising the race and ethnicity Standards, with final action occurring before the Census Bureau releases complete results from a 2015 test of possible revisions to the census race and ethnicity questions.?The complete findings from this National Content Test will not likely be available until Jan. 2017.?A number of groups worry that the comment period for a second OMB Federal Register notice could be over before they have time to review the data from the National Content Test. The Census Bureau will need to submit the topics to be covered on the census to Congress by April 1 of 2017. The final question wording for the census will need to be submitted to Congress by April 1, 2018. Civil rights groups will be holding a meeting with the Census Bureau and also are likely to ask OMB for a delay in the second Federal Register notice. Update: Many groups filed comments expressing concern about the truncated timeline. It looks like stakeholders’ comments may be having an impact as OMB may be re-evaluating the timeline.Omnibus AppropriationsTerri Ann Lowenthal of the Census Project provided an update on census funding. The Census Bureau is under directive from Congress to keep costs the same or less for the 2020 Census as they were for the 2010 Census.In September, Congress passed and President Obama signed a Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded through early December. The CR keeps most federal agencies funded at FY2016 levels, which is a de facto cut for the Census Bureau since funding for the census increases each year closer to 2020. The CR expires on Dec. 9, requiring Congress to address continued funding for this fiscal year during a lame duck session. It is likely that Congress will consider an omnibus appropriations bill that will fund the Census Bureau for the remainder of the fiscal year, but it also could do shorter-term bills (called minibuses). (Update: It now appears likely that, instead of an Omnibus, full year appropriations bill for FY2017, Congress will consider a second CR that runs through April 28, 2017, leaving the Census Bureau to continue operations at FY16 funding levels, unless Congress approves a “funding anomaly” to increase 2020 Census funding during that period.The Census Project is advocating for funding in line with the president’s $1.634 billion budget request. The Census Project sent letters to Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and Commerce/Justice/Science Subcommittees – signed by about 50 stakeholder organizations – urging adequate funding. Terri Ann also suggested other organizations advocate for adequate funding as well, if they haven’t already.Three major challenges related to the census budget:Insufficient funding.Potential raids on the Census Bureau budget to pay for other programs in the appropriations bill.Policy riders that would undermine the census (for example, making the ACS voluntary or excluding undocumented residents from the count). This last threat is unlikely at this point though.Terri Ann noted that this process will begin again once the president proposes his or her FY2018 budget in February or March. Voices from the field can greatly influence how Congress deals with the budget request from the president.Internet IssuesIndivar Dutta-Gupta of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality provided a summary of internet issues related to the census. In order to reduce costs and conduct a more accurate count, the Census Bureau is planning to have a majority of responses submitted digitally in 2020. The use of technology is certainly not bad per se, but it’s important that the Census Bureau is aware of the impact any changes will have on hard to count populations. Specific issues include making sure the bureau is still investing adequately on in-person follow-up, data privacy issues, guaranteeing that the internet option is flexible to the needs of different communities, cybersecurity concerns, and ensuring that the bureau has back up plans in the case of technological challenges.The Leadership Conference is working with the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality to put together a report with recommendations for the Census Bureau around the use of technology that will be available in early 2017. As part of this work, The Leadership Conference will be conducting a diagnostic poll about public perceptions of using the internet to collect census data. The polling results and the project recommendations can be used by field groups to get a better understanding about attitudes regarding the internet option, which we hope will be useful to 2020 Census planning. Presidential TransitionCorrine Yu of The Leadership Conference highlighted the Leadership Conference’s work around the presidential transition. The Leadership Conference is putting together a transition document with heavy involvement from their Census Task Force. They will seek to meet with the president’s transition team and also share a letter to the new Congress with legislative priorities. Recommendations will center around budget and appropriations and ensuring that key decisions related to the 2020 Census will result in the most accurate census possible.One challenge is that Trump’s transition team may be difficult to engage if they win. However, stakeholders have strong relationships with past Republican Census Bureau directors.A key question – and one the next administration needs to be aware of – is whether Census Bureau Director John Thompson wants to serve another term (or part of another term). His term expires at the end of this year. The nomination process could potentially turn into a controversial issue. The Census Bureau can operate without a director, but it will be greatly hobbled at a particularly sensitive time. This might a key topic for field action.Administrative and Commercial RecordsCorrine Yu then described that the Census Bureau’s plans to use administrative records collected by federal and state agencies through various programs such as TANF, WIC, and SNAP. It appears that the bureau’s plan has been changing since it first announced use of administrative and commercial records.The bureau has been conducting research into this work, but the effect that reliance on this data will have on the accuracy of the count (particularly in hard to count communities) remains unclear. To consider these issues further (and make sure the Census Bureau is taking these concerns seriously) The Leadership Conference, the Urban Institute, and the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality will be holding a convening in November that brings together governmental (including key Census Bureau staff) and non-governmental experts in the use of administrative and commercial records. The discussion and ideas arising from this convening will be compiled in a report that will be released in early 2017. Depending on the direction taken by the Census Bureau, this could become a key issue for field action.Prison GerrymanderingTerry Ao Minnis of Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC explained that the Census Bureau had asked in 2015 for comments on their 2010 policy of counting prisoners where they are incarcerated rather than at their home place of residence. 96% of comments advocated for counting them at their home place of residence for the 2020 Census.The Census Bureau issued proposed residency rules in the summer of 2016 that did not change the criteria for counting incarcerated individuals. The bureau received 78,000 comments representing about 100,000 individuals (including a letter from 13 Senators and one from 35 foundations, including Census Subgroup members).It seems likely that the Census Bureau wasn’t fully cognizant of how short the average prison stay is and the fact that prisoners often move from facility to facility. While the comment period has closed, advocates can continue to argue for the need to change in policy (this could include letters or op-eds). There is no required deadline for the Census Bureau to release their final decision, but it is expected before the end of the year or very early next year. UndercountBill O’Hare of O’Hare Data and Demographics and a consultant to the Annie E. Casey Foundation provided an overview of undercounted populations and how to address these challenges.The net undercount refers to the net total of those who are undercounted combined with those who are counted twice. The key problem is the differential undercount, the fact that not all groups and places are undercounted at the same rate. Children under the age of five are one the groups at the greatest risk of being undercounted (in 2010 there was a net undercount of one million among this population). One potential reason is that heads of the household may not always realize that young children should be included. Other groups with high differential undercount rates include communities of color, low income urban and rural households, and renters. Five-point plan for reducing undercount of children:Continue conducting research.Implement policy changes (and make sure the Census Bureau is aware of these challenges).Set clear expectations for the contractor who carries out the advertising and promotion for the census.Engage advocates and trusted voices from outside of government.Evaluate the Census Bureau’s efforts carefully.Ensuring that the Census Bureau has updated record of addressees (i.e., the Local Update of Census Addresses Program or LUCA program) was also identified as a priority. There was discussion about the planned undercount project that The Leadership Conference, Bill O’Hare, Coalition on Human Needs, the Children’s Leadership Council and others will be undertaking. It is quite possible that the project will need field support. Census and Geographic Distribution of Federal FundsAndrew Reamer of George Washington University has received a planning grant from the Democracy Funders Census Subgroup to explore how to conduct research on the distribution of funding based on the 2020 Census.Andrew Reamer did similar research for the 2010 Census while at the Brookings Institution. Meeting participants familiar with the 2010 effort commented on how valuable the statistics were in highlighting the costs of an undercount.An advisory group of funders and stakeholder groups has been assembled to help guide the research. As a next step, Andrew Reamer is putting together a survey on what stakeholders would like to get out of the research, how they plan to use information on the distribution of funding, and which format is most helpful to stakeholders. That survey will be distributed to stakeholders shortly and one representative of each organization should fill it out. Once fully defined, funded, and implemented, the data will be available to field groups to highlight the impact of undercounts on allocations of federal funds in their states/localities.Mapping “Hard to Count” Populations In the previous census cycle Steven Romalewski of the City University of New York Graduate Center – with funding from Hagedorn Foundation – created an interactive digital mapping service highlighting personal and housing characteristics by region that are closely tied with low census response rates. Steve Romalewski is looking to do an expanded version of this mapping again in 2020. In 2010 the work was done at the last minute, this time around there is the opportunity to do a much more strategic mapping that will be useful to stakeholders (such as for policy work) earlier in the cycle.New features could include showing hard to count populations over time and formulating it so that’s useful for redistricting as well. This version would be an interactive, searchable map.III. Overview of the Plan for Field ActionEthan Frey explained that the afternoon portion of the meeting would be devoted to discussing the state-based projects that the group was looking to set up in the four target states. The Ford Foundation will fund much of this work and they will also draw on the Census Subgroup’s pooled fund and some other funders to support the effort. The basic idea is creating a hub in each of four states – California, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio – that will build out a broad-based coalition to engage the Census Bureau and key congressional and state leaders around census policy issues. Funding will go to the hubs with smaller support to the allied groups to broaden the base in doing outreach. In California, the hub organization will be the Advancement Project. (Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrant Refugees will play a leadership role once the Get Out The Count phase begins.) If funding is available, they will be supported by Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles, Small Business Majority, Children Now, and the PICO National Network’s affiliates in California. In New York, the hub organization will be the New York Civic Engagement Table. If funding is available, they will be supported by Faith in New York, Small Business Majority, and New York State Council on Children and Families. In North Carolina, if additional funding is available, Blueprint North Carolina will be the hub organization. In Ohio, the hub organization will be the Ohio Organizing Collaborative. If funding is available, they will be supported by Children’s Defense Fund – Ohio and Small Business Majority.Ethan Frey also indicated that the Ford Foundation would provide support to The Leadership Conference, State Voices, and PICO to support these field actions. He added that the afternoon will focus on what these field and national efforts will look like in practice and identify next steps for moving forward. Several people inquired how the four target states were chosen. Ethan Frey and Gary Bass explained that geographical considerations, key congressional targets, existing infrastructure, and the ability to pivot to Get Out the Count efforts in the state were all factors. The funders solicited recommendations from the Census Project and other organizations on census policy targets. Additionally, the funders looked at where there were overlapping democracy efforts underway.Ellen Buchman also expressed interest in having the policy phase of the work serve as a glide path into the Get Out the Count work. Thus, understanding capacity for the policy work would also give insight into how the Get Out the Count work will operate. And the infrastructure developed now could help support work through 2020.Gary Bass highlighted the importance of bipartisan outreach on the census, given the nonpartisan nature of the enumeration. We will need to identify the best way to reach Members of Congress. For instance, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama has been very receptive when business groups talk about the importance of census data to their work.IV. Building Tactical Responses from State CoalitionsEllen Buchman of The Leadership Conference invited representatives from the field organizations in the target states to outline their ideas for policy and then opened the conversation up for a general discussion around these issues.OhioKirk Noden of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, provided his insights into coalition building and policy targets in the state of Ohio. Although some of the census work was new to him, he shared his knowledge on running a large-scale field program in the state.Kirk noted that the first step in organizing in Ohio would be to identify policy priorities and build a plan around these strategic goals. He questioned whether it is advisable to generate action on all the policy items discussed in the morning versus picking one or two key items (e.g., appropriations) and focusing energy on these high priority items.He also suggested aligning census work with redistricting efforts to frame it more as a justice issue. Further, given Ohio’s status as a key swing state, the fear of losing clout in the Electoral College—if it’s undercounted—could motivate both parties. Kirk questioned whether the default strategy to form a “broad-based” coalition would be the most effective vehicle to advance the census work, suggesting instead that the room should consider what would be the most strategic set of organizations, tactics, resources, etc., to bring to bear on this set of issues. He also suggested, for example, that it could be more efficient to put money into a single civil rights organization to drive the work, or that grasstops strategy alone might make more sense.Forming partnerships with mayors may be beneficial as well (since there is already a progressive coalition of mayors in the state). Kirk explained that he already had a strong relationship with Congressman Tim Ryan. Terri Ann Lowenthal mentioned that State Senator Tom Sawyer may also be a key ally. As a US congressman, Sawyer was the Chairman of the House subcommittee tasked with overseeing the 1990 Census.New YorkMelody Lopez of the NY Civic Engagement Table shared information about field planning and field organizing in New York. There is a lot of existing capacity that can be leveraged in the state. The challenge is activating people who can champion the issues and making them see it as a priority. Similar to Ohio, connecting to redistricting could be key. Connecting directly with the state legislature or congressional delegation is always challenging in New York. NY Civic Engagement Table would also need help on the media aspect of the work. Coalition building will be important. Partners need to be educated on the importance of the topic and the urgency of beginning the work immediately. Webinars could be an important tool for educating potential partners.CaliforniaJohn Dobard of the Advancement Project described what the state-based work in California could look like.Advancement Project already has a coalition of four networks that would provide a solid foundational infrastructure for the work. Major challenges will be getting people to see this as an issue that is worth prioritizing now and ensuring there is funding to carry out the work.The Governor’s Office will need to be a key target. There will be a new governor before the 2020 Census, so figuring out how outreach will be conducted will be key. California currently has a budget surplus so it may make sense to prioritize “asks” now.There may be some coalition fatigue and so several California partners agreed that working through existing coalitions may make the most sense.John highlighted three uncertainties that need to be resolved soon: (1) clarity from the national groups on the “asks” related to policy issues (e.g., requesting that a target do X on an appropriations issues); (2) clarity from the national groups and funders on expectations about deploying resources (e.g., an expectation that organizations will mobilize community residents to engage in direct action, as opposed to simply staff at those organizations engaging in such action); and (3) clarity from funders how much money they will have and whether there will be funds for other groups in the coalition.Jessica Mindnich of Children Now said that children are a key priority for many groups in California so this could be a good topic to rally around. Joy Cushman of PICO expressed excitement about participating but echoed John Dobard’s point about developing a clear roadmap that says “these people need to do ‘x’ and these people need to do ‘y’.”North CarolinaErin Byrd of Blueprint NC discussed policy work in North Carolina.Guidance from partner organizations and national organization on how to prioritize resources, avoid duplication, and develop a coherent strategy would be very helpful. It will be important to have a plan where everyone has input.National organizations will also be essential in identifying who the key targets should be.It would be valuable to look at plans from previous census cycles and see how they can be adopted or improved to fit needs in the state.DiscussionBuilding off the presentations from the representatives of the four states, the full group had a general discussion of how the state-based projects should operate. There was agreement on the following points:National groups leading the census policy work need to set clear expectations about what policy outcomes are desired and what the overall strategy is for pursuing a fair and accurate census.Once there is funding clarity the roles and responsibilities of the field groups can be defined.While this is largely a “top-down” effort – with the national organizations identifying top level actions to take in the policy work – the field groups should have maximum flexibility to design their field plans and what they need to do to achieve outcomes.There is no requirement to form a coalition. Instead the goal is to build an alignment of groups and individuals which can produce results. In some states, the mechanism might a formal or informal coalition, and in others it might be something else. However, we all agreed that we need to economize and ensure the least possible amount of duplication of efforts, along with that we need to build on the strengths that each group brings.It likely will be challenging to engage other organizations and individuals because of numerous other pressing issues that are more germane to these other players. One way to highlight census as a priority is to link it to other issues that motivate groups, individuals, and elected officials. Field groups should be given flexibility to achieve this, whether it linking census with redistricting, children’s issues, funding of services, or something else.V. Brainstorming Ideas for Engaging Groups in Non-Target StatesRoger Vann, Executive Director of State Voices, led a discussion on how the groups should think about census work outside of the four target states. He presented a broad 10-year vision for engaging groups around the country on strengthening democracy and civic engagement. Census should be viewed as a part of this overall effort. The challenges to achieving this are large: groups mostly function in issue silos; funding occurs in grant-cycles, not change-cycles; it is hard to stay focused on longer term objectives when short-term fights happen all the time. He noted that there is already infrastructure, such as State Voices, to being this type of approach.There were several ideas that came out of the discussion following Roger’s opening comments:The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count partners could effectively support advocacy efforts, especially if the asks were straightforward. For instance, having them promote key issues through social media. This was used as an example of an issue-based network affected by the census finding a way to channel energy to help on census work. Would this require additional foundation support or can this be done under existing funding?Participants agreed that a timeline of key dates (and when it would be appropriate for different groups to weigh in) would be very helpful. The census timeline developed by FCCP and the Policy Framework, once finalized, might help address this for groups in non-target states. It might also be shared with national organizations to convey to state affiliates/chapters.It would be valuable to have resources that are specifically tailored to groups who focus on different issues areas (i.e., economic justice, immigration issues), with advice on how they can tie the census to the topics they work on.It might be useful to have a meeting of organizations with field operations in multiple states to see how we can fit census advocacy into their already busy agendas.Some suggested potentially developing a comprehensive list of organizations that could be engaged in field work and turning it into an interactive map. Several noted that the map would only be useful if we had data about the capacity (e.g., advocacy and media capacity) of these groups. VI. Moving Forward: Areas of Agreement and Next StepsCorrine Yu of The Leadership Conference led a discussion of next steps. These were some of the agreements coming out of the meeting: This group, plus a few people who could not make the meeting, will serve as the “kitchen cabinet” in shaping field actions going forward.The Leadership Conference will continue to be a coordinator moving forward on the census policy issues. This means they will more fully develop the national strategy going forward, providing clarity on what the “asks” are of the state groups, but also providing flexibility for the state groups to apply the strategy appropriately for their state.The Leadership Conference will establish a communications system with the field groups to: (a) make sure they are kept in the loop; (b) involved in decision making about field actions; and (c) share tools that may help the field in taking census action. They will also assist, where possible, with communications advice.The national groups not currently part of The Leadership Conference Census Task Force will be invited.The census funders, with help from The Leadership Conference, will finalize the Census Policy Framework, which will provide an overall guide to policy issues and tasks being undertaken on it. There will be a suggested timeline for action by field and communications.The state “hub” groups will be asked to develop summaries of their state plan of action once they have received some of the above information. These plans should include how they anticipate operating, the type of audiences they plan to engage, and other items. There were many unresolved issues, such as whether the state groups will be asked to help on every policy issue discussed during the day or simply focus on one or two key issues (e.g., appropriations). These issues should be methodically reviewed and worked out as we move forward under this new structure that is being coordinated by The Leadership Conference. There were also a set of specific tasks assigned throughout the day. These included: Participants were to send any final edits they have to the Census Policy Framework to Luke at Freedman Consulting luke@. The document has since been finalized.National groups will circulate potential talking points for the race and ethnicity questions. All participants will provide Aryah Somers Landsberger of GCIR at aryah@ with any feedback they might have on the GCIR census infographics that were included in the meeting materials. Corrine Yu will check with Indivar Dutta-Gupta about whether meetings participants can share his PowerPoint slides on internet issues internally with their organizations.Andrew Reamer will send a copy of the draft survey to his advisory group members once complete. Freedman Consulting was asked to circulate a list of the advisory group which is included in the footnote below.Gary Bass will coordinate with Steve Romalewski, Andrew Reamer, and Laura Quinn at Catalist to discuss any common ground between the “federal funds” and “hard to count” projects, including creation of a data pool or sharing interactive maps. Debbie Weinstein will test out sharing action alerts about the census to people who have been part of past census webinar trainings the Coalition on Human Needs hosted.Small Business Majority will share ideas about talking points, convening calls, and potential op-eds about the census with the Leadership Conference.Terry Minnis discussed putting together a fact sheet on LUCA (particularly highlighting why state legislators need to give money to localities to help fund the work).VII. Final CommentsThe day concluded with a final discussion of key takeaways and lessons learned from this meeting. Here are some of the items mentioned:It can be challenging to get up to speed on the census, particularly the related policy issues, and groups need to be aware that there will be a learning curve for those without as much experience. While everyone appreciated the technical expertise in the room, there was discussion about making more accessible some of the census discussions so as to not intimidate groups from engaging. More importantly, there is a need to make it more clear as to why these groups should engage. We need a few simple messages to convey.Groups have a lot of priorities and the census may not be that high on their list. Finding ways to engage people is important.There is likely still a disconnect among potential allies over why working on census policy issues now is important. Moreover, it’s often easier to wrap your head around the Get Out the Count efforts than the policy work. It will be valuable to be clear and direct about the “asks” we are making of state and local groups. LUCA is a key issue that we need to be aware of and prioritize. VIII. AppendixParticipantsEvan Bacalao, Open Society FoundationsGary Bass, Bauman FoundationKaty Boswell, People's ActionEllen Buchman, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human RightsErin Byrd, Blueprint NCJoy Cushman, PICOMary De Masi, NYS Council on Children and FamiliesJohn Dobard, Advancement ProjectIndivar Dutta-Gupta, Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality Luke Freedman, Freedman ConsultingEthan Frey, Ford FoundationFlo Gutierrez, Annie E. Casey FoundationLaila Heid, Freedman Consulting Dan Ichinose, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los AngelesStacey Long Simmons, National LGBTQ Task ForceMelody Lopez, NY Civic Engagement TableTerri Ann Lowenthal, The Census ProjectMolly Maddra-Santiago, Bauman FoundationLaura Maristany, NALEO Educational FundJeff Miller, The Leadership ConferenceJessica Mindnich, Children NowTerry Ao Minnis, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJCSteven Montoya, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJCKaren Narasaki, Bauman FoundationKirk Noden, Ohio Organizing CollaborativeWilliam O’Hare, O’Hare Data and DemographicsAndrew Reamer, George Washington UniversitySteven Romalewski, CUNY Mapping ServicesAryah Somers Landsberger, GCIRPhil Sparks, Census ProjectRoger Vann, State VoicesArturo Vargas, NALEO Educational FundDeborah Weinstein, Coalition on Human NeedsPeter Williams, NAACPCorrine Yu, The Leadership ConferenceMeeting Agenda 9:00 amWelcome, About this Meeting, and Introductions (Tab A)Gary Bass, Bauman Foundation and Ethan Frey, Ford Foundation9:30 amTop Census Policy Issues and Plans Underway (Tabs B & C)Facilitators:Gary Bass, Bauman FoundationEthan Frey, Ford FoundationHow to talk about census & ACS: polling – (Tab D) Phil Sparks, The Census Project Race and ethnicity questions – (Tab E) Arturo Vargas, NALEO Omnibus appropriations – Terri Ann Lowenthal, The Census Project Internet issues – Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Georgetown University 10:30 amBreak – 10 minutesPresidential transition – Corrine Yu, The Leadership Conference Administrative and commercial records – (Tab F) Corinne Yu, The Leadership Conference Prison gerrymandering – (Tab G) Terry Ao Minnis, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC Undercount project (and Local Update of?Census?Addresses (LUCA) Program) – (Tabs H & I) Bill O’Hare, O’Hare Data & Demographic Services Geographic distribution of federal funds – Gary Bass for Andrew Reamer, George Washington University Mapping “hard to count” populations – (Tab J) Steve Romalewski, CUNY NoonWorking Lunch (15 minute break to grab lunch)12:15 pmOverview of Plan of Action for Field (Tabs K – M)Ethan Frey, Ford Foundation12:45 pmDiscussion: Building Tactical Responses from State CoalitionsFacilitator:Ellen Buchman, The Leadership ConferenceDiscussion TopicsCoalition Building: What should it look like; what are the challenges to elevating census as a priority for groups Policy Targets: Are they Congress, Census Bureau, and State/Local Elected Leaders? How do we refine the list? Working with the Media: What are the goals? Why type of media? What assistance will there be from national groups? 2:15 pmBreak – 10 minutesHow do field groups deal with the issues discussed in the morning? Planning for down the road: how should this work morph into Get Out the Count? How do we prepare for that? What specific activities should be expected of hub organizations? Some examples: Dedicate paid staff?Meet certain standards regarding coalition building?Require a specific number of action alerts or mobilizations?Publish a specific number of op-eds?Meet with targeted elected leaders (e.g., mayors, governor, state legislators, congressional delegation)?Brief in-state funders?What else?What specific activities should be expected of core national groups? Some examples: Technical support on census issues?Toolkits? What should be in the toolkits?Media/communications assistance? What type?3:50 pmBreak4:00 pmBrainstorming Ideas for Engaging Groups in Non-Target StatesFacilitator:Roger Vann, State Voices4:45 pmMoving Forward: Next StepsFacilitator:Corrine Yu, The Leadership ConferenceDiscussion TopicsWhat structures do we propose moving forward?What communications structures do we need?Options to ConsiderEmailMonthly callsThe Leadership Conference Census Task ForceWhat questions do you need answered?5:15Final CommentsGary Bass, Bauman Foundation and Ethan Frey, Ford FoundationWhat were the top takeaways from this meeting?What did we miss?5:30Adjourn ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download