PERSPECTIVE: ATT/Time Warner Merger Could Wreak Havoc on Consumers Without Net Neutrality

by Bob Duff and Derek Slap We were pleased to see that Connecticut joined 21 other Democratic Attorneys General in the lawsuit to halt the Trump Administration Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to repeal net neutrality provisions. In addition, we proposed Senate Bill 2, An Act Concerning Internet Service Providers and Net Neutrality Principles, which would require internet service providers to abide by consumer friendly principles. We hope both efforts are successful and help protect Net Neutrality in Connecticut.

There is another pending matter that could have disastrous consequences in the absence of net neutrality: the proposed acquisition of Time Warner by AT&T. The Trump Department of Justice is suing to block the proposed merger.  Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons.  This appears to be the case here.  President Trump’s well-known animus against CNN has fueled his opposition to the deal. Many people are speculating that DOJ is suing to block the merger to curry favor with the President.

It is impossible to assess the AT&T / Time Warner merger without taking into consideration the impact that the Trump Administration FCC’s proposed net neutrality rollback would have. AT&T is the third-largest broadband provider in the United States, with 15.7 million subscribers. And they own DirecTV, by far the largest satellite television provider, with over 20 million subscribers. If the Trump Administration is successful in fully implementing its net neutrality repeal, but is unsuccessful in blocking the AT&T / Time Warner merger, it would create a nightmare scenario for consumers.

There would be nothing to stop AT&T or its subsidiaries from placing streaming content it controls – properties which would include HBO, the sporting events broadcast on Turner Sports, which include the NBA, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, and the Major League Baseball Playoffs, and the entire Warner Brothers film catalog – in a fast lane, or from slowing down delivery of content they don’t own to their subscribers.

In addition to the multi-state lawsuit to block the Trump Administration’s net neutrality repeal, we also believe Connecticut, under the leadership of Attorney General George Jepsen and Elin Katz of the Office of Consumer Counsel, should initiate an investigation and consider filing a separate suit to block the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner on behalf of consumers.

We need the answers to important questions regarding how a mega-merger could manipulate the internet and should do whatever we can to protect Connecticut consumers. We should not be afraid to lead this fight.

_______________________________

Representative Derek Slap (D-West Hartford) is the Vice-Chair of the legislature's Energy and Technology Committee.  Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) is the Senate Majority Leader.  

PERSPECTIVE - Changing Minds and Changing Lives: The Measurable Business Benefits of Hiring People with Disabilities

by Kris Foss Nearly 40% of employers are having challenges hiring qualified employees, while at the same time one in five people in the United States have some type of disability and are facing challenges in getting hired.  Some disabilities are visible, such as physical disabilities, and some are hidden; including mental health conditions, medical conditions, learning and cognitive disabilities.  We also have a large population “aging into disability” for the first time and veterans with disabilities returning to the civilian workforce.

I am often asked about the types of jobs a person with a disability can do and my answer is always the same—“What do you have?”  The reality is that the talent pool of people with disabilities remains underutilized, even though it includes job seekers with a wide and diverse range of education, degrees, professional certifications, work experience and skills. 

Talent with disabilities brings alternative perspectives to getting a job done, to solving a problem, and to reaching a goal.  It is this unique perspective and life experiences that can contribute innovative ideas, processes and market reach.

Opportunity:  Market

People with disabilities in the United States alone represent an annual spending power of $645 billion, and their friends and families—those who would make spending decisions based on how inclusive and accessible a company may be, represent another $4 trillion in annual spending, according to the Return on Disability Group.

Opportunity: Talent

Hiring people with disabilities is not about charity, but about smart business.  Ranging across industries and business lines, our clients include some familiar brands such as PepsiCo, Synchrony Financial, American Express, Aon and Staples.  These companies and others are taking action to meet their talent needs across the board and seeing real business results including key HR metrics:

• An average 14% higher retention rate in the same roles;
• 33% decrease in interview to hire ratios, saving talent acquisition professionals valuable time while decreasing time to fill;
• 53 points and 28 points higher rates of voluntary “self-disclosure” among jobseekers with disabilities and veteran’s respectively—important compliance results for government contractors and reflecting a positive and inclusive corporate culture;

Diversity within Disability

People with disabilities cut across all dimensions of diversity and several areas of EEO reporting including:

• 35% Women
• 21% Veterans
• 19% Hispanic
• 36% White
• 42% Black

Making the Connection

Companies have several ways to connect with jobseekers with disabilities. Cultivating talent partnerships is an important part of creating strong talent pipelines in the community. Disability Solutions creates customized inclusive hiring strategies that forge these talent partnerships, or recruiters can take the following steps:

1. Conduct research within your geographic recruitment area. There can often be 50 to 75 community-based organizations in your area. It is important to start wide, in order to identify partners who can connect you with jobseekers who meet your particular talent needs.
2. Utilize those partnerships to increase your pipeline of talent through a variety of pre-application engagement activities. These can be onsite informational and training sessions, or simply a guide to help partners prepare their referrals prior to application.  This leads to qualified and work-ready candidates heading your way!
3. Post open positions on employment websites for people with disabilities such as the Disability Solutions online Career Center, disabilitysolutionstalent.org. It is a great way to begin building a new pipeline of talent. More than 400,000 people with disabilities visit the site every month to find a career.
4. Focus on talent acquisition and retention. Smart employers focus on developing talent. Provide natural supports, mentors, and ongoing training to develop the best employees and promote retention.

Growing Talent Competition

As the competition for top talent increases, leading companies are searching for new and valuable talent pools.  Those taking action in reaching talent with disabilities are recognizing measurable and meaningful business outcomes.  What type of jobs can a person with a disability do?  What have you got?

____________________________________

Kris Foss is the Managing Director of Disability Solutions at Ability Beyond, located in Bethel, Connecticut.  The consulting division of nonprofit Ability Beyond, Disability Solutions is CHANGING minds and CHANGING lives by creating customized plans for companies to strengthen their workforce by hiring and retaining talent with disabilities.   Their consultants have partnered with top companies to successfully fill talent gaps by attracting a historically under tapped talent pool – people with disabilities. 

PERSPECTIVE: Crying in the Cafeteria

by Ellen Fuller My teacher is crying in the cafeteria. The teacher who is over six feet tall and wears stylish black heeled boots and winged eyeliner and leather jackets with extraneous zippers everyday. The teacher who prances exuberantly in front of the classroom waving Julius Caesar and riling up the students into caring deeply about a play written hundreds of years ago. The teacher who snaps her gum to get your attention and grades papers with emoticons. She is crying into her hand as the social studies teacher wards off concerned and interested students.

Rumors spread, of course. We guess everything we think a 20-something-year-old middle school teacher could have to cry about – her boyfriend broke up with her, her pet died, she found out she is pregnant, a family member is sick, a student told her she was a bad teacher. If we had made a list of a thousand items from most likely to least likely, we still never would have guessed the truth. Seventh grade was a time when we never would have guessed that only a couple miles away, a man had killed 20 little babies. Seventh grade was the last time when a school shooting seemed a remote possibility.

There was talk of going home early, although none of the students knew why. Outside, there was no sign of snow. In the end, we stayed for the entire day, although the teachers, still the only ones in the building who knew the truth, just drifted through the remaining hours. Every teacher set boring tasks to be completed in silence, much to the complaints of the students. I know now why the teachers couldn’t bear to stand in front of us and act as though it were any other day. They were busy watching the door, their eyes sometimes drifting to cabinets and closets. They were busy wondering if they could protect us. If their quick thinking and altruism could be enough to stop the bullets of an AR-15 assault rifle.

I only heard about it at 2:50 p.m. on the bus ride home that day. My best friend had received a text from her mom, but none of us had been allowed to check our phones during school. I remember that she had to explain it to me several times. I asked questions like, “How many did he kill?” and “But how did he kill them?” And she gave me answers like, “I don’t know, my mom says about 20 and a couple teachers” and “With a gun.”

But those weren’t the answers I was really looking for. I didn’t want a death count. I wanted an estimate of the number of years of life lost. I wanted a numerical answer to how many times over the next 40 years their parents would stare into the smiling eyes of their 5-year-old’s school photo and try to imagine them with acne or facial hair or wedding dresses. I wanted a hypothesis at the number of prescriptions filled out for PTSD from the other students. I didn’t want to know the weapon. I wanted to know how he had come across it. I wanted to know how their lockdown drill had failed as naively as a duck-and-cover method from the atomic bomb.

I acted cool, of course. I was 45 miles away from Sandy Hook Elementary School, I was seven years older than the students killed, and I went to a school with only around 500 students. These numbers were a thin barrier between me and something unthinkable. There was no real reason that I was alive and these 26 people were dead. I callously shrugged it off because I was in seventh grade and I was trying to stay calm for my friends and I didn’t want to go to school thinking about it every day. I don’t think, at that point in my life, I ever expected our lawmakers to take the same apathetic stance.

My mom hugged me that afternoon, even though I was in the stage of life when hugging me was like hugging an extremely embarrassed prickly pear cactus. “Every parent across America should be hugging their child and telling them that they love them today,” my mom said. I returned the sentiment without much thought. I didn’t think how much those parents would pay to hear their child say “I love you” one more time or how the phantom feel of their baby’s chubby arms around their necks would haunt them.

Dec. 14, 2012, was a day of endings. The ending of lives and my own innocence. I learned that day that in our constitution, the Second Amendment – the right to own a gun – came before the First Amendment – the right to life; that my safety was dependent only on the whims of the adults around me; that my government cared more for the NRA than their own children.

From that day on, lockdown drills were never as much fun. Now, there is no giggling. We scrunch ourselves into tighter balls and, just like my seventh grade teachers, plan our escape. My last one, I hid under a grand piano with five of my best friends and we all trembled as the assistant principal checked the door. A lockdown drill is not a safety precaution; it is a memorial service. As the lights dim to nothing and the shades are drawn, we are all dressed in black. The loudspeaker blares like the officiant at a funeral: We are now going into lockdown. We bow our heads and imagine, for half-an-hour, how it must have felt to be a 5-year-old staring down the barrel of a gun. They never tell us if it is a drill.

This is the best protection the United States government can offer us: a piano canvas and our backpacks clutched to our chests. In school, the only lesson you ever need to learn is how to get really good at hide-and-seek.

There is another one now. Another “anomaly.” According to some estimates, it’s around the 18th “anomaly” this year. I wonder how many “anomalies” it will take before they admit it is a pattern. I hear about the latest shooting on the radio while passing through the kitchen. Now, five years after Sandy Hook, I am not confused. My first thought when I hear the word “school” on the news is “another one.” I am not shocked. I am a girl raised in a country where school shootings are a part of life. I am a girl desensitized to the massacre of children 50 minutes from my house. I am a girl who had her first kiss on a playground built in memory of a murdered 5-year-old. I am a girl like every other child in Connecticut who was in school on Dec. 14, 2012; ever since that day, we have all wondered “Why wasn’t it enough?” I am just a tiny part of the state that had a school shooting back when school shootings were still news.

I am a girl who is going to be a teacher. Teachers don’t take an oath to protect and serve, yet they are the front lines in a battle that America is losing. There isn’t a single teacher – or student – in America who hasn’t wondered what they would do in a school shooting. I’d be willing to bet that most of the teachers, administrators, and security guards around the country have come to the same grim conclusion: that there is a unspoken clause in their job description.

What do I want to be when I grow up? Anything but a statistic; anything but the mother of a dead child; anything but a human shield; anything but cannon fodder in defense of a murderer’s right to murder; anything but a teacher crying in the cafeteria.

___________________________________

Ellen Fuller is a senior at Hall High School in West Hartford and an aspiring writer.  This piece originally appeared on we-ha.com and is published here with permission.

PERSPECTIVE: Time to Arm Our Girls to be Entrepreneurs

by Jennifer Openshaw If there are millions of teachers and nurses needed, why on earth should we be equipping our girls to be entrepreneurs? People like Apple’s Steve Jobs, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, or even Oprah Winfrey?

It’s all about the numbers, in Connecticut and beyond.

It turns out, that that “entrepreneurial mindset” – the ability to solve problems, adapt to new situations, and execute -- will be one of the single most important qualities to a successful future.

Did you know that 40% of the US workforce -- 50 million people -- will be operating in a ‘gig’ economy just by 2020?  Further, as David Noble, head of the Entrepreneurship Institute at UConn told me: “Employers today are asking: ‘So, show me what you’ve done.’”

But why girls?

Over the last 10 years, the needle has hardly moved for women.

Here we are, and still just 6% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, 14% of engineers are women, and just 36% of women are entrepreneurs.

We need to change this – today -- and we can’t rely on our schools alone. Here’s why.

First, girls have tremendous capabilities that have gone ignored.  It turns out that even in college, young girls excel in entrepreneurship. In our study, just 18% of college women participated in business competitions, but they overwhelmingly ranked at the top: a whopping 60% of the winning teams had a woman on the founding team and 40% had a female CEO. And they took home the bulk of the prize money - $90,000 of $180,000.

Yet, without early exposure, girls opt-out of these economic opportunities. Even dads understand this: “This is business conditioning my daughter needs; it starts now,” said Dr. Steve Allard, the father of one Girls with Impact member.

Second, early lack of confidence holds girls back. Research by Proctor & Gamble highlights the particular fears of failure that girls face in high school. Those fears – like the pressure to please others or a sense that society will reject them if they fail -  prevent potential entrepreneurs or CEOs from emerging into the marketplace with their unique products and services, ultimately creating a drag on our economic productivity as a nation.

Confidence, we’ve heard, comes from execution. Early results from Girls With Impact finds that, after the 12-week “mini-MBA program, 4 out of 5 parents said they saw a difference in the confidence in their daughters. And girls themselves showed a 140% improvement in their confidence in leading teams and overwhelmingly said they are benefitting with college prep, business and financial skills, and handling rejection.

“I don’t know how to explain it, but I feel powerful,” is how Greenwich High student Jody Bell, 16, described her experience. (watch what girls are building)

The time is now. From technology that allows the delivery of these programs affordably to the pent-up desire of men and women to enable and empower the next generation, it’s never been a better time.

These programs can address the “disconnect” with extra-curricular activities, says Harvard entrepreneurship professor Lynda Applegate, between what students are doing versus what “they could be doing to build their futures.”

Plus, companies focused on innovation – and driving gender diversity with more women -- are wondering how and where they can find the next best talent.

There is just no question that our daughters are the answer to this and more. They have the capability to lead from the top – as CEOs and entrepreneurs. We just need to give them the tools.

_________________________________________

Jennifer Openshaw is CEO of Girls With Impact (www.girlswithimpact.com), the only entrepreneur and leadership program created just for girls.  @jopenshaw  @girlswithimpact 

Applications are now being accepted for the Girls with Impact six week Summer Program.  More information here; application form here. 

https://youtu.be/WKGAat6uV6s

PERSPECTIVE: Closing the Resume Gap To Keep Careers on Track and Benefit Businesses

by Emma Buth Pay equity has been a hot topic in recent national debates. We even observe gender pay discrepancies in the workforce right here in Connecticut.

There is a drive today not only to combat this problem, but many others. Pay equity, the wage gap, and what is coined ‘the motherhood penalty,’ are metrics frequenting our news more and more. We all want to ensure women receive equal treatment when finding a job and while working. However, there is another measurement yet to be termed and quantified that further documents workforce inequalities. Often it fails to come up on our radar, but it takes an economic toll on women, businesses, and the economy alike.    

Do males and females with comparable education and equal years of professional experience record salary differences? When one (often the female but possibly, or even increasingly, the male) has paused their career for caregiving, they suffer reduced pay for the remainder of their career or are sidelined entirely.

The Center for Work-Life Policy finds a woman’s earning power declines by 11 percent when having a gap in employment of less than a year.  This increases to 37 percent for those who have been out of the workforce for over three years (Helping Women Opt-in 2018). Similar to the effects of “the motherhood penalty”, smart women, with experience, are making much less relative to peers (male or female with equivalent degrees and years of experience) when starting their careers once again.

One firm, a social enterprise launched in Connecticut, Untapped Potential Inc., is working to remove barriers that keep those with a gap sidelined. It is estimated that Connecticut women are paid just 83 cents for every dollar a man makes, women of color experience an even greater disparity in pay (CWEALF 2015). It’s projected that a woman cannot expect to earn the same as a man for the same job within our state until the year 2061! Since these figures fail to include the variation in income of equivalently educated and experienced workers underemployed (or un-engaged), Founder Candace Freedenberg contemplates whether the true pay equity is being captured.

While pay equity details that a woman should be paid the same as a man when doing equal amount of work in the same job, the gender wage gap differs. It describes the measured statistical difference in income between men and women. In Connecticut, the wage gap results in full time working women losing collectively $15 billion (Connecticut Women and the Wage Gap 2017).

Note the use of the qualifier ‘full time working women’. The Center for Talent Innovation highlights that 30 percent of working mothers choose to opt-out of full employment to manage work and family. During the opt-out years and beyond women experience a pay gap within the pay gap down the line. This overall gap may be tied to the employers relying on the historical salary question, and exclude those who have taken a break from their careers.

It is critical to observe that not all of those investing in higher education are taking part in the workforce. A Vanderbilt study concludes that the, “full-time employment rate for MBA moms who earned bachelor’s degrees from a tier-one institution is 35 percent” (Wolf 2013). Loss of 65 percent of educated professional women from a subset of higher universities has a measurable impact to an economy that critically relies on innovation.

Neither the wage gap nor the motherhood penalty take into account the many who have paused their careers to raise our nation’s next generation. Opt-outers or those who have left their job, find difficult barriers to overcome in order to get back in the workforce. Since 2000, 25- to 29-year-old women having a bachelor’s degree or higher college degree outnumber those attained by their male counterparts by ten percent (The Condition of Education 2017).

Educated and experienced women re-joining the workforce often face difficulties due to a lack of connections and bias when looking for jobs. Roughly 80 percent of jobs come through networking, and once women fall out of the know-to circle, it is much harder to get back on the career path (Adler 2016). Current job board systems sift out not only those with a gap but those missing key terms that rely on recent work engagement. These factors along with the fact that the prevailing requirements of industrial-age workplace modes in the internet-age largely keep mothers from seeking employment during their caregiving years.

That is where Untapped Potential (UP) comes in. Based in Hartford, the Benefit Corporation offers a programmatic approach to remove the barriers that keep educated experience professionals from engaging in our nation’s economic engine.  By creating a network of support, a skills portal to ramp up with latest tools and short courses and crucial mid-career engagements (Flex-returns) with forward-thinking companies, UP’s three prong solution tactically addresses the barriers of lack of contacts, skill currency and confidence.

Why would women who have opted out be so crucial to the work environment?

Freedenberg explains that businesses and our GDP ultimately struggle when these smart educated women are left out of the economy. As the Hamilton Project relates, “[B]arriers to participation by women also act as brakes on the national economy, stifling the economy’s ability to grow.” The lives and fortunes of women in the workplace affect us all. Untapped Potential curates talent not currently available in the marketplace, and businesses benefit from that high caliber talent that is eager to engage and grow the economy.

Ted Pizzo, SVP of Lockton companies, stressed how vital UP’s services are to the workforce by contending that, “Untapped Potential’s approach is almost like a surgical strike, they create a returnship for business that fuses talent to business needs.”

UP will host upcoming educational seminar titled the “Economic Value of Returning Women to YOUR Workforce Pipeline”  where businesses can meet our talent in a speed interview format. The third event of this kind is planned for March 9 in Hartford. The event is sponsored by Travelers and Quinnipiac Corporate Training. The event works to overcome the barrier that prevents hiring managers from ever seeing the caliber of talent that would inevitably be missed in the jobs board/keyword search scenario.

By pricing the Flex-returns at a competitive rate UP hopes to reduce the friction for companies to open their workplace to a mid-career internship with a high potential candidate that is indeed missing the latest key terms from their resume. Companies can learn how they can host a Flex-Returner at www.upotential.org.  Doing so works to return women to the company’s pipeline for senior roles, impacting gender equity over one’s career.

_______________________

Emma Buth, an aspiring journalist, is a senior at Avon High School interning for Untapped Potential as part of the  “Achieve" Avon High School Internship Program.

PERSPECTIVE: Republic Still at Risk; Connecticut Edges Forward

by Peter L. Levine My colleagues and I have worked on civic education for several decades, but I’ve never seen such an upsurge of interest as we’ve observed during the past year. Demands for more and better civics are not only coming from critics of the Trump administration who are concerned about a perceived erosion of constitutional principles. There’s also alarm across the political spectrum about polarization: Americans believe different facts, hold different opinions, and dislike their fellow citizens who disagree with them. “Fake news” is also a widely-shared concern, even though we debate what is “fake.”

And beneath these trends is a slow but profound decline in our everyday civic engagement at the community level (distinct from politics and government). For instance, in a 2017 poll, only 28 percent of Americans said they belonged to even one organization that had accountable and inclusive leaders. These concerns are shared by many Americans who voted for Donald Trump, as well as by many who opposed him or who didn’t vote at all.

Students can and must be educated to participate in politics and community life. That means that we must certainly give more attention to civic education in our k-12 schools. But sometimes the conversation about k-12 civics gets off on the wrong foot. I constantly hear people ask, “Why don’t kids study civics anymore?” Or “Why isn’t anyone working on that problem?”

Sometimes these complaints are reinforced with evidence of adults’ lack of basic knowledge. For instance, after the national political conventions in 2016, just 37 percent of Americans could name the Republican candidate for vice president and just 22 percent could name the Democratic candidate.

This is not the right place to start because we already teach civics in schools. Almost all students are required to study the US system of government in history and other social studies courses. Almost all face tests on this material. Every state has lengthy requirements for learning basic civic information. And thousands of dedicated social studies teachers do an excellent job with this material. We must not erase their contributions or ignore our students’ learning by posing the issue as “Why don’t kids study civics anymore?”

Yet much more needs to be done. Civic education has been a backwater at a time when basic literacy, science, and math have received relentless attention. The social and political world has changed dramatically--for example, newspapers have shrunk and social media has arrived--yet very little money has been spent in revising social studies resources and methods for our new era. Teachers report a lack of support for educating future citizens.

We also tend to focus attention in somewhat the wrong places. For example, most students learn the mechanics of the political system in order to demonstrate knowledge on a test, but few develop habits of following the news out of interest and commitment. If a 50-year-old doesn’t know who was nominated for Vice President, it isn’t because we failed to teach social studies. It’s because the adult never became interested enough to keep up. Motivation is crucial in civics.

Finally, we don’t devote as much attention as we need to addressing the real weaknesses of American civil society: polarization, shrinking voluntary associations, and a fragmented news environment.

Connecticut has taken some positive steps lately. In February 2015, the state adopted new frameworks for Elementary and Secondary Social Studies. I think they are well done. They move beyond random-seeming information toward a coherent “Inquiry Arc” that should help to prepare citizens.

Secretary of State Denise Merrill and Commissioner of Education Dianna Wentzell are both advocates for civics. In 2017, they launched the “Red, White and Blue Schools” initiative that recognizes Connecticut schools for good civic education. This year¹s theme is local community engagement.

I’m proud to serve on the board of Everyday Democracy, which has helped start the Connecticut Civic Ambassadors Program. Citizens are asked to become “Ambassadors” who will engage with their local community to encourage civics education and engagement.

Another nonprofit based in Connecticut is the Civic Life Project, which “brings civics to life by empowering students to produce and screen short documentary films on community issues they care about.”

Finally, Kid Governor started in Connecticut in 2015 and has since spread to Oregon. It’s an absorbing and deeply educational program for 5th graders that culminates in a mock election.

These are the kinds of steps we need. More must be done in the face of a deeply caustic media and political environment. Strengthening civics isn’t easy, considering all the other challenges that confront our schools. But it is good to see civics receiving new attention and creativity, and I’m optimistic that the rising alarm about our politics will lead to even more improvements in Connecticut and nationwide.

____________________________________________

Peter Levine is Associate Dean of the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. For additional background, please see “The Republic is (Still) at Risk—and Civics is Part of the Solution,” a recent paper by Peter Levine and Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, released at a summit on civic education keynoted by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

PERSPECTIVE- Nonprofits: Focus on your impact, not your effort!

by Lou Golden Many years ago, I attended a marketing seminar and learned a simple, yet powerful, concept that helped guide me as I led a nonprofit organization.

The instructor, discussing the differences between features and benefits, pointed out that while hardware stores think they are selling drills, customers are actually buying holes. Marketers, he advised us, waste their time advertising features when they should be touting the benefits.

In the nonprofit world, that idea translates into: Focus on the outcomes you create rather than how you create them. Results matter more than process.

Consider this: Many nonprofits stress the size of their organization, the dedication of their staff, the creation of a new strategic plan or the amount of money they raise each year – rather than the impact they have in the community.

Some nonprofits even have crafted mission statements that focus on what they do rather than the what they achieve. I have seen plenty of mission statements that read like this: “Our agency is dedicated to providing services that aim to improve lives and remove barriers in our community.” A better mission statement would be:

“Our agency improves lives and removes barriers in our community.”

Ultimately, it’s important to remember that donors don’t fund nonprofit organizations. They fund outcomes. The nonprofit is simply a vehicle that connects a donor, who has a certain intention, to an outcome that fulfills that intention.

A donor, for example, may want to ensure that people in our community do not go hungry. Rather than trying to figure out how to get meals to hungry people on their own, the donor gives money to a local food pantry that has programs to feed the hungry. In that way, the food pantry connects the donor to the outcome he or she is seeking.

Simon Simek, an author and social scientist made famous by five books and one of the most popular-ever TED Talks, puts the same idea a different way. He urges leaders to “start with the why” -- in other words, first understand the reason your organization exists. Once you’ve done that, you can move on to easier-to-ascertain topics like what you do and how you do it.

Shouldn’t that be the natural order of any communication? Doesn’t your most powerful message have to do with your impact rather than your efforts? Won’t all of your audiences – your donors, your volunteers, your board and your staff – be most moved by a discussion of your higher purpose rather than your capabilities?

It’s easy, as a nonprofit leader, to lose sight of this. It’s hard to see your organization as “a vehicle” that simply produces outcomes that the community needs and that donors want to fund. But once you start seeing your organization in this way, it’s easy to put “the why” first and to imbue all that you do with it. So, for example:

• The stories you tell as you seek to build donations, gain volunteers, fi nd board members and build your brand should always focus on the difference in the community you actually are making.
• Your board needs to be, first and foremost, mission-focused. Before you fi ll them in on what you expect them to do (whether it be the size of a personal donation or a requirement to attend all meetings), make sure they are passionate about your organization’s ultimate purpose. Otherwise, they will never be the zealots you need them to be.
• Do not bog down the speaking portion of your special events with lots of information about what you do and how you do it. Streamline galas, receptions, and golf banquets by focusing only on your impact.

Your guests will be both delighted and motivated.

Last piece of advice: As a leader, experience the outcomes first hand – and do it often. Carve out time on your schedule to see your programs in action, talk to the people you help, watch your program staff at work. It will inspire you – and ground you in the reality of your purpose.

_______________________________

Lou Golden is a consultant focusing on leadership, strategy and communication for nonprofit organizations. He was president and CEO of Junior Achievement of Southwestern New England from 2002 to 2016. Previous to that, he was a journalist, a newspaper company executive and a marketing professional.

PERSPECTIVE: Intellectual Freedom and Net Neutrality

by Andrew Boyles Petersen By the time this comes to press, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will have voted on the future of the free and open internet we rely upon.   Current FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal, Restoring Internet Freedom, seeks to eliminate the 2015 FCC protections for net neutrality. The existing regulations on net neutrality were passed in 2015 to establish clear rules prohibiting internet service providers (ISPs) from throttling, prioritizing, or blocking online content. As the fight for net neutrality continues around the country, it’s important for us as librarians to understand what net neutrality is, as well as the potential implications for our profession.

On a basic level, net neutrality is the expectation your ISP will treat all websites and content you access equally, allowing you to access any websites you desire. This principle has guided the formation, growth, and use of the internet, aligning with libraries’ service goals by providing patrons with equal access to information. Overturning net neutrality could directly go against this core tenant of our profession, resulting in access to different websites being prioritized or impeded based off of the beliefs or profit-model of the ISP.

As with many profit-based programs, consumers will likely be burdened with the consequences of these changes, with marginalized communities bearing the worst of this affront. Pairing with the push to end net neutrality, a November 16 FCC vote seeks to scale back the Lifeline program—a program designed to provide discounted phone and internet services to low-income households. Throttling back the Lifeline program alongside rescinding net neutrality will target many of our most vulnerable populations, both re-pressing possible avenues for their free speech and constraining marginalized communities to public telecommunications offerings, including our library services. This will likely lead to an increased demand for library services, particularly internet access. Responding to this demand, however, might be more and more difficult.

Without net neutrality in place, the payment plan for ISP customers, including libraries, could increase dramatically. As ISPs are presently prevented from blocking or slowing online content, customers are currently charged based on their service provider and desired download/upload speeds. Under the new plan, ISPs could slow or block web content, charging content companies and end-users to reach specific websites or receive priority access to content.

Along with higher monthly bills from their ISPs, consumers and libraries could also see increased costs from content companies once these companies begin paying ISPs for preferential treatment. Trickle-down from these increased costs would likely result in increased product and subscription charges for the average consumer. With state governments making cuts to library budgets and ISPs raising monthly rates, addressing an increased demand for library internet services may be challenging, or for some libraries, impossible.

On a national level, the American Library Association (ALA) has consistently supported maintaining net neutrality, resisting both the current and 2015 moves to repeal. Following the decision there will likely be legal challenges to the order in the federal court of appeals, as well as possible legislative action.

Throughout, the ALA has committed to “work with other supporters of strong net neutrality protections to ensure policymakers know how important a free and open internet is to libraries and the communities we serve” (Satterwhite, 2017). Similarly in our state, the Connecticut Library Association Intellectual Freedom Committee (CLA IFC) is here to support you in this struggle, as well as in challenges to materials, library services, and patron privacy. Coinciding with the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, the CLA IFC seeks “to recommend such steps as may be necessary to safeguard the rights of library users, libraries, and librarians…” For that reason, we will be providing regular updates on these issues via this column in CLA Today.

In our digital age, we must together as a profession continually focus on protecting patrons’ rights online, seeking to support our patron’s right to free speech online and the confidentiality of their digital identities, just as we long have with their physical selves.  Although the FCC vote on net neutrality has now passed, there is still time to speak up on this issue.  Read through the ALA’s advocacy information on net neutrality, and follow the ALA Washington Office’s District Dispatch blog as this continues to unfold. If this debate transitions to Congress, call your senators and express your support for net neutrality. As we move toward a new year, we can together support our libraries and communities by speaking out against affronts to intellectual freedom and by working together to protect the rights of our patrons.

___________________________

Andrew Boyles Petersen is Instruction and Outreach Librarian at The Loomis Chaffee School in Windsor and a member of the Connecticut Library Association Intellectual Freedom Committee. This article first appeared in the latest issue of CLA Today, the newsletter of the Connecticut Library Association.    The publication will be providing updates on these issues in future issues.

PERSPECTIVE: Dialogue, Diversity and Progress Amidst News of Dysfunction

by Martha McCoy What better way to spend the day than with a broad diversity of people from across Connecticut who want to make our towns, cities and state even greater places to live – who are working to create inclusive communities and make a difference on the issues we face.

For six years, Everyday  Democracy and the Secretary of the State’s office have been bringing together an expanding group of civic leaders to consider indicators of our state’s civic heath – such as how well neighbors relate to each other, how often people participate in community affairs, and how well we collaborate across differences. 

On a sunny day with day with a New England chill in the air, 75 Connecticut residents recently gathered for the first annual Connecticut Civic Ambassadors Summit at the Hartford Public Library to celebrate our public life and find ways to improve it. During an afternoon of sharing food and conversation, we deepened our understanding of the “civic health” of our state and continued to find ways to take action together.

State news coverage often focuses on dysfunction. Our state was one of the last in the country to pass a budget. We are struggling to pay for important services, develop the economy, and address large racial and economic inequities. When we hear about towns and cities, it’s often about ways they are pitted against each other.

But the tone of the recent Saturday gathering was completely different. While we all acknowledge that our state faces tough issues, we believe that there are ways “we the people” can address them, working with each other and public officials in more inclusive and democratic ways.

Throughout the day, we heard from people of all ages (grade school to senior citizens) and all backgrounds and walks of life who are using their voices, generating productive collaborations, standing up for justice, and making a tangible difference in their homes, schools, communities, and regions.

Here are just some of the things we heard:

• “People are yearning to have discussion, to understand the world, and to come together to transform dialogue into action.”
• “Use the gifts you have to change the world around you…”
• “Young students have the power to change the world.” “Teachers need support so that they know how to help their students talk about divisive public issues in respectful ways.”
• “We need to start talking about things before they become hot-button issues. A tweet is not action.”

At the close of the Summit, 40 Civic Ambassadors were sworn in, pledging to be a dedicated and engaged community member to uphold civic values of civility, respect for our democratic institutions, principles of social justice, and nonpartisan civic action toward community improvement.

The goal of the Summit was to engage more people as Connecticut Civic Ambassadors.  Join us.  Civic Ambassadors are everyday people – all of us have a voice and can make a difference. We all need ways to resist the cynicism and polarization that are so prevalent both in our state and across the nation.  Whether you live in or outside of Connecticut, please call us so that you can learn about the civic health work going on in your state.

---------------------------------------------

Martha McCoy is Executive Director of Everyday Democracy.  A national organization based in Hartford,  Everyday Democracy works to strengthen democracy by making authentic engagement and public participation a permanent part of the way we work as a country. Since their founding in 1989, the organization has worked with hundreds of communities throughout the U.S., first by offering small, structured dialogues that led to positive and lasting change, and now offering an array of flexible resources, discussion guides, coaching and technical assistance.

https://youtu.be/jVue1tX-eI0

PERSPECTIVE: Access to Healthy Foods: How Far Are You Willing to Go?

by Garth Graham For the first time in the history of the United States, today’s youth are expected to have a shorter life-span than their parents. With medical, scientific and technological advances, this notion seems dumbfounding. But when we step away from the science and technology and take a deeper look at our communities, you can find the root causes.

Access to healthy food, public safety and environmental factors are all driving forces behind this decline in longevity. These social determinants of health are becoming increasingly influential to our health as individuals and as communities.

Increasing access to healthy foods is one of the primary social determinants of health that the Aetna Foundation is trying to address. We know that living closer to super markets or retailers that provide healthy food lowers health issues related to obesity, such as diabetes. Providing a community with healthier food doesn’t just benefit the well-being of the people that live there – it has also been show to increase economic activity.

While many of us are lucky enough to have full pantries and fridges, a large portion of the country is not as fortunate. More than 23 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, live in food deserts—places where fresh fruit and vegetables (and healthy foods in general) are largely inaccessible. A significant percentage of this group live in low-income neighborhoods, both urban and rural.

It will require more than a merger between Whole Foods and Amazon to reduce the number of food deserts across the country. Solving this problem starts by giving communities direct access to healthier options, which can help address the fact that more than 90 percent of people don’t eat the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables.

One approach that is helping communities across the country is the development of community gardens and farmer’s markets. The Aetna Foundation is committed to helping communities with this approach and has already supported 5,538 garden beds that have been planted across the country. More than three-quarters of nutrition education participants say that they consume more fruits and vegetables as a result of these activities. Some of the programs that are already making a difference in their local communities include:

• The e3p3 Live Well Perris in California is establishing community gardens and providing healthy food education and resources to its residents.

• Healthy St. Pete Empowering Change in Florida serves children, adults and seniors in low-income or low access areas of the city and designated food deserts, and also encourages policy change regarding nutritional access and availability.

Aetna is also working with groups like Meals on Wheels America to combine improved access to healthy food with innovative models for patient care coordination. Aetna recently announced a collaboration that will integrate Meals on Wheels’ daily nutritious meals, social support and critical safety checks into a continuum of care required as people age. Meals on Wheels and Aetna will pilot this model in several markets, and identify best practices intended to improve vulnerable seniors’ health outcomes.

Access to healthy food remains a pressing issue when it comes to determining the health of individuals and communities. We must find sustainable and scalable solutions that can be implemented in communities across the country. By improving access to healthy food, we can increase healthy behaviors, drive economic growth, and lower costs associated with obesity – one community at a time.

Garth Graham, M.D., MPH, is a leading authority on social determinants of health. President of the Aetna Foundation since 2013 and Vice President of Community Health for Aetna, Inc., Dr. Graham is a former deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Obama and Bush administrations where he also ran the Office of Minority Health. Dr. Graham holds a medical degree from Yale School of Medicine, a master’s in public health from Yale School of Public Health and a bachelor of science in biology from Florida International University in Miami. He holds three board certifications including internal medicine, cardiology and interventional cardiology and serves as an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University Of Connecticut School Of Medicine.  This article first appeared on HuffPost and is published here with permission of the author.