Embedding Service Equity into a Public Utility 2014 Governing for Racial Equity Conference

Embedding Service Equity into a Public Utility 2014 Governing for Racial Equity Conference Overview: In 2012 Seattle Public Utilities conducted a test of every other week garbage pick up in four demographically distinct neighborhoods. Today we will how intentional project design to measure potential disparate experiences helped seal the fate for citywide implementation in spite of an estimated 5 to 6 million dollar annual savings in operational costs, and increased residential recycling participation. The workshop will lead off with an equity planning exercise, a review of select equity planning tools, a power point presentation, and end with a group discussion. Learning Objectives, Intended Outcomes or Take Away Opportunities: Plan and design to capture disparate impacts and customer experiences Practice using equity planning tools to set the stage Apply elements of inclusive outreach or public engagement The call to collect demographic participant data The political benefits of having service equity policies and outcome data at your disposal Facilitators: Michael.Davis@Seattle.gov and Steve.Hamai@seattle.gov, Seattle Public Utilities Item Description Time Welcome and Opening Review of today s learning objectives and workshop agenda 15 minutes Remarks Table/Neighbor Introductions Identifying Inequitable and Unintended Impacts (group activity) SPU Equity Planning Tools Assignment Instructions (please work in teams of five or six) Complete activity worksheet Team report outs Discussion Quick review of select Seattle Public Utilities Equity Planning Tools Equity Tool Overview Diagram Master or Comprehensive Plans Summary Equity Memo Template Making the Grade Anti Racist Organization Continuum 40 minutes 20 minutes Every Other Week Garbage Power Point review of OLT Pilot 25 minutes Collection Service Equity Indicators Open Q & A Open Q & A 15 minutes Closing Closing remarks, review of today s learning objectives & workshop evaluation 5 minutes

SPU Equity Planning Toolkit Library Secure a Service Equity Subject Matter Expert Read Toolkit Instructions and FAQs Stakeholder Analysis Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement Plan Development Equity Planning Memo Template Summarize: Next Steps Key Lessons Learned Identified Upstream Constraints Management Discussions and Decision Making Service, Project, or Program Development Master or Comprehensive Plan Development Policy, Procedure, Director's Rule, or Code Development

WELCOME! Embedding Service Equity into a Public Utility Project Design Steve.Hamai@seattle.gov Corporate Asset Management Michael.Davis@seattle.gov Environmental Justice and Service Equity March 27, 2014

Today s Workshop Take Aways Plan and design to capture disparate impacts and customer experiences Practice using equity planning tools to set the stage Apply elements of inclusive outreach or public engagement The call to collect demographic participant data The political benefits of having service equity policies and outcome data at your disposal

Group Activity Work in teams of five or six persons Complete activity worksheet Team report outs

Secure a Service Equity Subject Matter Expert Read Toolkit Instructions and FAQs SPU Equity Planning Toolkit Library Stakeholder Analysis Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement Plan Development Equity Planning Memo Template Summarize: Next Steps Key Lessons Learned Identified Upstream Constraints Management Discussions and Decision Making Service, Project, or Program Development Master or Comprehensive Plan Development Policy, Procedure, Director's Rule, or Code Development

Stakeholder Analysis Sample Questions Does one stakeholder group Stakeholder carry more Analysis influence than another in regards to your policy, service, program, or project? If so, please explain why. How will you ensure under represented stakeholders have more equitable participation and influence in your outreach and engagement efforts? 5

Master or Comprehensive Plan Development Sample Questions How might your team s position, socio economic composition, perspective, or implicit bias influence the direction or intent of this planning effort? How will this plan be updated or developed to reduce or eliminate noted racial or other socio economic disparities or inequities? Prioritize your list (or actionable steps) along with expected outcomes. 6

Centering Activity Staff Discussion Before Answering Questions Briefly discuss the difference between equity and equality. Discuss ways we may unintentionally create or exacerbate racial and/or socio economic disparities though our policies, services, programs, or projects. 7

One Less Truck Key Findings by Neighborhood

One Less Truck Project Overview SPU believes that if every-other-week garbage collection were implemented citywide it would: Reduce neighborhood traffic, noise and pollution. Save $6.4 million a year through operational efficiencies. Reduce waste going to the landfill. A total of 793 single-family homes took part in the One Less Truck Project in four areas of the city from July 1 to December 31, 2012. 9

A tale of two (plus two) cities?

HH SR Pct. Dunlap/South 221 57 26% Highland Park/Southwest 188 68 36% Wedgwood/Northeast 177 78 44% Leschi/Central 207 57 28% 793 260 33% 11

Roughly translated.. Dunlap (South) = $ Highland Park (Southwest) = $$ Wedgwood (Northeast) = $$$ Leschi (Central) = $$$$ 12

Stipend Redemption Totals by Neighborhood South 98118 Southwest 98106 Northeast 98115 Central 98144 Total Stipend Redeemers 132 127 145 148 552 Pilot Households 221 188 177 207 793 % households that redeemed the stipend 59.7% 67.6% 81.9% 71.5% 69.6% In Central and Northeast Seattle, stipend returns were consistently collected at slightly higher rates than in South and Southwest Seattle. 13

OLT Post Survey Demographic Data by Neighborhood Age South Southwest Northeast Central 18 to 54 50% 70% 49% 38% 55 or older 44% 27% 47% 62% No answer 6% 3% 4% 0% 14

OLT Post Survey Demographic Data by Neighborhood Race South Southwest Northeast Central White only 50% 60% 83% 70% Black 10% 2% 0% 9% Asian 22% 18% 4% 12% Other 5% 3% 0% 0% No answer 13% 17% 13% 9% 15

OLT Post Survey Demographic Data by Neighborhood Language in Home South Southwest Northeast Central English 63% 78% 94% 96% Vietnamese 21% 10% 0% 2% Chinese 4% 0% 0% 0% Other 6% 2% 0% 0% No answer 6% 10% 6% 2% 16

OLT Post Survey Demographic Data by Neighborhood Number of Persons in Household South Southwest Northeast Central One or Two 51% 63% 62% 67% Three or Four 28% 25% 30% 29% Five or more 15% 10% 4% 2% No answer 6% 2% 4% 2% 17

OLT Post Survey Demographic Data by Neighborhood Household Income South Southwest Northeast Central < $50,000 40% 35% 17% 7% $50 $75,000 21% 14% 10% 6% $75,000 + 12% 25% 41% 67% No answer 27% 26% 32% 20% 18

Perception of Neighborhood Impacts 39% reported that they did not notice any difference in their neighborhood during the project. Those respondents living in the Central (60%) and Northeast (49%) neighborhoods were more likely to say they did not notice any differences, as compared to those in the South (31%) and Southwest (22%). 36% said there were more overflowing garbage and recycling containers. Those respondents living in the South (49%) and Southwest (45%) neighborhoods were more likely to notice overflowing containers, as compared to those in the Northeast (24%) and Central (24%). 19

Perception of Neighborhood Impacts 20% said that their neighborhood looked messier. Those least likely to notice that the neighborhood looks messier live in the Northeast (7%) as compared to the Central (16%), Southwest (28%), and South (29%) neighborhoods. 16% said there was more litter and/or illegal dumping in the neighborhood. Those living in the South (18%) and Southwest (22%) neighborhoods were more likely to notice litter or illegal dumping, as compared to Northeast (11%) and Central (15%). 20

Before and During Pilot: Comparison of Neighborhood Appearance 100% South 80% Southwest 60% 60% Northeast 40% 20% 49% 31% 22% 49% 45% 46% 38% 35% 27% 24% 24% 29% 28% 29% 28% 20% 16% 11% 7% Central 0% No difference Overflowing containers Fewer trucks More cans at curb Messier 21

Impacts Rated a Major or Moderate Problem 100% South 80% Southwest 60% 56% 45% 51% 53% Northeast Central 40% 20% 15% 11% 27% 24% 30% 31% 30% 31% 21% 21% 16% 10% 0% Litter Overflowing containers Pests Odors 22

Engage in Behavior More Often with Every-Other-Week Garbage Collection South 60% Southwest Northeast 40% 39% 36% Central 20% 0% 26% 23% 30% 26% 23% 17% 18% 15% 13% 14% 21% 21% 17% 13% 10% 10% 10% 6% 9% 8% 6% 4% 12% 9% 1% 2% 23

Preference for City-wide Implementation of Every-Other-Week Garbage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 41% 44% 69% 56% Favor city wide implementation Oppose city wide implementation 50% 40% 30% 41% 38% 22% Don t know 20% 19% 10% 0% 19% 18% 22% 12% South Southwest Northeast Central 24

Seattle Mayor Shelves Every Other Week Garbage Collection SPU s Customer Review Panel recently recommended against pursuing every other week garbage. The environmental benefits and the 8% reduction in garbage costs for an average Seattle family (about $3.30 a month) do not outweigh a 50% reduction in service frequency. 45% of customers in citywide surveys oppose the program; and in lower income and more ethnically diverse neighborhoods, the rate of opposition is higher. Seattle has other immediate opportunities to boost its recycling numbers. 25

Public utilities and inequity? What do we know? What can we do? Identify our current customer interaction In what way(s) are we a customer complaint driven utility? And who complains? Tools and data (GIS, Customer Call Center Data, Demographic Participant Data, Focus Groups) Grasp the compounding nature of our work Doing the same thing, repeatedly The 4D s Design, Delivery, Data, Discussion Seek opportunities (and there may only be a few) Every Other Week Garbage Collection Pilot Hard Wire the Practice Continuum to become an anti racist institution Acknowledgement of current state of affairs 26

Discussion & Questions To access a copy of the One Less Truck Final Report: http://www.seattle.gov/util/environmentconservation/projects/onelesstruckproject/ 27

SPU Equity Planning Toolkit Master or Comprehensive Plan Development To be completed by the staff team assigned to update or develop master or comprehensive plans (e.g. Water System Plan, Solid Waste Plan etc.). If warranted, seek assistance from a SPU Service Equity Subject Matter Expert. This tool should be used following application of the Equity Stakeholder Analysis. SPU Plan Title: Today s Date: In order to ensure thoughtful and thorough responses to the questions below: Briefly discuss the difference between equity and equality. Discuss ways SPU may unintentionally create or exacerbate racial and/or socioeconomic disparities though our policies, services, programs, or projects. With your team, in scoping the steps in this process: 1. List the names of project team members assigned to update or develop of this plan. 2. How might your team s position, socio-economic composition, perspective, or implicit bias influence the direction or intent of this planning development effort? 3. How will you draw upon and include the perspectives of persons or stakeholders who historically have NOT been involved in this planning process, including co-workers? 4. List racial or other socio-economic disparities or inequities that may have occurred as a result of past or most recent plans. 5. How will this plan be updated or developed to reduce or eliminate noted racial or other socio-economic disparities or inequities? Prioritize your list (or actionable steps) along with expected outcomes. 6. What is your plan to evaluate whether there are disparate or inequitable impacts, what data will you need to collect, and how frequently will evaluation occur? Page 1 of 3

7. Can the updating or development of your plan contribute to any of the following Race and Social Justice Initiative Best Practices? Assessing and documenting affected community conditions Creating goals to help reduce disparities (can be in addition to other policy goals) Expanding opportunity and access for all individuals Promoting racially inclusive collaboration and civic engagement Analyzing and changing policies which may perpetuate disparities Educating on racial issues and raising racial consciousness If no boxes were checked, please explain why: 8. As a result of answering the previous questions, identify next-step tasks and considerations to be taken as this plan moves through development. Be sure to incorporate these tasks into your overall timeline and project work plan. Task/Recommendation Description 1. 2. 3. Intended Benefits of Described Task Staffing and Resource Needs* Who is Responsible? Target Completion Date or Reporting Timeline Next Steps: a. Using the Equity Planning Memo Template (below), prepare a summary memo to your immediate supervisor highlighting next steps as a result of this analysis. b. Attach a copy of this completed equity planning tool and the summary memo to your master planning documents. c. Send an electronic copy of this completed document and summary memo for review to SPU_EquityTeam@seattle.gov d. Incorporate new tasks into your overall timeline and project work plan, and update your Supervisor or Manager. *If resources are NOT available, what is your plan to accomplish this task or acquire requisite resources? Page 2 of 3

Memorandum Date: To: From: <<List all members of the management or governing body or group>> <<List all team members here>> Re: As a result of applying the Master or Comprehensive Plan Development Equity Planning Tool to the <<enter name of master plan here>> we have identified next-step follow-up tasks: 1. 2. 3. Task Description Intended Benefits of Described Task Staffing/Resource Needs As a result of applying the Master or Comprehensive Plan Development Equity Planning Tool to the <<enter name of master plan here>>, the following items should be considered by appropriate upstream management or governing bodies: 1. 2. 3. Recommendation & Brief Description How and when will this recommendation be presented to the appropriate upstream management or governing body? As a result of applying the Master or Comprehensive Plan Development Equity Planning Tool to the <<enter name of project, program or service here>>, key lessons were learned that should be applied to future updating of SPU Master or Comprehensive Plans: Lessons Learned 1. 2. 3. cc. Page 3 of 3

MAKING THE GRADE Inclusive Public Engagement Tool Identify the target audience and assess the effectiveness of your print and website communication tools (e.g. flyers, poster, brochures, etc.). Note: This exercise does NOT assess the effectiveness of your outreach plan (in essence, how and who received the communication materials). Identify the Intended AUDIENCE What is the Draw/Incentive for the Audience? Based on Audience, give it a letter GRADE (A F) Why? In what way(s) are you qualified or unqualified to make an accurate assessment (grade)? Do you have to be part of (or have some representation from) the intended audience to make an accurate assessment? Consider the STAGE OF THE CULTURAL COMPETENCE CONTINUUM What stage does this communication tool fit into? Why? How might use of this communication tool intentionally or unintentionally further create inequity? What are your ideas to make this communication tool more effective, reach a broader audience, or reduce inequity? Copyright 2010 2011 Equity Matters www.equitymattersnw.com

Continuum on Becoming an Anti-Racist Multicultural Institution MONOCULTURAL ==> MULTICULTURAL ==> ANTI-RACIST ==> ANTI-RACIST MULTICULTURAL Racial and Cultural Differences Seen as Deficits ==> Tolerant of Racial and Cultural Differences ==> Racial and Cultural Differences Seen as Assets 1. Exclusive A Segregated Institution 2. Passive A "Club" Institution 3. Symbolic Change A Multicultural Institution 4. Identity Change An Anti-Racist Institution 5. Structural Change A Transforming Institution 6. Fully Inclusive A Transformed Institution in a Transformed Society Intentionally and publicly excludes or segregates African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans Intentionally and publicly enforces the racist status quo throughout institution Institutionalization of racism includes formal policies and practices, teachings, and decision making on all levels Usually has similar intentional policies and practices toward other socially oppressed groups such as women, gays and lesbians, Third World citizens, etc. Tolerant of a limited number of People of Color with "proper" perspective and credentials May still secretly limit or exclude People of Color in contradiction to public policies Continues to intentionally maintain white power and privilege through its formal policies and practices, teachings, and decision making on all levels of institutional life Often declares, "We don't have a problem." Makes official policy pronouncements regarding multicultural diversity Sees itself as "non-racist" institution with open doors to People of Color Carries out intentional inclusiveness efforts, recruiting "someone of color" on committees or office staff Expanding view of diversity includes other socially oppressed groups But "Not those who make waves" Little or no contextual change in culture, policies, and decision making Is still relatively unaware of continuing patterns of privilege, paternalism and control Growing understanding of racism as barrier to effective diversity Develops analysis of systemic racism Sponsors programs of anti-racism training New consciousness of institutionalized white power and privilege Develops intentional identity as an "antiracist" institution Begins to develop accountability to racially oppressed communities Increasing commitment to dismantle racism and eliminate inherent white advantage But Institutional structures and culture that maintain white power and privilege still intact and relatively untouched Commits to process of intentional institutional restructuring, based upon anti-racist analysis and identity Audits and restructures all aspects of institutional life to ensure full participation of People of Color, including their world-view, culture and lifestyles Implements structures, policies and practices with inclusive decision making and other forms of power sharing on all levels of the institutions life and work Commits to struggle to dismantle racism in the wider community, and builds clear lines of accountability to racially oppressed communities Anti-racist multicultural diversity becomes an institutionalized asset Redefines and rebuilds all relationships and activities in society, based on anti-racist commitments Future vision of an institution and wider community that has overcome systemic racism Institution's life reflects full participation and shared power with diverse racial, cultural and economic groups in determining its mission, structure, constituency, policies and practices Full participation in decisions that shape the institution, and inclusion of diverse cultures, lifestyles, and interest A sense of restored community and mutual caring Allies with others in combating all forms of social oppression Crossroads Ministry, Chicago, IL: Adapted from original concept by Baily Jackson and Rita Hardiman, and further developed by Andrea Avazian and Ronice Branding

The proposal and intent: Identifying inequitable and unintended impacts Your solid waste provider is proposing to have your residential garbage collected every other week, instead of the current weekly schedule. There are many reasons for this proposed change in service: lowers garbage hauler operating/labor costs lowers current garbage bills between 8 and 10% (if households are able to keep the same can size) increases compliance in the existing recycling program one-less garbage truck in streets and neighborhoods Brainstorm ideas on how this change in service might be inequitable, or lead to unintended positive or negative impacts. Others (list) Solid waste operations and employees The community at-large Commercial customers Residential customers