Page 12 – Democracy Fund

Blog

Amplifying the Perspectives of Officials at the Front Lines of Elections

Paul Gronke, Paul Manson, Jay Lee, and Heather Creek

April 19, 2021

Introduction to “Stewards of Democracy,” a series on findings from the 2020 Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials

Political observers expected the 2020 presidential election to be competitive and politically contentious long before it happened, but when the first caucuses and primaries kicked off early last year, few anticipated the enormous impact and unpredictable trajectory that the COVID-19 pandemic would have on state and local election administrators, their staff, and on the voting public. Yet as we know today, the system proved resilient in the face of this crisis. Voter turnout rates in November 2020 were the highest in over a century. Local election officials across the United States truly delivered democracy.

Today we begin a series of blog posts presenting perspectives and lessons learned from those who served in 2020 and lived the election every day as they administered one of our democracy’s most critical functions.

Local election officials are key authorities on how elections actually work. Their experiences shed light on how well our election system performs and what changes should be put into place to maintain efficient, accessible, equitable, and resilient elections in the future. Especially in this fraught historical moment, when the system has come under attack by both domestic and foreign actors, the insights, beliefs, and opinions of this group should be amplified.

Listening to the Stewards of Democracy

Election administration in the United States is highly decentralized. States and localities share the primary responsibilities for election administration with limited federal influence. State legislatures are the primary body invested with the responsibility for passing laws pertaining to election administration, and elections officials and some state regulatory boards provide oversight and advice to legislatures. While a few provisions in the U.S. Constitution provide a role for federal authority, the ultimate balance of federal, state, and local influence and control is constantly in tension — moving and changing, and subject to political, legal, technological, and economic forces.

America’s local election officials, as well as the offices they organize and staff they oversee, work at the intersection of these forces. Over 8,000 individuals serve as local clerks, chief clerk-recorders, supervisors, auditors, registrars, and other positions in counties, municipalities, and townships across the country. Together, these officials administer elections and deliver democracy to hundreds of millions of American citizens.

The Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials is intended to amplify and elevate the voices of these experts, understand their experiences and perspectives, and contribute to conversations about election administration and reform. In this series as in past reports, we refer to these street-level bureaucrats as the Stewards of Democracy because they are invested with the responsibility of managing and caring for voting and elections.

In upcoming posts, we will cover a variety of timely topics and offer the latest findings from our survey, including:

Less than half of local election officials thought that voters were sufficiently informed of USPS delivery times to return their mail ballots in time in the November 2020 election.
Almost three-quarters of local election officials consider voter education and satisfaction to be part of their responsibilities.

Almost 35 percent of local election officials will be eligible to retire before the 2024 election, including more than half of those in the largest jurisdictions (defined as serving more than 250,000 registered voters).

About the Survey and Interviews

The Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials and reports of its findings provide insights from local election officials across the country into the state of our elections system, election policies, and voter-centric practices.

In 2020, this survey was conducted online and sent to 3,000 randomly selected chief local election officials — those in charge of elections in their jurisdiction. We used a sampling methodology that increases the probability of selection based on the number of registered voters in the jurisdiction. Total responses were 857, for a response rate of 29 percent, which is slightly lower than the response rates to the 2018 and 2019 surveys, but still comparable to past surveys of this population.

Survey findings are often presented by jurisdiction size to understand differences in experiences.

Fifty-eight percent of local election officials serve in jurisdictions of 5,000 or fewer voters.
Twenty-seven percent serve in jurisdictions of 5,001 to 25,000 voters.
Ten percent serve in jurisdictions of 25,001 to 75,000 voters.
Six percent serve in jurisdictions of more than 75,000 voters.

While most officials serve in small jurisdictions, the vast majority of voters live in large jurisdictions — over 70 percent of voters live in jurisdictions with more than 75,000 voters and are served by only 500 officials. It’s important to consider the possible differences in scale, responsibility, and resources between different jurisdiction sizes when interpreting results from any survey of this population. Where overall results are presented, they are weighted to ensure that means can be generalized to local election officials nationwide. Further information about the sampling and weighting process is available at the Reed College Early Voting Information Center’s project website.

In addition to quantitative findings and open-ended responses from the survey, this blog series will also feature the words of officials from a set of in-depth interviews conducted by the Fors Marsh Group. Officials interviewed were chosen from varying states, jurisdiction sizes, elective/appointive histories, and tenures in office. For more information, see the report on this study.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Paths Forward: Lessons in Supporting Local Election Administration and Officials

Paul Gronke, Paul Manson, and Heather Creek

June 17, 2021

Part of “Stewards of Democracy,” a series on findings from the 2020 Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials

In the wake of a historically competitive and challenging election, election administration and administrators continue to be flashpoints of political conflict. We want to provide a forward-looking, proactive agenda to sustain this critical part of our democracy and to support the people who serve in more than 8,000 voting jurisdictions nationwide.

For the past six weeks, we have been posting the results of the 2020 Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials as part of a “Stewards of Democracy” project. In this final post, we reflect on top takeaways from the 2020 survey and identify paths forward to support and advance the professional community of local election officials.

Here we identify key areas we believe should be a focus for state and local officials and their allies in the policy and research communities. For each, we describe what we have learned from the research as well as where we know we still have a lot to learn — critical questions that call for further experimentation and evidence.

Sustainability Advancement

What we have learned

Local election officials are a community invested with the responsibility of maintaining a piece of critical national infrastructure and administering elections for nearly 240 million eligible voters, yet they report chronic underfunding, a stressful work environment, and rapid and sometimes unexpected policy changes. Local election officials tell us that state and federal lawmakers seldom consult with them when contemplating changes in election administration.

It is vital to identify sustainable budget paths so that local election officials are not constantly faced with new and changing mandates without the resources to meet them. Local election officials are experts and should be consulted as key stakeholders in discussions of the budgets that impact their capacity, as well as legislative and policy decisions related to election administration.

Opportunities for experimentation

Adequate budgets don’t completely solve for the stress and unpredictability of election work. Sustainability also depends on ensuring sufficient and capable staff, which merits attention to recruitment, training, and retention.

Our survey results highlight the importance of professional development and training for election officials. Most officials have access to training when they begin their careers and even more receive ongoing training, but there is variation in officials’ perceptions of how effective that training is. For example, local election officials from the largest jurisdictions are the least satisfied with the effectiveness of their training.

This indicates an opportunity for differentiation in the way training is designed and delivered. To do this well, we need more experimentation in the types of training programs that are offered to election officials and the way those trainings are tailored to the needs of different jurisdictions. Experimentation would allow us to collect new evidence about the kinds of training programs that work best for a diverse and heterogeneous elections administration community.

Where we need more research and learning

The Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials provides data on the career backgrounds of the chief local election officials, how long they stay in the field, as well as their job satisfaction and what motivates them to continue doing this work. But we lack data on the staff in local election offices. This would be harder data to gather in a systematic and generalizable way, as our survey does with respect to chief officials, but studying elections office staff would fill in a missing part of the story on diversity, retention, and institutional knowledge in the profession.

Related, we know very little about the recruitment strategies and pipelines used by local election officials to attract staff, what kind of movement occurs across jurisdictions, and whether there are successful diversity initiatives that can serve as object lessons for the elections administration community. As we learn more about diversity in the field, we will have an opportunity to observe how diversity impacts the attitudes and practices of election administrators.

We have heard much this year about a wave of retirements, but we actually know next to nothing about historical rates of retirement and turnover. This makes it impossible to know if we are experiencing a brain drain or just a typical spike that occurs after a presidential year.

And while 60 percent of local election officials across the country are elected to their positions (rather than hired), we know almost nothing about how the elective path operates, and how much turnover is a result of election losses.

Networks and Community

What we have learned

Networks, both formal and informal, and “community” were mentioned again and again in responses to our survey and in our in-depth interviews as ways that local election officials learn, adapt, and maintain resilience in the face of change.

We are convinced that there is a substantial added value to regular state and regional association meetings and venues for professional development, such as Election Center and the election administration program at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Not only do local election officials learn in these venues, but they also connect and build support networks. States and localities need to provide budgetary support or other mechanisms so that all election officials, not just those from larger and well-funded jurisdictions, can attend regular training and regional and national gatherings.

Opportunities for experimentation

While we know that networks and community are important, we need to learn more about what structures, events, and learning opportunities are cost-effective and add the most value.

State associations are highly rated as sources of information by most of our survey respondents, but these associations operate very differently from state to state. This variation provides an opportunity to learn how different ways of organizing and creating communities of local election officials produce different levels of engagement and satisfaction among members.

Our survey responses demonstrate that officials in smaller jurisdictions are far less likely than those in medium and large jurisdictions to attend a regional or national gathering of election administrators. Some national programs — such as the ELECTricity, a newsletter run by the Center for Tech and Civic Life — gear their information and outreach toward officials in small and medium jurisdictions. As these programs mature, and new networks are developed, there will be an opportunity to learn about the tactics that bring these officials into the community and how information is shared across the field.

Where we need more research and learning

Interviews with local officials indicate that many of these public servants are connected to other professional networks outside of the elections field. Only 61 percent of local election officials — and 46 percent of those in the smallest jurisdictions — say that elections make up the majority of their workload. Even those who spend most of their time on elections often have other responsibilities, like administering courts, maintaining public records, and issuing marriage licenses. These duties connect them to other functions of their local government and other state and national networks. There is an opportunity to understand how trends in other sectors of local government may impact the work and culture of local election administration.

Voter-Centric Practices

What we have learned

The 2014 report of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration highlighted the importance of a “voter-centric” service orientation among election officials. Respondents to our surveys expressed overwhelming support for a voter-centric approach. Officials, without respect to jurisdiction size, embraced voter education and outreach as part of their jobs. This is good from a customer service perspective and also from a democracy perspective.

But there are barriers to such voter-centric practices: The most commonly cited among these is insufficient budgets for voter outreach. Local election officials must be able to meet voters where they are — whether through print materials, media advertisements, or engagement on social media — and these efforts take time and resources, and may require new skill sets.

Opportunities for experimentation

Our surveys show that some pro-voter policies, such as voter registration modernization, are more likely to be supported by officials who have experienced those policies. This may mean that local election officials who have experience with effective policies can be “champions” to others in the community who have less experience.

However, we don’t know how attitude change occurs among local election officials. Our finding about officials supporting a policy with which they have experience may reflect learning that happens through interactions with a policy — or, it may be acceptance. For example, officials in states that do not currently have a policy may simply be resistant to change, while officials in states that have already implemented a policy have already adapted to the change and accepted a new norm.

Where we need more research and learning

In our post about local election officials’ perspectives on election policy and practice, we noted that the opinions of these officials show some of the same partisan patterns that are observed in the general public. What we don’t know is why these patterns persist in a community of experts that presumably should be more resistant to misinformation and false claims.

More research needs to be done to understand the underpinnings of local election official attitudes toward election administration at a local, state, and national level, and how the structure of beliefs can impact the ethos of election administration. We also know very little about who are the trusted communicators within the community, whether fellow local election officials, state officials, national taskforces, academics, or advocates. Understanding who can best convey information to these local officials is a critical element in advancing a voter-centric approach.

While there is much to explore and learn about the field of local election officials, what we know already points to important ways we can better support the essential work they do in service to democracy and the voting public in their communities.

We encourage fellow researchers, policymakers, and others who care about representative government to be part of this journey of inquiry, knowledge-sharing, and reform. And just like legislators, the research and advocacy communities must engage local election officials in an ongoing and systematic way to ensure we’re asking the right questions and surfacing valuable insights. Local election officials have a critical vantage point, and their voices and expertise should always be part of the conversation.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Tackling Democracy’s Cybersecurity Problem Requires Collective Action

Joe Goldman

August 17, 2021

For several years, Democracy Fund has been pushing for greater platform transparency and working to protect against the harms of digital voter suppression, surveillance advertising, coronavirus misinformation, and harassment online. But the stakes for this work have never been higher.

One in five Americans rely primarily on social media for their political news and information, according to the Pew Research Center. This means a small handful of companies have enormous control over what a broad swath of America sees, reads, and hears. Now that the coronavirus has moved even more of our lives online companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have more influence than ever before. Yet, we know remarkably little about how these social media platforms operate.

With dozens of academic researchers working to uncover these elusive answers, it is essential that we fund and support their work despite Facebook’s repeated attempts to block academic research on their platform.

Earlier this month Facebook abruptly shut down the accounts of a group of New York University researchers from Cybersecurity for Democracy, whose Ad Observer browser extension has done pathbreaking work tracking political ads and the spread of misinformation on the social media company’s platform.

In full support of Cybersecurity for Democracy, Democracy Fund today joined with its NetGain Partnership colleagues to release this open letter in support of our grantee, Cybersecurity for Democracy, and the community of independent researchers who study the impacts of social media in our democracy.

The Backstory

For the past three years, a team of researchers at NYU’s Center for Cybersecurity has been studying Facebook’s advertising practices. Last year, the team, led by Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy, deployed a browser extension called Ad Observer that allows users to voluntarily share information with the researchers about ads that Facebook shows them. The opt-in browser extension uses data that has been volunteered by Facebook users and analyzes it in an effort to better understand the 2020 election and other subjects in the public interest. The research has brought to light systemic gaps in the Facebook Ad Library API, identified misinformation in political ads, and improved our understanding of Facebook’s amplification of divisive partisan campaigns.

Earlier this month, Facebook abruptly shut down Edelson’s and McCoy’s accounts, as well as the account of a lead engineer on the project. This action by Facebook also cut off access to more than two dozen other researchers and journalists who relied on Ad Observer data for their research and reporting, including timely work on COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation.

As my colleague Paul Waters shared in a deep dive blog on this topic:

“Platforms have strong incentives to remain opaque to public scrutiny. Platforms profit from running ads — some of which are deeply offensive — and by keeping their algorithms secret and hiding data on where ads run they avoid accountability — circumventing advertiser complaints, user protests, and congressional inquiries. Without reliable information on how these massive platforms operate and how their technologies function, there can be no real accountability. When complaints are raised, the companies frequently deny or make changes behind the scenes. Even when platforms admit something has gone wrong, they claim to fix problems without explaining how, which makes it impossible to verify the effectiveness of the “fix.” Moreover, these fixes are often just small changes that only paper over fundamental problems, while leaving the larger structural flaws intact. This trend has been particularly harmful for BIPOC who already face significant barriers to participation in the public square.”

This latest action by Facebook undermines the independent, public-interest research and journalism that is crucial for the health of our democracy. Research on platform and algorithmic transparency, such as the work led by Cybersecurity for Democracy, is necessary to develop evidence-based policy that is vital to a healthy democracy.

A Call to Action

Collective action is required to address Facebook’s repeated attempts to curtail journalism and independent, academic research into their business and advertising practices. Along with our NetGain partners, we have called for three immediate remedies:

We ask Facebook to reinstate the accounts of the NYU researchers as a matter of urgency. Researchers and journalists who conduct research that is ethical, protects privacy, and is in the public interest should not face suspension from Facebook or any other platform.
We call on Facebook to amend its terms of service within the next three months, following up on an August 2018 call to establish a safe harbor for research that is ethical, protects privacy and is in the public interest.
We urge government and industry leaders to ensure access to platform data for researchers and journalists working in the public interest.

The foundations who make up the NetGain Partnership share a vision for an open, secure, and equitable internet space where free expression, economic opportunity, knowledge exchange, and civic engagement can thrive. This attempt to impede the efforts of independent researchers is a call for us all to protect that vision, for the good of our communities, and the good of our democracy.

Read the NetGain Partners’ Open Letter to Facebook

Back to Ideas

Resource

Language Access for Voters Summit 2021

February 17, 2022

Removing Language Barriers from the Voting Process

Democracy Fund’s Language Access for Voters Summit is an annual event that aims to remove language barriers from the voting process. The 2021 convening was held Dec. 13-14, 2021, following the Dec. 8th release of the Census Bureau’s new Section 203 language determinations under the Voting Rights Act—which provide language assistance in U.S. elections.

To help election officials navigate and implement the necessary changes, the agenda included discussions with local, state and federal election officials, voting rights advocates, and translation experts. Participants shared pragmatic ideas, tools, and best practices for providing language assistance—focusing officials’ immediate needs in the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections.

Celebrating the Diversity of Languages in the United States

The two-day event featured a collection of speaker-submitted videos in Armenian, Bengali, Dine’ (Navajo), English, Korean, Mandarin, Spanish, and Yup’ik. These represent a small sample of the languages election officials provide voter assistance for across the United States.

Speakers read the 2020 Presidential Election ballot in various languages from their jurisdictions, highlighted the critical value of language and culture integration in formal settings like polling places, and shared personal stories of how language access has played a role in their own life or someone they love.

The topics, presentations, materials and resources for each day of the Dec. 2021 summit can be viewed and downloaded below.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Journalism Funders: Ways to Uphold Your Diversity and Inclusivity Values During COVID-19

Jenny Choi, News Integrity Initiative

April 16, 2020

As funders move swiftly to respond to the information needs of COVID-19, it’s critical to consider the following tips to ensure that the communities most disproportionately impacted by the pandemic are not left out.

*Newsroom executives and managers: Looking for concrete ways you can uphold diversity and inclusivity values during COVID-19? Sisi Wei, director of programs at OpenNews has you covered.

There has been an influx of emergency funds created across a wide variety of sectors in rapid response to the crisis, but it’s also critical to remember that characterizing the coronavirus as the great “equalizer” is inaccurate. We can’t afford to neglect using a justice lens in designing these emergency funds to ensure that all communities, including those already struggling in information deserts, receive life-saving information during these unprecedented and challenging times.

The effect of the coronavirus on the local journalism industry has been extraordinarily complicated and profound: communities have become desperate for timely, accurate information on an unseen, unknown villain that seemed to take away all of their loved ones, their freedoms, and feelings of safety and security overnight. The economic impact of sheltering in place additionally devastated small businesses, including local news organizations that depended on ad revenue to provide vital civic information to their constituents.

I, along with many others, have been working on the importance of ramping up cultural competencies to improve coverage of our communities utilizing a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) lens. I’ve been grateful to see reporting that has shown the ways in which communities of color are disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus — from the racialization of the virus precipitating hate crimes against Asian Americans to the ways in which Black constituents experience significantly higher rates of COVID-19 exposure and fatalities compared to any other demographic.

Key things to consider when deploying an Emergency Response Fund:

Include partners with strong credibility working with communities of color, including newsrooms led by people of color, in the design and decision-making phases of the grantmaking.

Moving swiftly can be challenging for funders new to utilizing an equity and inclusion lens because they typically depend on existing networks and partners for efficiency. This is problematic because without ever spending the time to build trust with new partners and stakeholders of color, particularly those that work with undocumented constituents, funders will not likely include them in their existing networks. As such, working with place-based funders or non-profit organizations that clearly have a strong footprint in the targeted communities is a strategic starting point to ensure that the request for proposals will reach communities with whom you have not yet worked.

Address the inequity gaps in your language and criteria. Be open to creating space for new models and forms of journalism beyond legacy and mainstream media.

Dana Kawaoka-Chen of Justice Funders and Lori Villarosa of Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity offer clear outlines of key values on how and who to fund for social justice in response to COVID-19. Applying this framework that many health and economic development funders have already embraced for meaningful impact would be transformative for journalism and its role in improving access to resources for historically marginalized communities. For example, the Akonadi Foundation has announced a $1 million emergency fund for people-of-color-led organizations and projects in Oakland addressing the racial inequities exacerbated by the public health crisis.

The Robert R. McCormick Foundation in Chicago, along with other place-based funders in the area, has launched the Chicago COVID-19 Journalism Fund with criteria that specifically prioritizes smaller news outlets serving communities of color, including media that is offered in languages other than English.

Additionally, the Economic Hardship Reporting Project is offering mini grants for freelancers and journalists to commission stories on COVID-19 utilizing an equity lens, as well as those who might benefit from an emergency hardship grant that simply asks for a short, 350-word explanation of why the funds are needed, which significantly reduces the burden of submitting a lengthy proposal and increases access for folks new to writing an application for a grant. Other similar resources include journalist-organized grassroots funds such as the Journalist Furlough Fund and Microloans for Journalists, which also lists other relief funds for journalists.

Finally, the Facebook Journalism Project in partnership with other funders has also prioritized newsrooms reaching underserved audiences by making grants to boost coronavirus coverage. The grants prioritize independent and family-owned news organizations, which includes for-profit groups. This criteria addresses the fact that many people-of-color publishers operate small for-profit organizations and are not often eligible for grants from private foundations.

Support newsrooms serving communities that do not speak English as their first language.

The majority of the rapid response funds made available to journalists and journalism organizations have been English-only (both in the request for proposals and criteria set for applications). Partnering with initiatives such as the Center for Community Media (which also disseminates a newsletter tracking grant opportunities), Ethnic Media Services or Translators Without Borders — an organization that is providing translation services via mini-grants will broaden access to news organizations specifically targeting communities that do not speak English or depend on the information source in their primary language to access critical public services.

Coordinate with existing resources and efforts.

Journalists are working harder than ever to provide content daily to fulfill the essential information needs of our communities. Some news organizations are reporting that they are now creating four times the content they were producing on average, pre-coronavirus. So funders need to work together and coordinate these opportunities, to make it easier and less time-consuming for journalists and news organizations to identify support. Right now, there are many opportunities that seem to be announced in piecemeal fashion.

Media Impact Funders has also convened the funder community to brainstorm and coordinate ways for funders to strategically leverage and connect various efforts in addressing COVID-19. Funders interested in sharing insights and analysis, as well as their own rapid response grant efforts should contact Roshni Melia (roshni@mediafunders.org).

Funders might coordinate with place-based opportunities and other networks targeting vulnerable communities to ensure journalism funding is not left out in broader efforts to support community resilience. One example is the NDN COVID-19 Response Project which targets efforts specifically serving indigenous communities. Funders can collaborate with the Native American Journalists Association and NDN Collective to create clear pathways of support for tribal media organizations.

A guitar player performs on a street with a pandemic mural behind him that says "Stay Home" — Source: Vulcan.com

Other tools journalism funders can deploy during this crisis beyond making grants:

Advocate for local media to be included in any coronavirus stimulus package

Organizations such as PEN America and Free Press Media are leading coalition-building efforts to ensure funding for local media is included in the coronavirus stimulus package. This effort highlights small to mid-sized news organizations that serve hard to reach populations where local news ecosystems have already been fragile and are heavily supported by other small businesses in the region that are on the verge of shutting down due to shelter-in-place restrictions.

Share best practices on innovative collaborations to support capacity to address the information needs and demands of underserved communities

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has seeded and supported innovative local and regional journalism collaborations since 2009, across a wide array of diversely sized organizations serving many different constituent groups. Leveraging the public media network and applying lessons learned on how these collaborations expanded the overall capacity for newsrooms to serve information deserts are ways funders can help newsrooms make their news operations more innovative and streamline content production.

Fund affinity expert organizations such as the Asian American Journalism Association, National Association of Black Journalists, National Association of Hispanic Journalists, Association of the LGBTQ Journalists, the Maynard Institute, and identify other resources to ensure newsrooms abide by rigorous journalism ethics in covering COVID-19 and its disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.

The Asian American Journalism Association created a guide on how to responsibly cover the coronavirus utilizing a diversity, equity and inclusive lens. The guide has been widely circulated in response to xenophobic attacks perpetrated against the Asian community as a result of COVID-19 misinformation.

Elevate and protect diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) values by holding newsrooms accountable in the face of imminent layoffs and disappearing internships.

The News Integrity Initiative has been working with a cohort of journalists of color, the newsrooms in which they work (along with their managers and editors), and OpenNews to reform what managers prioritize as skills and competencies for next generation audiences and news providers. There is a danger that layoff decisions and shutting down internship programs will disproportionately impact journalists who are the most vulnerable.

Sisi Wei of OpenNews has written practical strategies and tips for managers to navigate these decisions while continuing to uphold DEI values. Her work highlights the need to deploy hiring best practices within the context of the pandemic crisis (using efficiencies to speed up the process without sacrificing the integrity of the process), and how to use data responsibly and equitably to make difficult decisions, like layoffs.

Funders can support newsrooms to uphold these values in a few ways:

Work with journalism education and training institutions to help subsidize internship program shortfalls.
Support the disaggregation of existing data collection efforts to track layoffs, furloughs and pay cuts across newsrooms. The News Integrity Initiative is working with OpenNews and the journalists of color community at large to be a resource for time-strapped managers that may not have the capacity to see how reactive personnel decisions might decimate previous DEI efforts.
Figure out ways to coordinate and support the work of existing diversity committees in newsrooms.

As newsrooms have come to greatly depend on philanthropic support, we are in a moment where the leadership of funders who care about the provision of high quality civic information is critical in saving people’s lives — in particular, the lives of the most vulnerable. The business of journalism may not look the same after we’ve recovered from the pandemic, but philanthropy can be proactive in taking the right steps to ensure we are making thoughtful, inclusive and equitable decisions for the future, to support a vibrant democracy that celebrates and supports all lived experiences and stories.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Somali, Other African Media Play a Critical Role in Minnesota’s Diverse Communities

Oni Advincula

October 4, 2019

It’s early Friday morning, and Siyad Salah drives his taxi around Cedar-Riverside in Minneapolis-St. Paul. He looks out the windshield, examining the neighborhood even though he’s been in the area many times. When he asks questions, he can be mistaken for an undercover cop rather than a taxi driver. He has a camera and tripod in the cab’s compartment. His pen and notebook are by his side.

Salah likes to talk to people he meets. From time to time, he stops by a gas station or a local grocery story, and then chats with some immigrant workers there. In a state where more than 8 percent of residents are foreign-born, Siyad knows that any interesting story about or for his community — whether it may come from a passenger or something that he’d find while driving — could unfold anytime.

I have known Salah for more than a decade. I first met him when I was with New America Media, and we organized a press event on immigration in the Twin Cities. Siyad works as a taxi driver by dawn and a journalist by noon. A refugee from Somalia, he once told me that he does journalism for the Somali and other African communities in Minnesota, and he drives a cab to earn a living for his family.

“When my family first came to America, there was no television show in Somali. We didn’t understand what was happening around us. My mother felt so lonely and isolated,” he said. “That was how I got motivated to be involved in producing a show called ‘Somali TV’ in our native language.”

Today, as immigration and race continue to be a profoundly complicated issue in Minnesota and U.S. politics in general, more Somali and other African media outlets have remained robust across the state — both to inform both newcomers and those immigrants and refugees who have already settled into a larger American society and to reduce stigma by magnifying the community’s positive contributions.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul region has the largest Somali population in the United States. Many of them first came as students or businesspeople, and in recent decades as refugees as a result of the Somali Civil War. To date, the Twin Cities have had a number of Somali programs and news outlets — including Somali TV, the state’s first Somali television program to air on Minneapolis Television Network (MTN) and other online platforms, Somali American, Somali Link Radio on KFAI, KALY Somali American Radio and Tusmo Times. The area also has a diverse African media, such as The Africa Paper, Mshale (Kenyan) and Zehabesha (Ethiopian).

“The [African] news outlets greatly help our communities integrate into the American life,” said Abdulkadir Osman, a Somali American community leader. “At the same time, they connect us all to our relatives and loved ones we left behind in our home countries.”

Osman, who founded Somali TV and brought it to MTN with Salah in 1997, says these African news media have played an important role in keeping his community civically engaged. They’ve helped to produce American politicians, writers, and activists, including Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Nuruddin Farah, and Abdi Warsame.

Abdulkadir Osman, founder of Somali TV. (Photo credit: Oni Advincula)

Minnesota’s other immigrant enclaves

In the late 19th century, European immigrants — mostly those from Scandinavia, Germany, Ireland, and Italy — came to Minnesota and made it their home. Then, in the early 20th century, the next wave of immigrants were Poles and Mexicans. From the late 20th century till present, immigrants from Southeast Asia, East Africa, and Central America have settled across the state. The immigrant community has ultimately made Minnesota one of the most diverse states in the U.S., in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, age and educational attainment.

With the recent increase of the Asian immigrant population, Minneapolis-St. Paul has established strong and reliable Asian media. There’s one Chinese-language news outlet, China Tribune, in the Twin Cities. Still, the Hmong-American community is the most dominant market. Two of these prominent community outlets — Hmong Today and Hmong Times — are weekly publications. However, it’s Hmong radio stations have the largest audience-base in the Hmong community.

Wameng Moua, editor and publisher of Hmong Today, told me that most of the U.S.-born or raised Hmong Americans tend to read the online English edition or on social media, while the first-generation and Hmong immigrants prefer to get their information from radio stations.

“Most younger Hmong Americans interact and get their information on Facebook. So, it is a must to have a social media account for the paper — and it is less expensive to run,” he said.

Martha Vickery, publisher of the English-language The Korean Quarterly, said that the Asian population has greatly increased in the Twin Cities. “We are seeing more and more Southeast Asian immigrants — Thai, Cambodians, Filipinos and Vietnamese — immigrating to the area,” she said. “They could surpass the Hmong population in the coming years.”

Most recently, the Sahan Journal launched in August 2019 with coverage for and about Minnesota’s immigrant communities, led by Somali-American journalist Mukhtar Ibrahim. “We want to show how these communities are transforming, what they’re going through, and be a professional news website that produces high-quality, highly edited stories,” said Ibrahim.

That means community-based and led media will be all the more important in the Twin Cities and across the state, as this niche market continues to inform and engage different immigrant populations, connecting them to their home countries while creating new ties in their current one.

Oni Advincula was a former editor and national media director for New America Media and a correspondent for The Jersey Journal. Currently, he works as a media consultant and and a freelance journalist. He is the co-author of “The State of Ethnic and Community Media in New Jersey” and has worked with ethnic media in 45 states for more than 20 years.

Back to Ideas

Blog

We need fair and accurate reporting on Muslim Americans. Here’s how funders can help.

Angelica Das

June 26, 2020

One of the many ways funders can support equitable journalism is by investing in fair, just, and accurate reporting on and representation of Muslim Americans. This week, a troubling story unfolded in Tennessee and in national news that demonstrates just how easily Muslim American communities can be targeted, misrepresented, and deeply harmed through lack of accountability.

Here’s what happened

On June 21, The Tennessean, the state’s flagship paper, printed a full-page ad from a religious cult in the Sunday edition, claiming that “Islam” would “detonate a nuclear device” in Nashville on July 18, 2020. Digital ads from this group also appeared online. This was not the first time the paper had printed an ad from this group.

Zulfat Suara, Board Member for the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC) and Nashville Councilwoman, and Samar Ali, Founding President of Millions of Conversations, both contacted The Tennessean to raise the alarm about how Muslim Americans, particularly in Tennessee, had become targets for hate groups. Both leaders received calls from the paper’s editor with apologies and a commitment to investigation. The paper also pledged that the advertising money would be donated to AMAC.

By mid-day, The Tennessean issued a public apology and published a story indicating they would investigate how the ad was published “in violation of the newspaper’s long-established standards, which “clearly forbid hate speech.” Leadership at both the paper and Gannett, which owns the paper, condemned the violation.

That afternoon, The New York Times published a story about the event. The Times article did not include references, quotes, interviews, or mentions of Tennessee residents outside of the paper itself. It did not include perspectives from Muslim Americans in Tennessee. AMAC and Millions of Conversations, both founded and based in Tennessee, were never contacted. Instead, sources included the newspaper’s editor, a white sports reporter who had tweeted his concern, the paper’s vice president of sales, as well as out-of-state experts. The paper also included a quote from the man who identified himself as the leader of the extremist group behind the ad (who wanted a refund).

The Times article did not include references, quotes, interviews, or mentions of Tennessee residents outside of the paper itself. It did not include perspectives from Muslim Americans in Tennessee.

The next day, on June 22, The Tennessean published an op-ed by Samar Ali: “Running this disinformation ad was more than a lapse in judgment. Disinformation is Hate’s primary tool in today’s environment as it continues to mislead communities as COVID-19 spreads rapidly around our country.”

Ali goes on to explain that Millions of Conversations exists to fight this kind of disinformation and encourage Americans “to engage with trustworthy information and challenge their preconceived ideas about other communities.”

The Tennessean also reported on June 22 that Gannett had fired an advertising manager responsible for publishing the ad. Three advertising staff had chances to review the ad before publication — none raised any concerns. The article included interviews with both AMAC and the group responsible for the ad.

The same day, the Times again ran a story about the firing and The Tennessean’s plans to administer diversity and inclusion training. The article repeated the extremist group’s request for a refund. And again, no Muslim Americans in Tennessee were quoted.

What are the implications for racial equity in journalism?

Muslim Americans were deeply harmed by the lack of oversight and accountability in The Tennessean’s advertising arm. At best, this ad perpetuated ugly stereotypes, and at worst, it put lives in danger by equating Islam with terrorism. A 2016 Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) report shows evidence that as we draw closer to the November election, identity politics will increase attention on and targeting of Muslim people and communities.

A woman wearing a hijab presents information at an IPSU media training. — Photo: An IPSU media training in Chicago. Credit: IPSU.

Let’s be clear: The Tennessean took the appropriate steps. They publicly accepted responsibility, provided reparations, and made staffing changes.

The coverage in the Times, however, is a powerful indicator of how wide the gap is in understanding what it means to represent and include community voices. This national newsroom turned away from the people whose lives are impacted. It featured voices from individuals far removed from the story itself. It prioritized the voices of the perpetrators.

Trusted, responsible news must include the voices of people who have been left out of — and often harmed by — traditional news coverage. And we must do more than include more voices: We must shift power, leadership, and funding to historically marginalized groups in order for news to serve its purpose as a critical community resource. These are just some of the groups funders can support who we can count on to help us bridge the gap:

Millions of Conversations is a national nonprofit working to counteract harmful narratives about Muslim Americans, including the myth that Islam is in any way a threat. They are changing the story about what is a threat, in Ali’s words “COVID-19, systemic racism and polarization.” (Millions of Conversations is a Democracy Fund grantee.)

The American Muslim Advisory Council promotes civic engagement, community-building, and provides media training to support accurate reporting on and representation of Muslim Americans in Tennessee.

8.5 Million, a project by ReThink Media, is a robust database of sources and experts on Muslim, Arab, and South Asian issues with contact information for reporters. (ReThink Media is a former Democracy Fund grantee.)

The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding has a guide for journalists for how to cover Muslim Americans objectively and creatively. And in partnership with the Pulitzer Center, ISPU is hosting ongoing trainings (with support from Democracy Fund).

Funders can advance racial equity in journalism and support fair, just, and accurate reporting by investing in this work. Democracy Fund is proud to be part of the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, which is currently supporting 16 grantees led by and serving communities of color. And there are many more organizations working to ensure journalism is more reflective of all communities, particularly those that have been historically stereotyped or harmed by media. We hope you will join us in supporting this crucial work.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Featured

The State of Election Administration in 2022

Paul Gronke & Paul Manson

November 2, 2022

In a nation of over 258.3 million eligible voters, election officials’ myriad duties differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—small to large, rural to urban—and from voter to voter. Despite these many differences, there are common themes and predictable challenges faced by every official. And of course, every official has experienced unforeseen events and unexpected circumstances that force them to assess, reform, and adapt. As any official will tell you, there is always another election on the horizon.

The Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials provides a window into the attitudes, actions, and needs of the public servants who manage US elections. Surveys during the last three election cycles have illustrated the stable features of the system and the way that the challenges of the moment impact the people administering the democratic process.

Local Election Officials

More than half of election officials are elected – 57 percent overall, but in small jurisdictions with fewer than 5,000 registered voters that increases to 67 percent – while 27 percent are appointed, and 15 percent are hired to fill a position. Just over half of these races are partisan and the other half are non-partisan, and the vast majority of elected officials (81 percent) ran uncontested in the general election. The need to attract candidates and talent will only continue to grow as veteran officials leave the field in growing numbers.

In the 2018 survey, officials’ recent experiences with foreign interference in election cybersecurity impacted the complexity of their work. In 2020, the pandemic and extraordinary polarization of the candidates and the electorate created stress and rapid change in methods of voting that election officials had to manage. The 2022 survey illustrates more emergent challenges as election officials report coping with the combinations of mis- and disinformation about elections, violence against election officials, and extreme partisan disparities in the public’s confidence in election results.

All of this is happening in an environment where the biggest disparity in the election system continues to be geographic. Elections are managed by local jurisdictions and there are tremendous differences between election offices that serve the largest and smallest populations. Seventy-five percent of all offices serve only 8 percent of voters, and 8 percent of our election offices serve 75 percent of voters. This disparity is driven by the fact that the largest 2 percent of offices serve half of the nation’s voters.

The impact of an increased election-related workload is disproportionally higher on smaller jurisdictions than their counterparts in medium and large jurisdictions. This should not be surprising since one third of all election offices do not have even one full-time employee. In small jurisdictions that serve less than 5,000 voters that number increases to 53 percent. The increased workload for many may have been the result of concerted campaigns to flood election offices with Freedom of Information Act requests around the 2020 election based on conspiracy and conjecture.

Each election cycle, the Democracy Fund/Reed College Local Election Official (LEO) Survey has asked local officials about key aspects of their work including preparedness for the upcoming election, job satisfaction, and training needs for the election officials and members of their staffs.

LEOs retain a commitment to meeting the demands of their jobs and the challenges of finding adequate polling locations and poll workers – especially sufficient bilingual workers and accessible facilities – persist with varying degrees across jurisdiction sizes.

Overall job satisfaction among LEOs remains high, but there are cracks in the veneer. The percentage of LEOs who do not think they can maintain a work/life balance has increased and the percentage who say their workload is reasonable has dropped since 2018.

Among the 2022 survey participants, close to one third of the election officials are eligible to retire before the 2024 election—and 39 percent of those eligible plan to do so. Of these respondents, retirement eligibility is the highest reason for leaving the field (51 percent) but “I do not like the changes in my work environment that occurred during and after the November 2020 election” (42 percent) and “I do not enjoy the political environment” (37 percent) followed close behind. For those who are not near retirement age their number one reason for leaving the field was cited as “changes in how elections are administered make the work unsatisfying” (48 percent) and an alarming 28 percent citing that they plan to leave the field based on “concerns about my health or personal safety, aside from COVID concerns.”

Disruption in the Field

One in four respondents have experienced threats of violence. Officials across all jurisdiction sizes and political affiliations experienced these threats, but the threat environment is much more severe in larger jurisdictions compared to smaller jurisdictions. For example, while 14 percent of LEOs serving jurisdictions with less than 5,000 registered voters told us that they had experienced abuse, harassment, or threats, the percentage increases to two-thirds of LEOs serving in the largest jurisdictions. Similarly, 20 percent of LEOs who told us they were Republicans said they experienced threats, compared to 30 percent of Independents and 34 percent of Democrats. These differences should not disguise the overall result: threats against LEOs are far too real, far too regular, and far too common.

The preponderance of threats targeting election officials are politically based threats. Our 2022 survey showed that 63 percent of threats received were politically motivated. The narrative driving these threats—that the 2020 election was illegitimate and that LEOs were complicit in allowing the election to be stolen–-has manifested in threats to election professionals and their families, and changes to state election laws. More than half (55 percent) of the survey respondents said that they have had legislation passed that impacts how they conduct the election—with 35 percent saying those changes improved election administration and 46 percent saying the new laws did not improve election administration.

The majority – 66 percent – of election officials surveyed this year expressed concern about threats and harassment. When asked how seriously various organizations take the threats to election officials, 43 percent said that their state’s chief election official (in most states, the secretary of state) takes the threats “very seriously.” However, LEOs felt that others took the threats far less seriously: only 27 percent for local law enforcement, 25 percent for federal law enforcement, 17 percent for the state legislature and for the national media, 14 percent for the local media, and 12 percent for the U.S. Congress.

About the Survey and Interviews

The 2022 survey of local election officials was a self-administered web and hardcopy survey conducted from June 21 to September 22, 2022. This study used a LEO sample collected by the team, with a sampling frame based in part on national lists of local election officials and the sizes of their jurisdictions. From this frame, the team drew a sample of 3,118 LEOs, sampling jurisdictions in proportion to the number of registered voters they serve and targeting the chief election official in each jurisdiction to complete the survey. A total of 912 LEOs completed the survey, including 652 surveys completed via web (71 percent) and 260 (29 percent) completed via hardcopy with an overall response rate of 30 percent.

Survey findings are often presented by jurisdiction size to understand differences in experiences.

Fifty-seven percent of local election officials serve in jurisdictions of 5,000 or fewer voters.
Twenty-seven percent serve in jurisdictions of 5,001 to 25,000 voters.
Ten percent serve in jurisdictions of 25,001 to 75,000 voters.
Six percent serve in jurisdictions of more than 75,000 voters.

While most officials serve in small jurisdictions, the vast majority of voters live in large jurisdictions — over 70 percent of voters live in jurisdictions with more than 75,000 voters and are served by only 500 officials. It’s important to consider the possible differences in scale, responsibility, and resources between different jurisdiction sizes when interpreting results from any survey of this population. Where overall results are presented, they are weighted to ensure that means can be generalized to local election officials nationwide. Further information about the sampling and weighting process is available at the Reed College Elections & Voting Information Center’s project website.

Explore additional 2022 content and learn more about the Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials through Reed College’s Elections & Voting Information Center. Prior publications from the survey series are also available below.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Featured

Introducing Our New Elections & Voting Strategy

Lindsay Daniels

October 11, 2022

In April 2022, Democracy Fund announced a new organizational strategy with a commitment to investing in the power and leadership of communities of color to strengthen and expand the pro-democracy movement, and undermine those who threaten the ideal of our inclusive, multi-racial democracy.

The U.S. voting system was not designed for an inclusive, multi-racial democracy and has always de-valued certain communities, including communities of color, people with disabilities, low-income citizens, and those with intersecting marginalized identities. As a result, people of color face a voting system that continues to be rigged against their participation and power. This flawed design is accompanied by an election administration system long underfunded and weakened by disinformation peddled by an authoritarian movement. False allegations of voter fraud have increased mistrust of election processes and outcomes, led to violent threats against local election officials, and provided a pretext for state legislators to try to seize control of election outcomes.

With these challenges in mind, the Elections & Voting program took a step back to review the past six years of investments and design a new five-year strategy that meets the moment. We seek an election system that consistently produces trusted results, fairly represents the will of the majority of voters, and reflects equitable participation—especially among communities of color. This new strategy builds on the invaluable expertise, accountability, and advice of the many grantees, partners, and leaders we have worked with over the years, all of whom helped inform the direction of this new strategy and to whom we are deeply grateful.

Supporting free, fair, and equitable elections

Our refreshed Elections & Voting program envisions a democracy where people of color hold equal power to influence election outcomes and build a fully representative and participatory democracy. The current election infrastructure needs to function effectively and impartially. As we work towards these goals, we must also reimagine the system to center the voters that have been historically marginalized and oppressed.

To support this vision, we are investing in two areas of work:

Resilient Elections to strengthen the election infrastructure so it is less vulnerable to election sabotage and election-related violence; and
Voting Power to focus on equitable participation, voice, and power for people for color.

These two initiatives are built on several assumptions about how Democracy Fund can contribute to the elections and voting field, and where our investments can complement work that is happening on the ground and through other funding partners:

We believe that robust election administration and election administrators are the last line of defense against authoritarianism. Over the past seven years, we have supported trainings, tools, convenings, and research to professionalize the field of election administration. We will now shift our focus to combatting the politicization of the profession through stable funding and staffing for election administration. When election administrators are well-funded and well-trained, they can expand access to voting and prevent attempts at election sabotage.

Communities must have the power they need to elect leaders who represent their interests and influence government to be responsive to their needs. Organizers working in communities of color often lack year-round funding to build organizational capacity and conduct essential organizing that would enable sustained political power. Grassroots organizing that centers communities of color needs year-round support that allows them to build sustained momentum for participation in civic life, issue advocacy, and elections.

More transformative changes are necessary to equalize voters’ power and address the fairness and legitimacy of the election system. Even when people successfully vote, anti-majoritarian structures can reduce their voting power based on where they live. Until we unrig the election system, it is impossible to describe our political system as representing the will of the majority. While we pursue these structural changes, we must ensure voting rights continue to expand.

Some changes you will see in our elections funding

After six years of investments and experimentation, we have taken a close look at our strategy and adjusted to meet both the moment and the needs of the field. Many grantees and partners contributed to our learning by participating in evaluations of the Voter Centric Election Administration and Election Security portfolios, and in our strategy planning process. A few shifts emerged from those reflections, including:

We will deepen our support for state and local organizing groups that are building power in their communities, particularly communities of color, to engage and connect individuals in their communities, empowering them to impact policy when they participate in civic life.

We will recenter our support for voting rights work at the national level to better complement grassroots organizing and state election policy and advocacy.

We will invest less in tools and trainings for election officials while supporting election administration in new ways, with an emphasis on how to properly fund and staff election infrastructure, infuse a racial justice lens into election administration, and disincentivize leaders from undermining election results.

In partnership with our Governance Program, we will move away from incremental changes and toward long-term structural changes in our democracy that support representative and equitable majority rule.

Looking ahead to the next five years

We are incredibly proud of and grateful for the important work our grantees and partners have led over the past six years. We will continue to champion the field and are committed to a responsible shift as we build toward an inclusive, multi-racial democracy.

As we prepare for the strategy launch in 2023, we will continue to learn, adapt, and grapple with several outstanding questions. We will partner with other funders to strengthen elections and ensure equitable voter participation. We will share more information and updates on our website about our work, and we welcome your feedback.

You can expect to see similar updates from our other programs as other organizational strategy decisions are finalized.

Back to Ideas

Blog

A New Coalition to Build a Congress That Looks Like America

Laura Maristany

September 17, 2020

Democracy Fund seeks to develop leaders among Capitol Hill staff so that policymaking and Congress reflect the diversity of our country. For me, this is not theoretical. From a paid internship that opened the doors to Congress, to full-time positions with two House members from Puerto Rico, I recall my days on the Hill, eagerly seeking opportunities for professional growth and advancement. In interview after interview, hiring managers on the Hill could not translate my experience leading work under two Committees, speaking three languages fluently and working in an office that represented over four million constituents (which in a state would be represented by six House members and two Senators), into a skill set that would benefit their office in a more senior position.

Despite my desire to remain in public service and three promotions, I hit a wall that kept me from advancing to senior-level positions in Congress. Ultimately, I left the Hill to lead advocacy efforts at the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), and later, the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials (NALEO). During this time, I became fully aware that the obstacles I faced in Congress were not personal shortcomings or lack of skills. These barriers to entry and advancement were part of a system of hiring that made it difficult for others like me with no personal political connections, no financial resources to supplement earnings in low or non-paid Hill positions, and no “godparents” to navigate the byzantine maze of career development on Capitol Hill. As a Latina, I saw few walking the halls of the Capitol that looked like me. As a conservative Latina, there were even fewer. Many Latinos are “firsts” in our families: to graduate from college, to work in Washington D.C. and/or to work in Congress. It can be an isolating experience and explains why staff associations are a major part of the support network for certain communities. Though we’ve made some progress, disparities still exist. This lag in numbers and representation explains why there is no formal network of Latino “madrinas or padrinos” that can support entry and mid-level staffers with job counsel and personal references. Today, I am proud to lead the Constructive Politics team at Democracy Fund, where we recognize diverse perspectives as a way to build legislative consensus that results in a stronger, more effective democracy.

That belief drives our investment strategy at Democracy Fund. Since 2017, we have granted more than $4 million to organizations working towards a more representative, diverse and inclusive Congress. Today, those grantees have launched a new coalition, Representative Democracy, to create an ecosystem of diverse leadership talent in Congress, from interns to senior staff. This effort has been three years in the making and reflects the rich insight and learnings from member organizations. Some offer leadership programs while others generate data and execute issue-based campaigns that center diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and advocate for legislative change. In honor of today’s launch, I’d like to share some key learnings, shine a spotlight on the work some of these grantees have been doing over the last three years, and encourage you to learn more about how Representative Democracy can be a resource to you.

Lesson 1: Offer paid internships as one of the most direct pathways for underrepresented students into Congress.

It is a well-known fact that internships get your foot in the door. In fact, my paid congressional internship served as the foundation for my career and led to two full-time staff positions, but it would not have been an option for me as an unpaid position. Like me at that time, many students cannot afford this learning opportunity even if it offers a great entryway to the Hill. Pay Our Interns made this gap the center of their campaign that successfully garnered legislative approval for paid internships on Capitol Hill. They argued that the more you make paid internships available, the more you broaden accessibility that will create a diverse applicant pool. This summer, the group released their first report on the diversity of House interns. Beyond mapping out what congressional interns look like, the study “…found strong evidence that the congressional workplace is racially segregated. A lawmaker’s race, political party, and the demographic composition of their congressional district all have a strong effect on whom they hire as interns.”

Another Democracy Fund partner, College to Congress, has developed programs to ensure interns have meaningful learning experiences on the Hill and are able to remain engaged despite the challenges caused by COVID-19. In further testament to adaptation, they digitized their curriculum for students interested in internships and employment in public service — called C2CU — as a series of professional development courses. The approach must be working as more than 540 students from diverse backgrounds have been trained on C2CU and 90 percent of C2C alumni have been hired in political and government-related careers.

Lesson 2: Create more real-time transparency about the demographics of congressional staff

This is a complex endeavor due to congressional election cycles and the fact that Congress does not gather demographic data about its own staff. Since 2015, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies has generated some of this data through Hill staff surveys, serving as a model to Congress of how accurate data collection can be undertaken. In fact, the Joint Center’s first Senate report found only seven percent of top Senate staffers were people of color. This report prompted Senate Democrats to focus on demographic data collection to assess the racial diversity of Senators’ offices. These findings and accountability metrics, publicly released for the first time by Congress, were a good first step but much work remains to be done to bring long-term system change and build an inclusive workplace. This summer, the Joint Center’s follow-up Senate report found that people of color make up 40 percent of the U.S. population, but only 11% of all Senate office top staff. The release was featured in the New York Times and includes stark findings on the ratio of employees by racial group relative to the U.S. population.

When you break down the ratio of employees by racial group relative to the U.S. population, the results are alarming.

Lesson 3: Invest in leadership development to help diverse staffers advance.

Since 2017, NALEO Educational Fund’s Staff Up Congress program has trained 74 midlevel diverse staff and more than 54 percent have been promoted after participating in their program. The Aspen Socrates Emerging Governance Leaders program is helping diverse congressional staff better understand the role of Congress so they can exercise more effective leadership within the institution. Leadership development is particularly important for congressional staff because they are the behind-the-scenes force that advises legislators on policies intended to represent the interests of all Americans. Understanding the need to provide these opportunities, Congress established the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion with Democratic and Republican staff that will guide offices “to recruit, hire, train, develop, advance, promote, and retain a diverse workforce.” There’s no question about it, these organizations are helping move towards a more functional Congress. They bet on professional development opportunities for their communities and it has paid off.

Lesson 4: Create models for systemic change, not just short-term solutions.

With increased attention being paid to issues of race and racism within the workplace and in our public institutions, we have the opportunity to create models for systemic change instead of continuing programs and policies that, while well-intentioned, ultimately foster the notion that our communities need to work around structural barriers to equity as opposed to dismantling them. Making this shift requires technical expertise and leadership across sectors.

The Brain Trust for a Representative Democracy is a collaborative effort of experts and practitioners on issues related to diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging (DEIB) in the public sector. The members who comprise the Brain Trust bring a range of experience and knowledge on the latest theory, practical tactics, insight in how to train and change behavior, and expertise on the institution of Congress. The group was formed to develop and be thought leaders on how the concepts of DEIB can be applied to Congress and other public institutions. They are just beginning their work in September 2020 and we look forward to learning from their work.

Diversity By Itself is Not Enough

From interns to senior staff, Democracy Fund grantees are helping to make congressional careers more accessible — to ensure Congress looks like America and creates policies responding to the needs of all Americans. Thanks to their leadership development programs, research, advocacy and leadership, we are closer to creating a more functional Congress with diverse perspectives and career development opportunities for its staff. These programs should continue to grow to help more diverse staffers engage with power in Congress.

We also need more hiring managers to build their capacity to bring in and meaningfully engage more diverse teams. To do that, they will need more allies who can move beyond talking about creating a more diverse and inclusive Congress, to actually doing it. Diversity by itself is not enough. We need to understand how to increase inclusive decision-making. Offices must create inclusive workplaces that engage all staff and recognize the strength they bring to the table. My experience feeling “mismatched” and isolated should not be replaying itself in an institution that serves as a proud icon of our representative democracy. I am grateful that the work of our Constructive Politics team centers my passion to help congressional staffers who look like me and you. Individually, our grantees are making an impact, but the collective power they bring as an ecosystem — providing professional development opportunities and tools for inclusive workplaces — is how we dismantle systems of inequity.