HomeMy WebLinkAboutHSAB 2022-04-14 MinutesMINUTES
City of Tukwila
Human Services Advisory Board
Thursday, April 14, 2022, 10:00 am — 12:00 pm
Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams
Board Members Present:
Jan Bolerjack (Vice Chair), Jonathan Joseph, Sharon Myklebust, Terra Straight
Absent:
Eileen English (Chair), Katrice Cyphers, Vacant Position (Representing Business Sector)
City Staff Present:
Stacy Hansen, Human Services Program Coordinator stacy.hansen@tukwilawa.gov
Jenny Ayres, Human Services Specialist ienny.ayres@tukwilawa.org
Niesha Fort -Brooks, Community Engagement Manager Niesha.fort-brooks@tukwilawa.gov
1. Call to Order —Training started at 10:07am, and the meeting was officially called to order by
Terra Straight at 11:06am.
2. Training on Implicit Bias — Guest Speaker Benita Horn, Inclusion & Equity Consultant
Discussed the definitions and differences in Implicit and Explicit Bias. Brainstormed strategies for
approaching the work of the board to address implicit bias. In reviewing applications for funding,
be aware of 1) barriers 2) privilege 3) possible biases. Acknowledge community
needs/challenges, while focusing on positive actions/accomplishments.
3. Human Services Quarterly Funding — Domestic Violence Funding Discussion
Evaluated funding for Domestic Violence Shelter. Terra Straight moved to develop a 2022
shelter contract with the YWCA with $9000 in reallocated funds, forfeited due to lack of
residents served. All members approved of the funding transition; motion passed.
4. Member Sharing — Updates
Members discussed developments in their organizations and relevant updates.
5. Information
Upcoming EPIC training on Tukwila's Equity Toolkit will be on May 12, 2022, 10:OOam-12:OOpm.
6. Adjournment Meeting adjourned by Vice Chair Jan Bolerjack at 12:03pm.
IN THIS ISSUE
Implicit Bias and Its Role in
Philanthropy and Grantmaking
BY JOHN A. POWELL
1
Implicit Bias and Native Americans:
Philanthropy's Hidden Minority
BY CRYSTAL ECHO HAWK
3
Gender Norms: The Missing Part
of Gender Equity Philanthropy
BY RIKI WILCHINS
A More Progressive Approach:
Recognizing the Role of Implicit
Bias in Institutional Racism
BY DEANGELO BESTER
A Message from the Executive Director 2
Member Spotlight
15
Implicit Bias and Its Role in Philanthropy
and Grantmaking
Philanthropy has proven itself a pow-
erful mechanism for working toward a
more equitable society by challenging
oppression and seeking to ensure so-
cial, economic and political change. No
one can doubt that we have removed
important barriers over the years, but
new mechanisms for exclusion and
marginalization are constantly emerg-
.�ncr
National Committee 1
for Responsive Philanthropy
challenging grantmakers
to strengthen communities
ing. For example, we did not have mass
incarceration when the Rev. Dr. King
marched in Selma for voting rights, and
we have since seen the emergence of
new ways to suppress the vote.
Only recently have we begun to un-
derstand the complicated ways that race,
gender and other nodes of identity can
interact with each other, structures and
processes of the mind to result in margin-
alization. This article will focus on the pro-
cesses of the mind. Even when people ex-
plicitly and consciously support fairness,
nonconscious processes can undermine
their intentions through implicit bias. As
we learn more about this complex phe-
nomenon, it is critical that philanthropy
By john a. powell
uses this knowledge to help move us to-
ward greater inclusion and fairness and
that those in philanthropy realize their
own susceptibility to implicit bias.
WHAT MIND SCIENCE TEACHES
US ABOUT IMPLICIT BIAS
Studying implicit bias helps us to under-
stand how we can embrace fairness at the
conscious level, and yet undermine fair-
ness at the implicit (nonconsious) level.
For example, in recent years, a continua-
tion, and in some cases, increase of racial
stratification (seen in incarceration rates,
health, home ownership, education and
life expectancy) have strengthened the
claim that race (continued on page 12)
Implicit Bias and Its Role in Philanthropy and Grantmaking
(continued from page 1)
still matters in the United States. This lack
of improvement exists simultaneously
with a general decline in overtly negative
racial attitudes. Faced with this contra-
diction, many simply ignore that condi-
tions haven t improved, or even blame
the racial other for being a part of a dys-
functional culture. There is inadequate
attention to how negative racial condi-
tions can be caused and reproduced by
structures and unconscious processes.
Mind science can help us to better
explain some of the contradictory dy-
namics between racial and gendered
attitudes and conditions. Mind science
looks at the intersection of various ways
that we process, synthesize and internal-
ize information. Like cognitive science,
it is interdisciplinary and can include
psychology, anthropology, sociology and
neuroscience. Research about implicit
bias helps us to better understand that
disconnect between our society s ideal of
fairness for all people and the continued
reality of its absence. As explained in the
first volume of The Perception Institute's
indispensable report series, The Science
of Equality, implicit bias is a diagnosis of
perceptual distortions.' Implicit bias con-
firms that race and gender matter — even
among those who consider themselves
nonracist and nonsexist. For example,
the majority of whites consciously report
that they do not think about race most of
the time and race does not matter. Yet, at
an unconscious level, to the majority of
whites, race does matter and they exhibit
racial bias.
Researchers have begun to recognize
that most cognitive and emotional re-
sponses to our environment happen with-
out our awareness. Psychologists have
known for 100 years that only 10 percent
of discrimination can be explained by the
conscious mind.2 Mind science tells us
that most of what we believe and process
consciously may be directly contradicted
by what we experience unconsciously
allowing for socially constructed and un-
consciously internalized implicit biases
to underpin our actions. This phenom-
enon is particularly likely to occur in the
context of race and gender.
Implicit or unconscious biases affect
not only our perceptions, but also our
behavior, policies and institutional ar-
rangements. As The Science of Equality
says, "Implicit bias and perception are of-
ten seen as individual problems when, in
fact, they are structural barriers to equal-
ity. s Likewise, the power and efficacy of
philanthropic work may be limited by
subconscious processes that work to re-
inforce structural barriers to equality. Our
unconscious beliefs simultaneously help
to form and are formed by structures and
the environment. Implicit biases there-
fore influence the types of outcomes we
see across a variety of contexts: school,
employment, housing, health, criminal
justice system, research and so forth.
These racialized outcomes subsequently
reinforce the very stereotypes and preju-
dices that helped create the stratified out-
comes and conditions.
Strategies to Reduce Bias
The philanthropic community can establish practices to prevent inherent bias from seeping into their work and the way funding is distributed.13
Doubt objectivity: Seeing yourself as ob-
jective actually tends to increase the role of
implicit bias; teaching people about noncon-
scious thought processes ultimately allows us
to guard against biased evaluations.
Increase motivation to be fair: Seeking
fairness, rather than being driven by fear of
external judgment, tends to decrease biased
actions.
Improve conditions of decision-
making: Implicit biases are a function of
automaticity. Engaging in mindful, deliberate
processing prevents our implicit biases from
kicking in and determining our behaviors.
Count: Implicitly biased behavior is best
detected by using data to determine whether
certain patterns of behavior lead to racially
disparate outcomes. Once one is aware of
such a link, it is then possible to consider
whether the outcomes are linked to bias.14
Monitor and improve the environment:
Because your environment both primes and
helps create bias associations, it is important
to continuously monitor and improve it.
Collect data and monitor outcomes:
Because implicit bias cannot be reliably
self-reported, it is important to set goals and
collect data to see if they are being met.
Involve a cross-section of decision -
makers: Research shows that including a
critical mass of underrepresented groups in
the decision-making process reduces bias.
Create institutional mechanisms to
reduce bias: In the context of school
suspension, having very clear and objective
criteria reduces bias.
Affirmatively state and pursue in-
clusive outcomes: Focus on changing
outcomes.
As important as these interventions are, we will not completely end implicit bias and that should not be our aim. The goal is not to end all bias
but to change behavior and outcomes. We must continue to look for better interventions and engage the structure and social context where deci-
sions are being made.
HOW IMPLICIT BIAS IS REFLECTED IN
GRANTMAKING AND PHILANTHROPY
The influence of implicit biases in
grantmaking and philanthropic work
is of critical concern. Gender bias has
been the most frequently investigated
of the varying types of biases discussed
in connection with grantmaking peer
review.4 A frequently cited study found
that female postdoctoral fellowship ap-
plicants had to be [two -and -a -half]
times more productive than the aver-
age male applicant to receive the same
competence score. s A paper to be
published in Academic Medicine used
automated text analysis to show that
there are gender biases in reviewers
critiques of R01 grant applications.6
In terms of race, recent findings
have shown that white researchers
receive National Institutes of Health
(NIH) grants at nearly twice the rate
Black researchers do.7 This stark statis-
tic stirred NIH Director of the Center
for Scientific Review, Richard Nakamu-
ra, to consider the role of unconscious
prejudice in grant reviews. Nakamura,
while not considering himself racially
biased, found that he harbored a slight
unconscious bias against minorities af-
ter taking a race association test.8 This
prompted his hypothesis that grant
reviewers may be similarly or more
deeply affected by implicit biases. Even
small bias can have a large conse-
quence in the world.
There is also an allocation bias in
terms of philanthropic funding. Wom-
en s groups are among those that con-
tinue to be underfunded, and only a
small percentage of philanthropic mon-
ies go to organizations led by racial mi-
norities, despite the high needs in these
communities. According to a Green -
lining Institute report, less than 5 per-
cent of the charitable donations from
more than 72,000 U.S. foundations
are granted to communities of color.9
Research also has found that funding
pertaining to Native American causes
Responsive Philanthropy
and concerns remains among the low-
est, amounting to less than 1 percent of
total giving.10
Further, "relatively few nonprofit
institutions serve the poor as a prima-
ry clientele. " Smaller and midsized
nonprofits — those more likely to serve
the poor continuously lack access to
reliable funding sources to help them
cover their full operating costs. For
smaller nonprofits, the restrictions that
come with grant money spending is of-
ten prohibitive.
Implicit bias in philanthropy affects
not just which groups get funded but
also who sits on the boards of philan-
thropic organizations (mostly white
Achieving true
transformative change
requires people
from diverse
backgrounds
to come together
as a community,
manage difficulties
and undertake
complex inquiries.
males), how grantmaking foundations
set priorities, how decisions are made,
who makes those decisions and even
who gets hired.
In 2008, a Grantmakers for Effec-
tive Organizations (GEO) study found
a pronounced disconnect between the
ways in which grantmakers are support-
ing nonprofits and what nonprofits say
could contribute to their success. 12 The
philanthropic community must ensure
that implicit biases do not betray the
conscious values at the root of philan-
thropic work. Achieving true transfor-
mative change requires people from di-
verse backgrounds to come together as
a community, manage difficulties and
undertake complex inquiries. This ne-
cessitates building mutual trust and re-
spect among the researchers, members
and stakeholders of the philanthropic
community itself and the communities
it serves. Accordingly, the philanthrop-
ic community must combat inequity by
taking into account both inherent bias
and a historical analysis of long-stand-
ing structural barriers.
We can gain a better understanding
of the dynamics that produce and exac-
erbate inequity as well as learn how
to overcome them by applying the
insights of mind science to race, gen-
der and other areas subject to implicit
bias. By recognizing and addressing
the role of implicit bias in its work, the
philanthropic community will be bet-
ter able to understand the past; engage,
appraise and transform the present; and
more effectively influence the future. ■
john a. powell is director of the Haas In-
stitute for a Fair and Inclusive Society and
professor of law and professor of African
American Studies and Ethnic Studies at
the University of California, Berkeley.
Notes
1. Rachel D. Godsil, et al., The Science
of Equality, Vol. 1: Addressing Implicit
Spring 2015 13
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR FOUNDATIONS INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING IMPLICIT BIAS
PERCEPTION INSTITUTE www.perception.org
In November 2014, the Perception Institute released The
Science of Equality, Volume 1: Addressing Implicit Bias, Ra-
cial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat in Education and Health
Care. This landmark report synthesizes hundreds of studies,
providing a comprehensive picture of the role of implicit
bias in discrimination.
RESEARCH BY JERRY KANG
Jerry Kang is vice chancellor for equity,
plicit bias in civil rights and race. See:
On discrimination in evaluation:
Seeing through Colorblindness:
Implicit Bias and the Law (http://
jerrykang.net/research/2010-seeing-
through-colorblindness/)
On affirmative action and race
consciousness:
Fair Measures: A Behavioral Realist
Revision of Affirmative Action (http://
jerrykang.net/research/2006-fair-
nneasures/)
KIRWAN INSTITUTE http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/
The Kirwan Institute has released a new State of the Science:
Implicit Bias Review (http://kirwan1nstitute.osu.edu/implicit-
bias-review/) every year for the past two years. The original
2013 report applies the implications of implicit bias to edu-
cation, health and criminal justice. The 2014 report builds
on this by delving into employment and housing.
http://jerrykang.net/
diversity and inclusion at UCLA. He has written extensively about the role of im-
On media policy:
Trojan Horses of Race (http://
jerrykang.net/research/2005-trojan-
horses-of-race/)
Bits of Bias (http://jerrykang.net/
research/2012 -bits-of-bias/)
On personal responsibility and
culture:
New Cultural Defense (http://
jerrykang.net/research/2011-new-
cultural-defense/)
On the science of automatic
processing:
TEDx — Immaculate Perception?
(http://jerrykang.net/2013/12/11/tedx-
immaculate-perception/)
Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype
Threat in Education and Healthcare,
Perception Institute, November 2014,
http: //diversity. Berkeley. ed u/sites/de-
fault/files/ScienceofEquality_web. pdf.
2. john a. powell, How Implicit Bias and
Structural Racialization Can Move Us
Toward Social and Personal Healing,
University of Arkansas Clinton School
of Public Service & Center on Com-
munity Philanthropy, 2013, http://
clintonschool.uasys.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2013/ 12/Clinton-School-
Compendium-2013.pdf; also see Wal-
ter Matthews, Human life from many
angles, Goodwill Publishing Company,
1922.
3. Id.
4. Lutz Bornmann, et al., "A multilevel
meta-analysis of studies reporting cor-
relations between the h index and 37
different h index variants,"Journal of
Informetrics, February 2011.
5. Christine Wenneras and Agnes Wold,
"Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review,"
Nature 387, May 1997, http://www.
nature.com/nature/journal/v387/
n6631/abs/387341a0.html.
6. Molly Carnes, et al., Exploring the
Science of Scientific Review, University
of Wisconsin -Madison, Wisconsin,
forthcoming.
7. Sara Reardon, "NIH to probe racial
disparity in grant awards," Nature 512,
August 2014, http://www.nature.
com/news/nih-to-probe-racial-disparity-
in-grant-awards-1.15740.
8. Id.
9. Avis Atkins and Orson Aguilar, A
Promise to Diverse Communities:
Summary of the Foundation Coalitions
Efforts, Greenlining Institute, June 2012,
http://greenlining.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/02/PDCreport. pdf.
10. Foundation Funding for Native Ameri-
can Issues and Peoples, The Founda-
tion Center, 2011, http://www.
nativephilanthropy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013 /03 /201 1 -Fou ndation-
Fundi ng -for -Native -American -Issues -and -
Peoples. pdf
11. Charles Clotfelter, Who Benefits From
the Nonprofit Sector?, Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1992, p. 22.
12. Nancy Burd, On the Money: The Key
Financial Challenges Facing Nonprofits
Today — and How Grantmakers Can
Help, 2009, http://www.socialimpact-
exchange.org/sites/www.socialim-
pactexchange.org/files/publications/
On_the_Money_v2. pdf.
13. This list was formulated by Jerry Kang
and a group of researchers, detailed in
The Science of Equality, in the context
of judicial decision-making, but can be
applied to the similar process of grant -
making. See Godsil.
14. Id.
14 National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Responsive Philanthropy
Strategies to Reduce Implicit [Masi
1. Common Ground: Focus on what you have in common with the individual members of groups you
are stereotyping.
2. Counter -stereotypic Imaging: Develop new associations that counter your stereotypes. Expose
yourself to or think about people in the same groups who possess positive traits that contrast with
your stereotypes
3. Individuation: Learn specific information about your colleagues and people around you. This
prevents stereotypic assumptions and enables association based on personal and unique, rather
than group, characteristics. Consider the attributes of the individual apart from their group. For
instance, when you meet someone in a different race, focus on their individual characteristics, traits,
interests, and preferences rather than stereotypes about persons in that race.
4. Perspective Taking: Imagine oneself to be a member of a stereotyped group. Take the perspective
of the person. Try to understand from their perspective what they encounter and what adaptive
techniques they might use to function successfully.
5. Increasing Opportunities for Contact: Meet and engage with individual members of other
groups. Getting to know people one-on-one and engaging in positive meaningful relationships can
help you build new positive associations and reduce stereotyping. (ex: learn about other cultures by
attending community events and other public educational opportunities like exhibits, media, etc.)
6. Deliberative Processing: Reflect on your perceptions, judgments, behavior, decisions, and actions
to better understand which ones are worthy of a more thoughtful consideration rather than a split-
second reaction. We tend to act on our stereotypes when we have a lot of information to process in
a short amount of time and feel stressed.
7. Doubt Objectivity: Presuming oneself to be objective actually tends to increase the role of implicit
bias, teaching people about non -conscious thought processes will lead people to be skeptical of
their own objectivity and better able to guard against biased evaluations.
8. Improve Conditions of Decision-making: Implicit biases are a function of automaticity. Allow
adequate time and think slowly by engaging in mindful, deliberate processing, not in the throes of
emotions to prevent our implicit biases from kicking in and determining our behaviors.
9. Count: Implicitly biased behavior is best detected by using data to determine whether patterns of
behavior are leading to racially disparate outcomes. Once one is aware that decisions or behavior
are having disparate outcomes, it is then possible to consider whether the outcomes are linked to
bias.
10. Increase Motivation to be Fair: Internal motivations to be fair rather than fear of external
judgments tend to decrease biased actions.
1 Sources: Patricia Grace Devine, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin -Madison; Jerry Kang, JD, Professor of Law at
UCLA; American Bar Association Implicit Bias Guide; Kirwan Institute Implicit Bias Review.
Benita R. Horn & Associates