Communities around the country, in response to uprisings after the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, are discussing what it means to “defund the police.” These conversations, and the sea change in public perception that has followed, are only possible because of decades of organizing and activism by Black leaders. “Defund the police” can mean different things to different people, but regardless of whether it refers to abolition, or demilitarization, or dialing back on and redirecting budgets and programs, it definitely means there’s ongoing opportunity for rethinking how local governments contribute to community health and safety.
Simultaneously, the leadership of local governments during the pandemic has been crucial, both in terms of public health responses and economic efforts like providing their own stimulus dollars to lessen the resulting economic blow. This is not a crisis that should go to waste, in terms of exploring different strategies and tactics, especially since it’s clear this crisis will persist for months if not years.
Most of these conversations include some exploration of municipal partnerships with and funding of community-based organizations (CBOs). CBOs provide services that improve community health and safety in a myriad of ways: mental health care, housing support, access to reproductive health care, family violence interventions, immigrant support, education and afterschool programs, and more. And, cities are increasingly investing in equity and communicating their intention to reach parts of their communities that have historically been underserved or even harmed by racist policies. While local governments have some partnerships and funding relationships with CBOs, others are only now being imagined, particularly for Black, Indigenous, and people of color led, volunteer-staffed, and/or extremely small organizations who provide services and work within the community.
For these organizations specifically, government money can be very challenging to access. Local government’s primary focus on ensuring accountability for tax dollars, while an important value, has too often translated into extremely complicated, jargon-y application processes and documentation and reporting requirements that impede client privacy and can damage community relationships. It’s been documented that onerous applications and requirements recreate systemic racial inequity, and also come at the cost of making it nearly impossible for small, community-based organizations to access funds or partner with local governments.
For this reason and others, some CBOs have and will decide not to partner with local governments. But that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to develop new partnerships and deepen and improve existing ones.
One important caveat: many federal dollars flow through city governments and into communities. The federal government has its own onerous processes and requirements that it requires cities to use. While it certainly would be useful for the federal government to reconsider its requirements, the suggestions below are specifically about a city’s own dollars, when the city has full authority over how to spend them and what is required.
Starting from the assumption that these CBOs already play a critical role in our communities, and that increased funding for them is a tremendous opportunity to make our communities healthier and safer, I offer the following ideas for how to expand upon and improve the collaborations between local governments and CBOs.
Mutual Aid as a Model
Mutual aid organizations are increasing in number and activity to meet the current moment. These organizations are built on the philosophy that those who are involved work cooperatively to meet each others’ needs, unlike charity, which assumes a hierarchy of those who have over those who have not. Like charity, government funding has operated by addressing the symptoms of systemic problems, while mutual aid builds toward a new way of supporting each other. Local governments can reimagine funding health and safety by taking some cues from mutual aid organizations.
- Change the nature of the relationship. Local government can approach community-based organizations with the perspective that both parties have needs that can be met by the other. Local government needs the community relationships and knowledge and the service provision expertise that CBOs have. CBOs (may) need support and funding. Recognition of mutual need reinforces a less hierarchical, more trusting relationship. Relationship development and maintenance is crucial.
- Revise onerous application processes and reporting, and lessen bureaucratic requirements. Mutual aid organizations eschew onerous bureaucratic processes in favor of autonomy, flexibility, and trust. While local governments will necessarily retain application processes and some level of reporting, the reality is that processes that seem fair and facially race-neutral have in fact disproportionately benefited large, professionalized, and/or White organizations and communities. Purposefully simplifying applications so that they are easily understood and less time-intensive to complete, and reconsidering requirements that may create a need for legal review and assistance would help.
- Approach client documentation requirements with an understanding of client privacy/confidentiality. The documentation requirements of many local governments are extremely problematic for small CBOs. In addition to limiting access for undocumented residents and others with concerns about confidentiality, including victims of family violence, requiring documentation such as IDs and home addresses of clients can generate technology and privacy concerns for small CBOs. What would happen if local governments just didn’t require this type of documentation? While minimizing documentation requirements raises the specter of fraud, deepening relationships and communication with partner CBOs, beefing up fraud, waste, and abuse resources, and year-long pilot efforts with somewhat smaller amounts, and other similar strategies may counter that effect. It’s also worth noting too that in this crisis moment, a decision by local governments that the priority on getting money out to the most vulnerable is more important would not be amiss.
- Approach data collection from a framework of collaboration. While data is necessary to making good decisions, it can also be nearly impossible for some CBOs to collect and manage. Rather than dictating arduous and time-consuming required statistical reporting, local government should consider how it can participate and actively partner with CBOs in determining what data could improve service provision or is truly necessary and how and by whom it can be collected. It is important that the communities we’re trying to reach, of which CBOs are a part, set the goals of the funding and determines measures of success.
- Trust CBOs to allocate resources wisely. Local governments should allow CBOs to use local government funds for any infrastructure that they feel is necessary, like salaries or insurance requirements or technology.
- Funding should be a path forward, not a burden. Local governments should understand that small CBOs do not have liquid resources to front money or services, so reimbursement style contracts are generally not feasible. Grants funded immediately, with later reporting, are a better option. If that isn’t possible, contracts that immediately reimburse initial work, like setting up necessary infrastructure or developing signed memoranda of understanding with partners, are a way to generate some early funding for CBOs to make local government partnership and funding feasible.
Focusing on these important implementation details isn’t necessarily sexy and doesn’t attract attention, but it’s hugely significant and transformational. Local governments must not miss this opportunity to reassess the systems they have in place to work with and fund community groups. Otherwise, efforts to rethink public safety and health will simply replicate white supremacy and systemic inequity in different ways.