 There we are. All right. Good morning. Welcome to your last day of SoCAP. So this is the Bringing It Home Place-Based Innovation in the Bay panel. Really excited to have a really good, interesting conversation this morning, particularly focused here on the Bay area. So first off, thank you to SoCAP for just the opportunity to even have the platform, an opportunity to talk about economic inclusion, particularly some of that place-based work. And so thank you to Tim and Kate for hosting this track and giving us an opportunity to talk about the communities that we live in and work in here in the Bay. So my name is Justin Steele. I'm a portfolio manager with Google.org. My scope of focus is Bay Area Giving. And so I will caveat that with the fact that I am three weeks in to my role at Google. So I've survived the first several weeks. But part of the reason why I was excited to moderate this panel is because I have a ton to learn from folks who have really been doing this work on the ground in the community here. I actually lived in the Bay Area seven years ago, went to graduate school, and then spent the last four years working at a nonprofit called Year Up doing job force training for young adults out in Washington, D.C. So I'm coming directly out of the nonprofit sector into this philanthropic space but excited to moderate the panel this morning. So just a little bit of context on Google. Google.org has given $60 million to nonprofits in the Bay Area over the last three years. We've got 30,000 employees here in the Bay Area. So this is where we work. This is where we live. And we want to be good neighbors and part of the community here. Our employees, our Googlers last year donated 35,000 hours of community service. So we try to be as involved in the community as we can. Part of that $60 million that we've given was $5 million through the Bay Area Impact Challenge where the community actually got to nominate and choose organizations that were really making a difference here in the Bay. And we're lucky enough to have three of the award winners on stage with us this morning to talk about the incredible work that they've been doing. So a little bit of context on Google. So before I jump in to introduce the panelists, I wanted to just sort of set the stage and in the background just sort of for some of the challenges and the opportunities that we have here in the Bay Area. So it's very interesting. I've spent much of those last three weeks just sort of immersed in articles and reading and trying to catch back up with everything that's happened in the last seven years since I lived here. And really it's so interesting. It's almost the tale of two cities. So on the one hand, San Francisco and the Bay Area have the highest income inequality in the entire country. And so if you look at the income level of the 95th percentile to the 20th percentile in the Bay Area, it's higher than any other metropolitan area in the country. And so historically the difference between the 95th and the 20th has been about 10 times. Right now it's at 15 times. And so I know we talk a lot about data and numbers and SOCAP. I want to try to personalize this. So for all of you math geeks out there, just take your annual income, multiply that by 15. So for those of you who aren't good at math, just carry the decimal place one over, divide it by two and add that back to your base. And that would be your annual salary multiplied by 15. So that would be what it looked like. Actually just do that for a second. I'm going to give you a second. Imagine what that number is. Your annual income multiplied by 15. Now imagine you're in the 20th percentile and there are 40,000 people in San Francisco alone who are making that much money, 15 times what you're making. It's enough to fill AT&T Park where the giants play. So there's this huge massive population of people who are making significantly more than the 20th percentile, more so than any other place in the entire country. And it's growing at an incredible rate. The 30% per year is sort of what that inequality rate is growing. On the other hand, the social mobility in the Bay Area is higher than any other place in the country either. So if you're born in the bottom fifth percentile of income, household income, you are more likely to make it to the top fifth percentile of income than any other place in the country. Now caveat, that percentage is still relatively small, right? So you still only have a 13% chance of making it from the bottom fifth to the top fifth, and we can talk about some of the structural inequity that exists in the country. But you have this Bay Area dichotomy where on the one hand we're the most unequal earning place in the country, but we also have the most social mobility in the country. And so it presents lots of challenges and lots of opportunities, and we're excited to sort of dig into that this morning, talk with our panelists and really understand what role do social enterprises play in addressing some of those opportunities and challenges. And the last bit I'll say is just that, you know, San Francisco and the Bay Area is not unique in this dynamic. This is a national and even global phenomenon that we're seeing. The concentration of wealth at the top is higher than it's been since pre-World War I. I mean, we're seeing a return to the kind of, you know, wealth concentration at the very top that we haven't seen in a hundred years. So the Bay Area is really a microcosm, and it's a very interesting one at that. So kind of an exciting case study to explore a much broader issue that's impacting the entire globe. So we're lucky, like I said, to have these social entrepreneurs and social sector leaders who will be able to sort of give us more context about the Bay Area and the work that's happening. I'm going to do my best in this panel to really have most of the focus be on the conversation and not on material that you could already read online or in your packet. We're going to do some introductions, and then we're going to jump in. So directly to my left, we have Alex Bernadotte. She is the founder and CEO of Beyond 12, and she's got 15 years of experience across way more organizations than I could possibly even name on the panel at the moment. Social entrepreneurship, venture philanthropy, executive leadership across for-profit, non-profit social enterprises. So really rich experience, and one of those experiences leading an organization is East Palo Alto, so a great perspective on the Bay. To her left, we have Fred Blackwell, who's the CEO of the San Francisco Foundation. An Oakland native has experience in both the San Francisco and Oakland City government, so a really interesting public sector perspective that I'm excited to tease out. To his left, we have Kristin Groundy Yamamoto. She is the co-executive director at GLIDE. She's got 20 years of experience running for-profit and non-profit social enterprises, including some time at Rubicon, so she's got some really interesting perspectives to share. And then finally, we have Frederick Ferrer. He's the CEO of Health Trust. He's got 30 years of experience leading social sector organizations in Silicon Valley, and is really a national expert on child development. So I'm going to give them an opportunity to briefly introduce the work that their organizations do. I've sort of introduced what they do personally. But to avoid diving too deep, because I've vented a lot of panels and nothing against the other panels, but I've seen these introductions take 30 or 40 minutes and not have a lot of time to really get to the meat of the conversation, I'm going to switch it up. And I apologize because I didn't tell you guys that I was going to do this, but so I have three little girls, a five-year-old, three-year-old, and one-year-old. And my five-year-old just started kindergarten last week in Berkeley. And so I want you guys to imagine that you are at career day, you're out of seeing this kindergarten class, explaining what your organizations do. So sweet, simple, short. Imagine that this is an audience of kindergartners. Just to explain to these kindergartners what exactly your organization is doing and trying to accomplish. So Alex, we'll start with you. Wow. Okay. Thanks, Justin. Well, I have a three-year-old who just started preschool. So you know. So I know. Mommy, what do you do? I help kids whose mommies and daddies aren't able to help them graduate from college, actually graduate from college. But yeah, in essence, that's what we do. We're a non-profit, a revenue-generating non-profit. Our mission is to increase the number of low income and first-generation students who graduate from our nation's colleges and universities. And I'll talk about how we do that later on. Absolutely. Thank you. I'm Fred Blackwell, again, CEO of the San Francisco Foundation. I have a 15-year-old daughter and for those of you who know teenagers, you know that they don't care what you do. It's all about them. So what I will say is we provide financial support to people who are doing interesting work throughout the Bay Area and we provide the resources to allow that to happen. That's great. Thank you. I'm Kristen and I have a six and an eight-year-old and I remember my six-year-old asking me to come to her preschool a few years ago and I said, well, what would you like me to talk about? And she said, well, I'd like you to tell all the ways that Glide helps make the world a better place for everyone. And so I was really proud of her for saying that and it really makes me feel good that that's what we do every day. Good morning. I'm Frederick Ferrer. I'm the CEO of the Health Trust. We help people eat apples who don't have apples. I love that. That's awesome. Let's see if that was very good, right? I like that. I like that. All right, so great. So let's jump right into sort of this interesting conversation. As I mentioned, since I'm sort of coming back to the Bay after being gone for seven years, part of this is just exciting for me. I get to pick these guys' brains for the next 45 minutes and really talk about inequality and some of the root causes and what we're doing. So hopefully in the process of me geeking out and asking lots of questions, you guys will learn something as well. So I want to start with a question here just about the narrative around market-based economies. And so, you know, when I was in business school and studying sort of market-based capitalism, there seemed to be this underlying assumption and this underlying narrative that wealth is generated through effort, ingenuity, and risk-taking. And then if you give things enough effort and enough ingenuity and enough risk-taking that you will have a path to success and wealth in this economy. And my question to each of you to start is to what extent does that sort of assumption hold for low-income residents here in the Bay Area? And so maybe Alex will start with you. Yeah, I first of all want to challenge that paradigm and want to challenge that narrative. You know, and certainly success and economic wealth is based in part on some of those qualities that you described. But there's one thing that we know is true and we talk about data, the numbers don't lie. It is possible to point to a three-year-old, we'll say three-year-old in this country and in the Bay Area, and predict with alarming accuracy whether that child is going to graduate from college and therefore what that child's place in our universe is going to be. Not based on early academic aptitude, not based on effort at building blocks. Not based on interest, but based solely on his parents' level of education and his zip code. Now, that is a reality. And for me, the numbers that sort of lead to that belie the whole notion that success is solely based on effort and ingenuity and will, as we'd like to say. So I think unless we are willing to talk about the structural inequalities that lead to the disparities that we talked about in the Bay Area and all over our country, then we're not going to get to the root cause and we're not going to change it. So that is the premise and obviously the lens that I look at this from is education, right? And for me, until we can agree that as a country we can no longer afford to educate a select few if we want to be able to participate in the future in this sort of global technology driven environment, then we're going to continue to have these inequities and inequalities. How about you, Fred? What do you think? You know, I'm glad you're asking that question in the context of this panel because place matters. Yeah. You know, too often your ability to succeed in the opportunities that you receive, as Alex said, rest on kind of where you grew up and what kind of school you went to or what school you went to and the income of your parents. Unfortunately, that defines a lot of opportunity. The thing I think that's important about that though and particularly in the context of talking about innovation and place based strategies is there are a lot of things that are going on right now in this country and in this region to try to address that. There's a lot of effort focused in on the root causes of these issues and I think it really revolves around a variety of strategies. I think that some people are focused in on the regulatory environment from a place-place point of view with all the mood to transit oriented development. There's a lot of activity right now around bringing community voice to that and asking the question about kind of who's going to benefit from this new investment and this new interest in cities and in particular development around kind of transit nodes and I think that's an important part of the work particularly here in the Bay Area. I think another thing that's really promising to me is the notion of focusing in on development and investment and how that can be coupled with opportunity as well. We know that there are a lot of opportunities for new housing development, new commercial development and people are asking the question through policies like community benefit policies and things like that how communities can actually benefit from that new investment and so all of those things I think are important and I think that there are also some very important things that are going on nationally right now to try to address that issue and the perfect example to me of that is the replication of the Harlem Children's Zone in the Promise Neighborhood Program that's being put forward by the Obama Administration and the idea being that this is a place-based thing and that we have to create a pipeline basically from cradle to career for people that are growing up in neighborhoods or being born in neighborhoods where historically the kinds of opportunities that have existed in other neighborhoods just aren't there. That's great and I know you've said before we've got this rising tide in the Bay Area. San Francisco alone has added 65,000 jobs in the last four years but is that rising tide lifting all boats or is that just lifting some boats and so that's great. Kristen, how about you? I think this is a great question too and I guess at Glide we're focused on the poorest of the poor in the community and when I look at them I find them the most resourceful, creative people I've ever met in just in terms of their fear of survival and when I think of risk-taking I think there's two genesis of risk-taking one is safety and feeling that you're in a place that you really can step out and often we talk about that with our children in school that you have acceptance and that's an environment that we take at Glide of really creating that safe space. The second genesis of that is often desperation and really feeling so desperate that you must do something and you must be creative and act out and I think that's also something that we're addressing and really trying to make sure that people's basic needs are met and they're not stepping into violence and they're not stepping into stealing and crime. That's great. Frederick. I would add two things to the discussion. One is that the narrative's effort, ingenuity and risk-taking is true but you've missed resources. Nobody has made it in this country with those first three without resources so if we don't look at the capital needs then we're going to just be trying for everyone to work real hard and that's not a Bay Area issue. Unemployment is not the issue. People are working. The poor are working. Homeless people are working. So the challenge is then how do you develop the resources to be able to take that ingenuity, that risk-taking, that effort and be able to capitalize it into effective and sustainable strategies. To add on to what Fred was saying if you look at the root causes of the health challenges we face they're not health care, right? As long as we can predict and we could predict probably pretty accurately in San Francisco as long as you can predict life expectancy by zip code then the root causes have to be the essential element that we work on to be able to figure out in order to change what the environments look like. The built environment determines your life expectancy. That has nothing to do with health care. So we have to be able to look at what are the resources and the social enterprises or the capital side of this to be able to address those social determinants of health in order to make real progress around how do you lift all boats but really how do you even get a hold of the ocean that you're in? That's great. You have a follow-up, Fred? Just one other thing I wanted to mention about the importance of places. When I was working here in San Francisco we were working on a program called Communities of Opportunity. What Communities of Opportunity was really all about was making the city services in the city of San Francisco responsive to the most vulnerable kids and families in the city. The first thing that we did when we were developing this program was map children's mental health data with child welfare data as well as juvenile probation data. And when you put that information on a map what we found was that the kids that were most likely to be removed from their homes through child welfare most likely to be having mental health issues and most likely to be wrapped up in the juvenile justice system live within walking distance of seven street corners in the city of the county of San Francisco. Six of the seven corners being in front of public housing and the seventh corner being at the intersection of Jones and Eddie in the heart of the Tenderloin. So that kind of stuff just kind of gives you a sense of how place matters in terms of outcomes for kids and families. That's great. This reminds me of a conversation I had when I was a kid growing up in Seattle the president of our NAACP chapter challenged me and said you know Justin what is the key to success? Like what does everybody who's ever been successful from Abraham Lincoln to Michael Jordan have in common? And I gave him a lot of the answers that we talked about you know effort, ingenuity, motivation and he'd say nope that's not it he's thinking about it, he's thinking about it and finally he said it's opportunity that is the one thing that everybody has in common is that they had an opportunity and I think as you guys have said that opportunity isn't equally apportioned out to the young people growing up in our community so I appreciate all the thoughts there. So Fred you mentioned the Promise neighborhoods and Harlem Children's Zone Initiative place-based organizations like that are doing incredible work I think one of the tensions I'd like to ask you guys about is the timeline for some of this innovation so the economic growth and boom in the Bay Area is happening at breakneck speed as I mentioned 60,000 jobs added in just four years right so this is happening very quickly Harlem Children's Zone it took Jeffrey Canada 10 years to sort of build that up before it really became a national model that people were looking at to be successful and most place-based strategies are sort of with a long time horizon their relationship base a little bit more so than product-based and so relationships take a long time and a lot of times communities as you're coming in to implement your new innovative solution are saying who are you to come into our community and try to implement you've got to build the relationships and the buy-in and the authenticity so how do we navigate that the fact that the opportunities that this economy is creating are happening so quickly but the place-based innovation that we're trying to work on through our social enterprises and social sector organizations by nature are typically sort of a longer horizon and I'm actually just going to throw that out I'll let anybody pick that up so we don't necessarily need to go down the line Frederick I would look at two things one is the opportunity so when the economy gets better what happens tax bases go up so we've been in these cut years for so long this last year in Santa Clara County we actually had more money to spend right we weren't cutting services so one of the things government always will want to do is replace itself so the first thing the government wants to do is hire more people that they just laid off and restore their numbers I think in the nonprofit sector we have a responsibility to be the social enterprise innovators and be able to push government to be able to say let's spend some of that money on these innovations so I think two things happen one is you have to invest in the organizations that actually already have those relationships so you're not just a outside organization coming in because that does take a lot of time and then there's the trust issues and there's a little bit of carpet bagging that goes on in those kinds of many neighborhoods is yes we're going to go fix you we're going to help you but only for three years and then we're going to go fix somebody else that after a while it just becomes a broken record that communities quite frankly smartly would reject I think it's the opportunity is to use the tax base of government to be able to fund those innovations within communities as well as the organizations that already have those deep relationships we just received some dollars from the city of San Jose to help support our work on food access so we're doing a large initiative with our corner stores so we know that low income folks shop at corner stores five times more than they shop at a grocery store and so if you're going to go to that corner store a lot but there's no healthy food there then it doesn't really do us any good to say you have food access when you really don't so we're doing a a model of renovation of corner stores well the city has economic interest and value in doing that so their investment joining our investment along with the Google impact challenge investment really helps us to move an economic issue for the city a health issue for the health trust but really what we're trying to do is be able to take advantage of these key opportunities when the economy does get better sales tax rates and tax elections go up and then your ability to work directly with partners we fund only the partners within the agencies that have these deep relationships already in these existing communities we don't ask we only ask the experts or the technical assistance folks from the outside to come in but only to support the work that's already being going on just a couple of things to add to that definitely number one I think there are experts within the communities I think this notion of sort of a great night coming in from externally trying to save a community is we've proven that that's not really the way that these innovations work I think there are great innovators within these places in these communities and we need to figure out how to give them access to capital because that's really what it comes down to the opportunity I mean I think there are a couple of things I think it comes from a I would encourage those entrepreneurs to create traditionally what we've done in our communities is to create organizations because that's the model that we know as you know trying to rely on philanthropy in perpetuity is a very difficult equation to be able to grow these social enterprises so I think one of the things is to encourage our entrepreneurs to look at some of these market based solutions because you can do good and make money at the same time so I think that's one of the solutions in terms of giving them access I think the other thing for me it does come back to education I think our education institutions need to look at their mission as producing job creators and not just job consumers so we do need to focus on building social entrepreneurs and on creating social entrepreneurs and having that be the outcome of our education systems and that changes everything from the way that high schools prepare students to the way that colleges are preparing students so we can create these entrepreneurs from within the communities is the first thing and then second thing we need to give them access to capital and investors need to be able to devote risk capital to entrepreneurs within our communities and I think that sort of is the bottom line in many ways Any other thoughts on that? I'll just say I don't think it can be fast it's relationship oriented and we try to engage a lot of dialogue and we try to do things as quickly as we can but I was in a conversation yesterday about just the neighborhood that we operate in and I think the count was 75 nonprofit organizations and that's not even really incorporating the government and while we're one of if not the largest one of the largest in that neighborhood we can have a role but an investing in people with a capacity but both the funding and just the sheer volume and the complexity of the issues education is certainly important but it's not the only issue our health and housing and job training I mean it just goes on and on and it does take a village to really work those angles and so I think I'm really interested in some of the shared impact work and collective impact work and how that's going I think for me I'd like to challenge the notion that it can't happen fast only because if you think about Jeffrey Canada it took him 10 years because it took him 10 years for funders to invest in him right? If somebody had said I'm going to give you the 10 million dollars at the beginning we had sort of a VC model and somebody said I'm willing to invest in you Harlem Children's Zone could have scaled a lot faster than it did it took him 10 years for the Robin Hood foundations and all of those other sort of big funders to you know understand and to be excited about the work that he's doing and I certainly believe that you know there's a portion of it that's right that he had to sort of demonstrate that the model worked before he got the big investments but think about if a big investor had come in and said okay Jeffrey I'm going to give you this capital that you know you need it and he didn't change he was the same individual from the beginning that Harlem Children's Zone could have you know accelerated its growth a lot quicker than it did but he had to go through the notion of raising capital raising a million dollars here $500,000 there $20,000 here and that's what took the time it wasn't that his vision you know or his mission was any different so I do think that there's a lot that's connected to resources and capital and trying to take chances on some of those entrepreneurs that's interesting so what's the bottleneck right I mean obviously there's multiple but is it the relationship building is it the capital is it something else what do you guys think I think for me I suffer from a little bit of schizophrenia around this issue I think on the one hand it's important to recognize that these are issues that did not arise overnight that it takes patience it takes fortitude and the kinds of systems and policies that need to change in order to have the kind of impact that we need take time on the other hand you know I feel a tremendous sense of urgency around these issues one because as we know these opportunities and windows particularly economically open and closed very quickly you can often end up building infrastructure around the current economy and by the time that infrastructure is built the economy has moved in a different direction and we also know that there are way too many kids at this very moment being left behind who are not receiving the kind of support that they need today and in cases like in Ferguson people are actually losing their lives because of the lack of equity and opportunity that exists right now so it's a double edged sword to get to some of the solutions though I think that one important thing that we can do particularly with people who are coming up with neighborhood based or community based solutions is give them the resources that they need and get out of their way. If somebody has an innovative solution something that works something that Jeff Canada is doing give them flexible support to do their thing and don't burden them with looking over their shoulder every five minutes to figure out whether what they're doing is the right thing because we've got to give people flexible resources to be responsible. You're obviously working at a foundation with a huge heritage in history and that's not the way traditionally that philanthropy has done their investing in the time that you've been there how have you navigated that challenge I mean I'm navigating that myself right I mean every organization with a good solution with a proven outcome with just like unconditional operating support to say all right give us the resources and get out of the way and let us do what we do best. There are two things to that you know I'll say this with the caveat being you're two weeks in I'm two months in. And so you know I think that I would say a couple of things. One is you know we can study this a lot but I think we kind of know intuitively what's working. Yeah we know that interventions that are not grounded in community interests with authentic demand are not going to work. Yeah we know that that investing in early childhood education is something that works I mean we know enough we've been at this long enough what works. And so I think that we need to in some cases pay attention to our gut a little bit more and be willing to take a little bit more risk than we currently are taking. The other thing I would say about this though is that it is incredibly important for us in terms of achieving the level of scale and impact that we're looking for not to forget the public sector and I don't say that just because I've just come from the public sector. We can innovate in the nonprofit sector and the philanthropic sector all we want. But scale really occurs when it's adopted by government. Whether that's local government state government or federal government so we have absolutely got to pay attention to the policy makers, the elected officials, the legislators and make sure that what we're doing and what we're learning is lifted up and brought to high relief for people that are making decisions at that level. That's good. Let me give you an example of that. In Santa Clara County the Health Trust funded a disruptive innovation grant set that was based on the work of Clay Christensen out of the Harvard Business School. Really looking at can we look at disruptive innovation in the nonprofit sector because I would challenge us that a lot of times we know what to do but what we do is the old response. We continue to serve in the same way. We don't necessarily always look for a new model of being able to know what the evidence tells us. So in the case of social impact bonds or social impact financing we changed in Santa Clara County we've adopted a pay for success model and that pay for success model is really flipping on its head this notion that the government pays you to provide service as opposed to the government provides you to achieve outcomes. And then once those outcomes are achieved the nonprofit actually gets paid for those successes. And we're looking at in the area of homelessness right now so the county just adopted a proposal to actually look at this in the homelessness area they're also looking at it in mental health and I think those are the pilots that we need to be able to change the way government funds because so often times we in the nonprofit sector will say actually we know what works what doesn't work is the way that you want us to do it. And I think that's really the critical piece is how do we change the way that we produce outcomes as opposed to the services or the inputs that we put into the process of what we use with our money and I think those are the ways that you do bring it to scale when you have the public sector is the biggest funder and it's always going to be the biggest funder so how do you get the big the biggest funder in the room to move and I think it is through the innovations and I think pay for success is a good example where in accounting with that kind of numbers you can actually show that these things can work. Now just add as a recipient of that and agreeing with this spread and pushing back on this spread a little bit is that you know at Glide every program that's been successful and that we're sustaining we've started ourselves and the government has always been the laggard and that we've had to show them that it works and then convince them and that becomes the model and we've been lucky in that way that the way our funding mix works that the government is only 25% of our funding which for the type of work we do is just unheard of but I will say for any organization you know program to really scale and get adopted you do need the government to be in there and I think you know that's one of the things I've really appreciated the most about this Google Impact Challenge is that it was really given to the community for the ideas and what ideas do you have and what ideas you just need the funding to do and that's been really exciting for our staff and really energizing and so it's a great model yeah just something to add I think maybe agreeing with all three all three of you but it's you know for me it goes back to resources and going back to the social sector for those resources I don't know if anybody at Google sort of knows this number but how much money do you spend annually on R&D Chris Bridget Billions right how many social sector organizations or nonprofit organizations are being funded for R&D work none and so I think the reason that we keep doing the same things right is because we know that those things are the things that get funded wouldn't it be amazing for somebody to say we're giving you this pot of money doesn't have to be billions you know a couple hundred thousand to be able to do the R&D work that we know leads to sort of those innovative practices and so I think those are the things that need to change about the way that we think about resources it's not just about greater resource allocation but how are we allocating those resources and what are we allocating those resources to and in order for us to be able to as social entrepreneurs keep pace with the changing environment and the changing context there has to be some sort of investment in R&D work investment in sort of trial and error investment and really innovation the things that we know drive innovation that we know that our for profit counterparts are spending billions of dollars on it this is a really interesting tension let's just dig under it a little bit more so sort of this this is fundamentally human based work and this work has been around for a long time this is Fred's point I mean you kind of get this sense that we know what works when it comes to sort of you know helping change people's lives and giving them more mobility and yet a lot of the capital these days is sort of going to the new and shiny and sort of innovative so how do we think about that tension I mean place based community based work I mean is there is there this huge bucket of innovation to be uncovered that's going to change the way we do this or is it just sort of repackaging and re-enabling what we already know what works and what do you guys think I would kind of look at it in two ways one is that like for example the health trust we run meals on wheels that you can't get a more traditional program than meals on wheels but I would predict that we can't fund it significantly increased over the next five years to where we are today yeah it's a mix of government and philanthropy money we're going to be flat for the next five years we're going to get a little bit more here we're going to drop a little bit more there but in the end we're going to be flat so we're looking at a social enterprise around how would we serve meals to you know busy working professionals in Silicon Valley and then take the proceeds of those dollars to pay for a traditional program like meals on wheels program that's a social enterprise done in other parts of the country what would it look like in Silicon Valley I think being able to understand that some evidence based work does work just the way it is or in modification but then how do you pay for it is the traditional way of looking at just government and philanthropy can't be the only solutions if you're going to really scale or grow but the other side of it is I think there's opportunities as well so with the health care reform of the affordable care act there's going to be a financial incentive for health plans and hospitals and providers to be able to not take care there's a not have those people be sick so I have drivers going into these senior isolated frail elderly seniors homes every day there's going to be the most costly people to that insurance pool right what if my driver is what could they be doing in addition to what they're doing health checks weight gain medication adherence there's a lot of stuff that could reduce that cost if I use that opportunity to be able to fund it through the affordable care act and be able to be reimbursed for that now all of a sudden I'm funding my meals on wheels program that we know works right you can do all you want a medical adherence if you're not eating it's not going to work but now we've looked at very non-traditional sources of dollars be able to be able to continue a very traditional type program I don't think it's that we don't know what works it's that we don't know always how to pay for and I think that's the r&d part of it we aren't spending as much time figuring out the financial sustainable models that will help us to get the things that we know work funded it's that's the key and just to convince the government or philanthropy that's the challenge we have and I think that's where social enterprise really takes off to get us to be able to change the big funder the government to be able to understand how that works and building on that I think you know really investing in things that could change the cost structure I mean we get 25 cents on the dollar from this government for our meals program what you think would be paid for by the government but we have to raise $3 for every dollar they give us and you know we've been talking to some different donors and really looking at ways that we can even just take costs out but we don't have the money or even the know-how of how to even do that so the leader of a restaurant chain has been coming in looking at our kitchen and doing some plans of like how to totally redesign it that would save us hundreds of thousands of years that is a huge huge benefit to us we don't even know how to think about or can we tag on to the purchasing of this restaurant chain it would reduce our meat cost 30% you know really big kind of thinking and synergies because I you know I have a social enterprise background totally agree with that it's always a challenge to get food covered for some reason people don't think that like it's you know it's not innovative and it's not important but yeah like those types of just investments and thinking are really valuable so I'm gonna leave a little bit of time for questions any final thought on this point before we open it up a bit not this point but just one thing that I think just has to be mentioned before we kind of finish this conversation is that when you're talking about inequity and inequality places a part of the analysis but race also has to be a part of the analysis and in particular in this region in this state I think it's important because you know for a lot of us we have been doing this work for a long time and doing it based on what I think we would characterize as a moral imperative right but when you start to look at the demographics of this region and the demographics of the state and you start to analyze that and you start to see that the majority of the region the majority of state is gonna be people of color pretty soon and then you start to look at the educational achievement gap and you start to look at the health disparities and you start to look at that and see who's being left behind it paints a really bad picture and it paints a bad picture because the very people who are going to be the majority of the workers in the future are the people who are currently being left behind what that means is that the economic growth in this country in this state in this region is no longer sustainable if we aren't preparing people of color the people who are being left behind for the jobs and opportunities of the future so this is no longer just a moral imperative it's imperative for us to think about and analyze in terms of the future and the sustainability of our region it certainly resonates with my experience at year up where the IT companies that were hiring the young people of color out of our program couldn't hire them fast enough to fulfill their entry-level IT roles and yet we weren't preparing entire communities of people to be empowered and given the opportunity to take roles like that so absolutely it's not just a moral imperative but an economic imperative we can't grow economically if we don't use the assets that are in our communities Alex you had a great question just to agree 10,000% if there is such a thing with what Fred just said and just adding a couple of numbers so when we sort of look at predict and look at economic growth in California we are predicted to be about 2.3 million degrees short of our workforce needs by 2025 if we don't take a serious look at the fact that we can no longer again continue to educate only a certain a select few in this country and if you think about I mean just in California and think about what that means in terms of California's growth and our ability to continue to continue to grow economically Justin before we go to questions there's one point I want to distinguish you know and I want to make sure that we're all careful of income inequality is not the same as poverty and you know I'm very pleased to hear us talk about income inequality because it tends to include the issues of poverty but I think structurally the ways that you address income inequality are fundamentally different from the issues of poverty and so I think all of us myself included needs to be careful in the way that we use our language because I spend my days working on the issues of poverty and that is certainly inclusive but they're not the same Thank you for that distinction I think that's really important one to make so let me check with Tim, Tim how much time do we have left because I don't want to run us over 10 minutes perfect so let's open it up to the audience for some questions it looks like we have a mic coming around and so let's take the first question here Good morning Kristen referenced collaborative impact and I'm sort of wondering what the panel thinks about this idea of working across fields so there's education poverty alleviation, health and this idea that you aren't working with an individual who probably would be impacted by the need for education the need for health and all of these other programs are we seeing more collaboration and what do you think the value is we'll let a couple of people I'll start with that I mean I think we've been doing some we've been participating in a shared value initiative in the Tenderloin Around Health and is a hundred organizations I think if you're going to do it kind of that broadly it needs to be one issue and even that one issue has taken a year to kind of figure out what are the measurement and so it's very daunting and yet I think there's value to it so I'll just say for ourselves we're doing a lot more collaborations and our new future is really about really pulling together different expertise and not thinking that we have to do it all and really owning what we're really good at and bringing best in class from other skills other organizations that focus more on education or health and so absolutely we believe that particularly for the most vulnerable and low income that services in one place is an advantage and it's not only a convenience but it's a connectivity and the place based innovation that could happen there is the way we're going to be moving forward and hope to facilitate we've done a lot of work in kind of the collaborative efforts because the social determinants of health are education and economics and place and so there's you can't just address health care if you want to look at the health of the community food access is a huge issue for us homelessness is a big issue for us education especially in early childhood is a big issue for us so there's organizations like us Catholic Charities in our county other large organizations that kind of take a broader view I think that's that over tradition that helps but I think what really the key reform is going to be how government starts to integrate because when you get back to the government side of this we're going to have 92 contracts with all the different departments so we're truly trying to work with the government both at the city of San Jose and the county of Santa Clara to start to figure out how do we look at integrative services from that perspective at the county level we've looked at homelessness as one of the ways to do it they don't even know what the departments do so one of the major things that we just finished we're working on right now is the funding of a study an economic development study to really understand the cost because nobody of the county can tell you the cost of one person because the sheriff is touching him the hospital touching him mental health touching him drug alcohol touching him you have no idea how much that person cost and we only do what we do and then you do what you do and so I think that's the real goal is to see how we can move government to a more integrative process so that the nonprofit sector serving it can it can also mirror that same practice huge challenge but I think there's innovators within government that are really looking at this because this is how they're going to have their cost savings and efficiencies they're not going to be able to sustain either great thank you I think we have some questions so far what I feel like I've been hearing is very broad and not very specific to the Bay Area so I was wondering if each of the panelists could speak on something that is a challenge and unique opportunity within the Bay Area specifically I can give you one in oral health so in Santa Clara County San Jose is the largest city in the country without community water so it's a population so our oral health rates are abysmal especially for low income children so if you look at rates of dental carries in any low income community you may have it this late San Jose blows all those numbers out of the water so one of the social innovations that we've been working on community water fluoridation but then the second piece is we've developed a we were providing a dental van and a small dental clinic at a school district in the rural health and a low income community we sold the van we closed the clinic and we partnered with a largest for profit pediatric practice in the state mostly in LA to be able to get scale we've opened two clinics we now are the largest provider of of oral health dental services for low income kids in Santa Clara County providing over 20,000 patient visits a year but the way we did that was we funded up front the capital cost of the dental centers themselves then we entered a management agreement for the for profit to run those centers and then provide a hundred thousand dollars worth of services back for free each year in the ten year contract so I think there's ways that you can look at really endemic problems to specific regions but then trying to figure out create a financial solutions to be able to be able to get to scale where you couldn't do that before so I think oral health is a good example for dental health isn't going to work if you want to get it to scale to be able to really address the overall health issue would one more person like to take that and then we'll ask one more question you know there is a laundry list of fabulous things that are going on in the Bay Area related to the issues that we have been talking about in various sectors it would be another half an hour if I started to list them out but just to name a few here in San Francisco is a program called Hope SF that is about rebuilding public housing and connecting that to innovative strategies to make sure that the people who have lived through the years of disinvestment and neglect get a chance to benefit from the new housing that gets developed all over the region there are advocacy groups that are working on community benefits programs and policies that are associated with new development examples of that are the Hunters Point Shipyard in Bayview Hunters Point in the Oakland Army base over in Oakland same work is going on over in Richmond and other parts of the region all around the region there are innovative efforts that are going on to train young people to be more effective participants in the technology industry things like Yes We Code things like neighborhood so there are a variety of things that are going on here locally and I'd be happy to talk to you about that stuff after the panel but I would not want to create the sentiment here today that this is just a general thing that is kind of a theory based discussion because there are very practical things that are happening on the ground in the Bay Area right now One more time for one more question Hi Mr. Blackwell I'm happy to hear you mention Hack the Hood my name is Mary Fuller from Hack the Hood Thank you I just wanted to say share one way we're trying to use the use of place in our work Hack the Hood really grew out of an organization that does hyper local journalism in Oakland and because of that we've been covering local issues social justice issues education and small business for five years leading up to building Hack the Hood which leverages job training for youth and tech to build websites for small businesses and as we scale due to the generous donations that we got through Google we're looking for partners locally who know their community like we know Oakland and you know there's different ways to scale and creative ways to scale and mention that and see if you know of any other groups that are doing that because we're looking for wisdom from others I couldn't hear you very well Mary do you mind just restating your question the question about looking for partners who I'm wondering if other groups who have scaled through working with local partners on a new model rather than replicating by hiring staff locally so what I'm saying is we know Oakland and I think a large part of our success in Oakland has been due to our deep knowledge in the community and being of the community and rather than scaling in other communities by sending our staff out there we're looking for local partners who will have nodes who will deliver Hack the Hood programs locally based on their relationships locally and it's all place based okay so rather than scaling nationally and starting your next site in New York City how do we scale regionally and get other local players to pick up the model I think that's a really smart strategy and that's something that we're thinking about also I don't know that but I see Willa Selden from Bridgespan in the back there and if she doesn't know the answer I'm sure she can talk about different models even around the country of that because they write extensively about those issues One of the examples I would give you is downtown streets team which started in San Jose different cities within the Bay Area and they use the model that you're talking about and they take homeless and formerly homeless people house them and put them to work in the downtown streets teams having contracts with cities so it is a very local place based strategy and they would be someone I think you would talk to about that same how do you scale models Fred you got the last one 30 seconds I see not only walking around but walking close to it one brief one of the jobs I had was with the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the program that they were working on was called Making Connections which was about creating place based strategies to really support kids and families throughout the country one of the pieces of that was a piece of infrastructure called the Technical Assistance Resource Center that was run through the Center for the Study of Social Policy and what they did was thinking to do interesting and innovative things like what she was talking about in a particular place they would actually spend time with them understand deeply what they were trying to do and actually take them and fly them someplace else where that was being done well give them a week with a facilitated conversation with those people to really unpack what they're doing so that they can go home and do it there and that kind of stuff is exactly the kind of thing that I think could be something for us to think about in terms of infrastructure for social innovation to make sure that what she's talking about in terms of kind of local people building their own capacity to do things like that well thank you guys not just for your time this morning but just the incredible work that you guys are all doing in the community for your organization so let's give these guys a hand so please definitely feel free to ask us questions after the panel I think we need to get demyced first and then I understand we're supposed to head to the back just to give folks a chance to reset the stage for the next panel so great