 Good morning. Welcome. Thank you, Alberto. I just want to reiterate one thing that you said. Trust is local, and it's in our communities. So I am honored to introduce our next panel that is about communities, and it makes sense. 600 of you, so I think it's 650 of you, come from all over the country. I ran some numbers, and we have 43 states represented here. 43 states, not bad. Yeah, I don't know where those seven are, but we'll get them next time. And we have 120 unique cities here. Literally, every shape and size is represented, from rural to urban, and everything in between. So for the next hour, we'll be diving to some of the most important research about the future of cities, from the McKinsey Global Institute. We're going to ask the question, what does the future of work hold for places and people? What does the future of work hold for places and people in our communities? How will technology impact our communities? This is really relevant, and this is important. It's important for all of us, and I think we have the right people on stage. I'm really excited to hear from you all. So I'm honored to introduce André Joie, Senior Partner at McKinsey, where he's a member of the McKinsey Global Institute Council. Next to him is Karen Freeman Wilson, the former mayor of Gary, Indiana, and now the current president of the Chicago Urban League. Next to Karen is Brian Hooks, the president of the Charles Koch Foundation and Stand Together, and then we all heard about Merriam, 13 years. Merriam Nolan is the president of the Community Foundation for the Southeast Michigan. André, you're going to kick us off. Great. Thank you. Well, I think it is an occupational hazard coming from somewhere cold to Miami in February. In fact, so much so that I came for a conference last year, and at that moment in time, I lived in New York City, and I loved it so much that I moved to Miami. And as of last week, I'm just fully, fully ensconced in the McKinsey office in Miami, so I'm very, very excited to be a new member of this community. I wanted to tell you a little bit about the work I'm going to share with you, which is we've been deeply looking at what does the future of work look like, and in particular, what is the impact of automation, artificial intelligence, and other technologies on the nature of work? And what might it mean for people around the country? And a couple of years ago, we did a big piece of work which looked at the level of displacement. In other words, how many people might be displaced from their jobs as a result of this? What we have done since is say, well, it's interesting to know what's going on in the national level, but it's far more interesting to know what's going on in cities and in counties, like at every single city in every county in America. So let me start and jump right in and start by saying the thing that the research showed to us is that America truly is a very complex mosaic of local communities. So let me show you just how complex it is. What we did is we took all 3069 counties, all 315 cities over a certain size, and we used some statistical methods to categorize every one of these places based on their economic health, the business dynamism, the industry mix, and the labor market characteristics. And we came up with 13 different segments or really five broad categories of city. And let me briefly take you through them. One is the urban core. And these include mega cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, New York. A group of cities we call the high growth hubs, which are places that you'll be familiar with, Austin, Charlotte, Denver, Nashville, Raleigh. And collectively, these are 25 cities, and they account for about 30% of the population. The industries are high tech, media, healthcare, real estate, finance. And these typically are places which have high incomes, faster employment growth, high net migration, but actually lots of congestion and affordable housing issues as well. The next set of places are what we call the periphery or the urban periphery. There are about 270 counties that are the extended suburbs of the major US cities. There are about 15% of the population. A lot of people are moving here, and many people who move here are working in the nearby big cities. And a lot of what's going on in these places is healthcare, retail, logistics, and local services. Then there are a series of different kinds of cities. We've called them the niche cities. They're small powerhouse cities. There are college centric towns. There are silver cities, which are retirement communities. And then there's a group of 180 cities, which we'll call the mixed middle. They're stable cities like Cincinnati and St. Louis. They're smaller independent economies like Lancaster, Pennsylvania, or Winston Salem in North Carolina. And then down the bottom, you'll see a group of low growth and rural areas. There are a group of about 50 odd trailing cities. Think of Flint, Michigan, Bridgeport, Connecticut. They're former industrial towns with declining economies. And then there are a series of rural counties, which have some combination of very flat or negative job growth. They tend to be older, have higher unemployment, and lower educational attainment. So what you see here is a picture that's not as simple as urban rural, not as simple as coasts versus the heartland, and not as simple as a kind of a regional story. So that is the complex mosaic that makes up America. And the one thing I will show you is if you look at the period since the Great Recession, you can see what a great divergence of economic dynamism there is and economic vitality in these different places. This peacock chart, as I like to say now that I live in Coconut Grove and we have a peacock infestation, if you look at this peacock chart, it shows that certain cities, let's take the high growth hubs. The high growth hubs have gained 14% jobs above the level they started at before the Great Recession in 2007. So if they had 100 jobs before the Great Recession, they now have 114. But if you look further down, there are two categories called Americana and Distressed Americana. Americana are more or less just recovered to where they were 12 years ago. And Distressed Americana have not yet recovered from the Great Recession. They're actually down about six or seven percent in terms of jobs that they had before the Great Recession. And so this is the starting point we're sort of looking at. So the question is, what are we talking about when we're talking about automation and how it's impacting work? Well, the first thing I would say is this is actually not mostly about all jobs going away. The big lesson we learned is that it's not that a huge chunk of jobs are going to go away, it's that most jobs will be transformed. In other words, when we did our analysis, we found that 60 percent of occupations have at least 30 percent of the tasks that could be automated, meaning the very character of most of these jobs will be transformed. So this is less a story of jobs going away and more a story of the jobs in the economy being transformed. And if you look by sector, you can see how different this is. Obviously, the industries which have the greatest portion of activities that could be automated are manufacturing, accommodation and food services, and retail. So we did some analysis which looked at which of the jobs are most likely to be displaced. And what we found is that between now and 2030, there might be 39 million jobs that could be displaced. But over half of those are in office support, food service, production jobs, which are manufacturing, and customer service. And you can see that the big squares or rectangles, which are the ones where most jobs will be lost, are also highly correlated with jobs in which the fewest people have college degrees. So that's where the burden of automation is likely to fall. Now the impact is also, will also vary by demographic group. What we found is that if you're in a job with only a high school degree, you're four times more likely to be in a job that could be displaced. There are up to 12 million people in Hispanic and African American communities could find themselves in a situation of job displacement, largely because of lower educational attainment levels. We also found that maybe 15 million young people could find jobs that are in being displaced. And this is particularly tricky. Traditionally, young people have relied on food service and retail as stepping stones into the labor force. What happens when those jobs get automated? And equally, there is a specific challenge for workers over the age of 50. As we saw in the Great Recession, those workers tended to take the longest to get re-employed. And when they did, it was often at lower wage levels. So I'm going to skip ahead and just show you what I think are a couple of very, very powerful charts. Previously, I showed you what happened from 2007 to now. I'm now going to show you a picture of our projection through 2030. Our projection for net job growth, you can see as indicated here, the bluer it is, the greater the projected job growth. And what we found is that the 25 urban areas I mentioned before, which are the mega cities and the high growth hubs, are likely to account for 60% of net job creation through 2030. 60% of net jobs in America will be in just 25 cities. And all the gray and light gray represent 2,000 counties, where in about 1,000 of the counties, there might be 1% job growth, not 1% a year, but 1% over the next decade. And another 1,000 counties are projected to have 3% job decline. So what we have is a very granular and nuanced tale of a very complex mosaic, which represents the American economy. And I'll simply say now, as I transition to the panel, that this is a projection of one possible future, it's not necessarily destiny. So with that, I'm going to turn to our panel. So I think just to get us started, you obviously know we have a very august group in front of us. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to get a perspective on this kind of view of the country based on the individual experiences of each of our panelists. And Karen, perhaps we can start with you, given your experience both at the Chicago Urban League and previously as Mayor of Gary, Indiana. What's your reflection and what's been your experience? So first and foremost, I want to thank the Knight Foundation for an opportunity to join this panel and to really reflect on what I find to be really intriguing information that you've presented today. And what I'd say to you is by creating this spectrum of cities, you have really demonstrated how hard it is for a Mayor, particularly to lead a city, because even though there are different cities, I would say to you, if you went to residents in Chicago or Gary or Detroit or a variety of the cities that are represented in the room and ask them where do you fall on this spectrum, they would say an answer in a variety of different ways dependent on where they are in the economic spectrum of their communities. And that's our job to make sure that we are able to ensure that residents in fact are able to achieve in those communities, even those communities that you have identified as distressed. So how do we do that? How do we achieve that goal? Because it's harder for some of us than others. There used to be this controversy in the state of Indiana that I was the highest paid Mayor in the state. I said, yeah, but when you break it down, I'm probably working for $10 an hour, because it really is that much more difficult when you are in a community that we call legacy cities and that has seen a variety of challenges. And so that's where I think our community foundations come in, like the Legacy Foundation, that was a tremendous partner. That's where the Knight Foundation, who was a tremendous partner in the City of Gary during my tenure, that's where Bloomberg and so many other foundations come in. And I'm going to give you two examples of that, because it really does speak to the ability to ensure that as we become more automated, as we become much more technology driven, that people aren't left behind. And we've done that a couple of ways. One, we've done it by utilizing technology to really solve some of our most intractable problems. One of the issues that we face when I got to City Hall was the fact that we knew that we had an inordinate amount of vacant and abandoned buildings. In fact, some might say one of the largest percentages in the country in terms of per capita basis. But when I asked, well, how many are there, some people would say 10,000, others would say, oh no, they're more than that, they're 20,000. And I'm like, well, that's a lot. But nobody knew how many. And so we were able to get a tool that was made for Detroit called the local data survey. And we did this in partnership, another partnership, with the students at the Harris School at the University of Chicago to actually quantify that. Well, it turned out there were closer to 7,000, a lot better than 10 or 20. And not only were we able to quantify it, but we were able then to put an application together to the state and make a case. They should use hardest hit dollars that were originally set aside for mortgage foreclosure remediation to allow us to demolish or deconstruct vacant and abandoned buildings. And so you had a partnership with the city, you had a partnership with the University of Chicago, you had a partnership with the federal government, the state government, and you had a partnership with our community foundations, not just the Legacy Foundation, but also McArthur, because they were able to fund the students at the University of Chicago. And I think it demonstrates how cities, especially legacy cities, are really able to look at a problem to solve it. The same is true as we looked at a partnership with Legacy to say, you know, how do we address the fact that we have a dearth of restaurants in the city? And we created this culinary incubator that was funded by both Knight and Bloomberg philanthropies. One was public art. The other was a practical culinary incubator, not only to address the dearth in restaurants, but also to spawn new entrepreneurship and new businesses in the city of Gary, because we know that as manufacturing is more challenged, that entrepreneurship is one way to spur growth to really stem against the depletion and disappearance, or at least the automation of jobs and communities. Well, actually, that's a very helpful jumping off point, Karen, to Brian, because I think two things you mentioned, Brian, you work on. One is this whole issue of culture, social and civic factors and the role they play. And then also the very important role of partnerships, which I know you really tackle through Stand Together. But maybe you could share some of your thoughts. Sure. Yeah, absolutely. And I want to say you started off with us, Andre, but I read your report with great interest. I think the work that you've done to get below the national statistics and really understand the different impact that communities are facing through some of these transitions are critical, because ultimately, we have national problems, but many of the solutions are going to be driven from the bottom up and from the local actors who are experiencing different impacts. So I learned a lot in reading the report. I think it's a great contribution. I'll tell you a little bit about the approach that we take at Stand Together. And it really is informed by something that, Karen, I think I just took from what you said, this idea that as a mayor, you're charged with helping to ensure that every person in the city can succeed. And that really resonates with our core belief. Everything that we do at Stand Together is based on this idea that we have a deep belief in people and the idea that every person has something to contribute to our society. And so the whole reason that we exist is to help to identify and then help to partner with people to remove the barriers that are holding people back. And so when I read a report like the one that you put together, Andre, you know, the notion that so many people are being left behind, this really is a top priority for what we do. And it's particularly tragic, right, because it's in the context of tremendous progress in so many other areas of our society, whether that's economic progress, social progress, technological progress. And so what it means as you've shared is that this progress is not being widely experienced. And in addition to the real material challenges that that creates in people's lives, just making it very difficult to get by and to help your family to get by, I think it also is contributing to this idea that we're not all in this together. And so that if my experience is so different from yours, it's hard for me to relate. And when it becomes hard for us to relate to each other, it becomes easier for us to be nasty to each other. And I think that's contributing to the polarization that we're all feeling, which also then makes it harder to solve some of these problems. So I think it's a very complex challenge that your study outlines, and that so many people in this room have experienced through your work, I don't see any single cause of this challenge. In fact, I look at it as the consequence of the deterioration on a widespread scale of some of the foundational institutions that we rely on to empower people to succeed. Alberto mentioned the lack of trust in some of the key institutions in our society. And I have to say, some of that feeling is earned on the part of those institutions. You know, we look across society at some of the institutions that really have been essential for people to succeed. Institutions like education, which your study points to as a primary factor in people being left behind, it's just fallen down on the job. It's not doing what it needs to really elevate and empower everyone in our society to overcome some of the challenges that come with these very real issues in an economic transition. But it goes on. I mean, strong communities have been essential to the story of success in people's lives. And so the work that the community foundations of the room are doing to reinvigorate civil society, it's essential if we're going to make this work, and so on. And so we look at the need for a comprehensive approach in addressing any of these challenges. And I guess the last thing I'll say is, and I hope we'll have a chance to talk more about this, we have a real intuition, especially as a national philanthropy, we have to be careful about this, a real intuition that the solution to the struggles in communities is going to be found from outside those communities. And everything that we've experienced at least through our investments is the opposite. Give you a sense, we invest right now in about 168 different community organizations, groups on the ground that are finding new and different ways to solve some of the consequences of communities that are struggling, persistent poverty, violence that tends to contribute to a downward spiral in some of these communities, families and poverty. And they all do something different based on the circumstances in their communities and the people that they work with. But they all share that foundational belief that we have, that a deep belief in people, that everyone has something to contribute. And they succeed at disproportionate rates relative to groups that are working in the same field because they act on that belief, they invest in people. So the core lesson that I've taken from our experience is that you've got to invest in those folks who are closest to the problems. You want to address addiction, which is a problem that is being experienced in so many of these communities. Well, our experience is you've got to invest in people who have experienced addiction. And when you do, you see disproportionate results. Groups like a group called the Phoenix that we invest in that has a success rate that is twice that of the best clinical programs. And it's no surprise to us why they do. It's because the guy that leads it is an extraordinary leader, a guy named Scott Strode. And he's brought together people like him who are in recovery. Groups like the Family Independence Initiative, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with, that look at the problems of families struggling in poverty and they say the solution will be found in those families. And as a result, they have an extraordinary success rate helping families to lift their annual income by about 20%, just two years with a relatively small investment of capital, but a significant investment in community and bringing people together. So I think there's a lot to be learned from the work that you've done, a lot to be learned from the experience of people in this room. But for me, the core is to solve some of these problems that are a consequence of the disruption that you've described. We have to listen to those who are struggling and we have to ask ourselves how can we come alongside them to empower them to enable solutions to help these communities make it through. Thank you. Miriam, as the veteran of this conference, and actually as the leader of the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, which represents a number of counties there, I mean, I guess in many ways you're seeing a lot of this playing out in terms of the difference in economic vitality in different parts of the country. We'd love to hear your thoughts and reflections. Well, thank you very much. And I have to say, starting this conference with some really hard data is a great way to begin our conversation. So when I read your report, the first thing you do is you look where your city is. Well, your data is really depressing when it comes to Detroit and Southeast Michigan. And so I decided I wanted to really talk about three things. I want to talk about the importance of the role of information in our community, creativity, and the commitment to economic opportunity for all. And the auto industry, and I will say we are proud that we are still number one in autos. We have seen the data. We have used the information. Job loss in our community is not new. It's been true for the last couple decades. And maybe we have a head start because we've been living with this data. And I'll also point out that in terms of the importance of information, as we go to electric cars, there are fewer parts in electric cars. And we know that there's going to be one third less labor costs per car. Okay, what does that mean? It's not a pretty picture. So having that data has really helped our industry figure out how to use their assets, manufacturing, technology, use of robots. What are they doing? They're now going to begin to build the robots that other industries need. So that's one indication of how hard data has led you to a creative solution. We also knew that this loss of jobs was going to continue. So I can remember in 2006, the then chair of the community foundation who'd been vice chair of the Ford Motor Company for a number of years came to me and he said, we know the data. We've got to diversify our regional economy. And that's one of those moments when you go, really? What can a little foundation do? So we went to work and with 10 other foundations, we formed something called the New Economy Initiative. And the person who runs that's in the room, Pam Lewis is here with a couple of other colleagues. And what have we done? We have spent $150 million to focus on talent and innovation and the development of entrepreneurs. And what has that led to? 275,000 individuals have access to entrepreneurial training over that time. About 12,000 businesses have benefited from that. 3,000 new businesses have been formed. Those industries have already secured another $1.3 billion in investment, not bad return on $150 million of grants. And we know that of the businesses served in the last year, half of them were women owned and two thirds were minority led as well. You can make a difference. You take the data and you go to work. And that's one thing that philanthropy has done. Creativity. Let me give you an example of what the autos are doing. They have reinvented themselves already as not auto companies, but they're now mobility companies. So they are hard at work as well. Let me also just quickly say, because I know I have one minute left, thank you Robin, that our third mission is about giving opportunity, economic opportunity for all. And one of the things that we are doing right now is starting a campaign, thanks to Knight Foundation, to really show those entrepreneurs in our community that are successful so that others can see themselves as well and see they have an opportunity to do it and do it in our city. The name of that is in Goodco, Detroit. Go to the web, you'll find it. We really believe that this will motivate many to try it. I believe that we will be highly successful in our region going forward. And that's because we've seen the data. We've acted on it. We're stimulating entrepreneurs. We don't like to be number two in anything. So we are challenged. We are toughened by our competitive spirit that the autos have built in us. And I really do think that coming together, we can all make a difference. I'm going to drive your data forward. Thank you. Well, one thing I'll just add is we're shortly about to establish a new McKinsey Center on the Future of Work. And one of the first things we're going to do is make this data at the city and county level available on an open source basis to everyone so that every city can see what is the projection about the job creation in every single one of 800 occupations. What I wanted to just reflect on is there is obviously a national picture. Then there is a picture at cities and counties. But one of the things that I've heard in a lot of my conversations you alluded to, even in any city, there's a real variability of opportunity and success. Meaning, even in the cities where the opportunity is being created, those opportunities aren't going to every community in those cities. And I'm curious, you know, maybe Karen, your thoughts on that as having now worked in Gary on the one hand and Chicago on the other hand. How do you think about that? Because Chicago overall is doing very well, but not all parts of it are doing well. And I'm very curious about that distinction. Absolutely. And I'll speak to Chicago directly because this has been really a focus area of Mayor Laurie Lightfoot. In fact, last Thursday, there was the STEP conference, which was directly directed at ending poverty. How do you end poverty in Chicago? No small task, but she has come up with a South by Southwest initiative that focuses on those areas that have the greatest concentrations of poverty and has challenged the business community, the civic community, and those of us who run community-based organizations to partner with the city, the county, the state, and federal government to come up with meaningful solutions that are directed by those who are at the local level because we know that that's where it's most successful. And what we see is people really working together to say, you know, how do we look at this in a different way? How do we create those opportunities? For us at the Urban League, we have an entrepreneurship center, and that center really works with everyone from startups to those who are established and are looking for the next deal, both through coaching, through actually walking through the process to say, what do you need to create success in your business? How do you get into the supply chains? But in Gary, what we saw, and I think this will be true in Chicago, is that the data does, in fact, matter. Richard Leverett, who headed our data work at the City of Gary and who now works on the Legacy Foundation as a board member, really looked at what are ways that we can utilize data like the data that you presented, like the data that was presented in another study that looked at the future of work in cities of Gary and Long Beach. And that was commissioned by the African American Mayor's Association to say, how do you drive folks? And I think the answer, whether you're looking at data, whether you're looking at the work that's being done currently in Chicago, goes back to education. We have to get into our institutions of education, particularly K-12, to say, what are we doing in the initial stages? How do we get more kids into Head Start? How do we invest early on? And by making that investment, how do we prepare our young people to succeed in both new fields and in old fields? Because you're right, production manufacturing still works. We are still the flagship or the host of the flagship of U.S. Steel. We can't walk away from that, nor do we want to. Brian, I wanted to pick up on something you were saying before and also just ask, what are the characteristics you see of communities that are tackling these issues effectively? Because I presented, one might say, a rather depressing page which showed a number of cities and counties that might really struggle. In your work, have you seen that there are things that communities are doing? One of them you mentioned is that they're solving things internally. But what are the characteristics of partnerships and the way people come together in places which you think are more successful than others? Let me answer the question by talking about the characteristics of the groups that are helping to revitalize some of the communities. Because I think it would be a mistake to try to draw generalizations across communities. Certainly we can learn from what works in one community to another, but one of the things that we've learned is that these are often unique situations. And I want to say, Miriam, what you just said about celebrating some of the success that you see in these communities is a key, I think, to helping to bring highly effective but relatively small-scale solutions across communities and then invite others to learn from what works there. So I think there is so much good that's actually happening in some of these communities. And again, it can get obscured if you look at them from the macro level. But when you really get down there and you see the good work that a group like Urban Specialist, for instance, this is a phenomenal organization in South Dallas that's led by a bishop and a former gang leader. And they're going into one of the most dangerous places, one of those dangerous communities in the country, and finding a way to inspire those who have done violence in the past to become part of the solutions to the violence in those communities. And then ultimately, inviting others from Chicago and from other communities to come in, not to tell them how to handle things in their community because they'll know best, but to share some of their lessons about what's worked. And so to me, what these groups have in common and so what I think is a characteristic of some of these successful approaches is that they don't give up on anybody. They really do act on this notion that whatever your circumstances, whatever mistakes you've made in your life, wherever you are right now, you have a unique gift. And if we can help you to express that gift in a way that ultimately contributes in your community and also helps you to live a better life with your family, that's going to be the key to discovering what these communities ultimately have to offer and the path that they need to take, their unique path to be a participant in the progress that they ought to be throughout our society. Since we have just a few minutes left, I want to turn it to the audience and see if anyone in the audience has questions for our panelists. Good morning. My name is Andy Conti. I'm director of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University in Pittsburgh. So another place that is struggling. One thing that I wanted to find out though is you, the map that you showed Andre, overlaps very well with a map that would show where journalism is struggling. And I'm wondering if you could bring that in line, how difficult it is to do the kind of community work you're talking about when there's not a strong local newspaper or local news outlet. And what do we do about that in places where journalism is dying or is already gone? Well, I haven't looked specifically at that question of the correlation between journalism. There are, if you look at that map, there are many other correlations, actually, which probably stand out as well. If someone wants to go and look at the counties and the job growth vitality and compare it to the voting in the 2016 presidential election, you'll find an extraordinary correlation is one thing. But to your point, and maybe I could just make it broader and building on a little bit on what Brian was saying, in the communities where we see something special going on, you tend to see four or five groups of people coming together. It's education, it's government, it's business, it's community foundations and civic organizations, and it's journalism and it's the confluence of those, with journalists and the media playing the role of creating a dialogue and a conversation, often through data, then through storytelling and telling the narrative of how a community is on the move. And I experienced this firsthand in work that I saw happening in Buffalo, which was the role of the Buffalo News in galvanizing that community as it began its turnaround. Andre, can I, Rob, can I add to that? In Detroit, about seven years ago, with Knight and Ford and some other money, a project was started to work in neighborhoods and with the ethnic press, because our media is struggling also. And now there is a joint effort among the dozen or so ethnic media outlets, which has a larger reach than the mainline press put together to share reporters, to really get into the neighborhoods, partnering public television in neighborhoods and so forth. There are some ways to get at this, and I think we've got some examples around the country that can help. Good morning. This is John from the Beaky at Renaissance Journalism in the San Francisco Bay Area. I appreciated the comments, Maryam, I appreciated the comments about the ethnic media because we were involved in that. I was really interested in the data and the study. I was curious about if you can share any insights, either Andre or the panelists, about how this might affect creative communities, so the performing arts, artists, the entertainment industry, and even the nonprofit sector, because a lot of the discussion was about manufacturing and technology. Yeah, I'll start, but then quickly turn it over to the panel. I think Karen alluded to this when she talked about restaurants and culinary in Gary. One of the things you see, which many of you will know far better than me, is the role the cultural capital plays in economic turnaround anywhere, which is the role of restaurants, public spaces, natural space, entrepreneurship, artists, and so forth. I think you're absolutely right. Our data tells a very technocratic picture from an economic perspective, but doesn't talk about the critical role, and I'm sure my fellow panelists could speak more to that of the role of cultural and social capital in bringing communities together. What I would say is that arts and placemaking specifically have played a key role in the rejuvenation of Gary, and that has been done through support with Carroll, Saxon, and the Legacy Foundation, but also through night as we've looked at the work of the Miller Beach Arts and Creative District. So that's one of the organizations that understands the relationship between arts and economics, and they've used that to really spur the economy of Miller Beach, a neighborhood, in the city of Gary. But in addition to that, the attraction of artists to a city like ours that's losing population has been extremely important, and that's been done in partnership with Indiana University Northwest, where we've had a creative there, Lauren Bacheco, who has led just public art projects throughout the city to get creatives to just think about how do you use your creativity to improve the quality of place, to improve how people look at their neighborhoods, how they look at their communities, and so that's been extremely important in the city of Gary. Hi, this is Bill Bowling from the Arthur M. Blank Foundation in Atlanta. I wonder for all of you, but particularly Brian, as you talk about successes and best practices, where are you investing in how we share those? You know, the work on the ground is very different than the work of building collaborations and learning from each other. So where have you seen that done well? I think it's a great question, and it's an area where I think we could all do a much better job. How many times have we made a mistake in our philanthropy only to find out that somebody else made the same mistake two years prior, and if we had learned from them we wouldn't have had to do it again? So we do a few things on this front. The first thing is stand together itself as a philanthropic community. We work with about 700 different philanthropists, and we try to pool not just resources but also knowledge, and we need to do more, and we're working to do more to get that knowledge out beyond just that group of 700. Another area that I think we're as a community under-invested in, but we've seen huge returns on, is just simple storytelling. So the data is critical. We want to make sure that we're using metrics, where metrics actually reflect reality rather than some abstraction. But we also want to just make sure that we don't lose the richness of some of these experiences, and so celebrating successes, but also sharing some of our mistakes I think through storytelling, and it's increasingly easy to do that with you know with online media and that sort of thing. But then I think you know what the Knight Foundation is doing here, and what other groups are doing, and just bringing groups like this together, and creating the space for us to make genuine partnerships. That's a primary focus of how we do all of the philanthropy that we're engaged with. We would much rather partner with the group that understands the space better than we do, and then to the extent we can bring something to the table, we make a greater impact together. I was having breakfast with Sam Gill this morning. I shared with him. I said we wouldn't dream of making an investment in journalism, and we make quite a bit of investments to support journalism without first checking with the team at the Knight Foundation, because they just know more about it than we do. I'll make just one specific offer, which is to the extent that there are a set of stakeholders in this room who feel it would be valuable to gather more best practices about how communities are tackling the labor market, economic development, and the future of work. We'd be happy to invest pro bono resources to gather and collect and share those practices. So, Amos Geld from DC Witness, first time attendee, so it is quite amazing. Brilliant people here. Made a lot of folks, and you four up there. So, sort of question to pick up on things that have been said. Three characteristics from hearing you people. Local, ingenuity, positive. There seem to be lots of answers, lots of things happening. How do we change the national conversation, put politics aside, from the divisiveness that we have now to the idea that we have people coming up with ideas to solve these solutions, that we can? How do we change that overall national conversation to positive, rather than negative? I'd say you have to confront it. You know, we've all been in rooms where we've heard people say things that can only be characterized as ignorant. And what we do is we hold our heads down and kind of move away. And I don't say that you have to be confrontational when you confront it, but you certainly have to say, well, is it really that? Or can you look at it this way? Whatever it is to allow someone to really reflect on the fact that they may be being bigoted, or they may be saying something that does not apply to an entire group of people, but just that one person they encounter. I couldn't agree more. I think my experience is that the country is full of people who want to do the right thing, but they need some examples. And I think people in this room, in the media, in philanthropy, we're in a great position to set a good example, do the right thing, and I think people will be encouraged to follow you. Call them out. Use data. We started that this morning. Some things are true. Thank you. Please join me in thanking this extraordinary panel.