In 2003, I experienced several significant events in my life: a new marriage, my first pregnancy, and a challenging job as the Executive Director of NBCSL. Over the years, NBCSL presidents have taught me great lessons and have served as an essential component of my support system. Having served over a decade in this role, I thought it was only fitting to reach out to the four presidents under whom I have served to gather their perspectives on leadership. 

Recorded History: Five NBCSL Executive Directors Standing Behind Six NBCSL Presidents. Standing left to right: Stan Straughter, Charles Bremer, Ivan Lanier, Khalil Abdullah, and LaKimba DeSadier. Sitting left to right: Sen. Clarence Mitchell, III (MD); Sen. Regis Groff (CO); Rep. Lois DeBerry (TN); Rep. James Thomas (AL); Rep. Mary Coleman (MS); and Rep. Calvin Smyre (GA).To describe my first year as a trial by fire is definitely an understatement. However, I do remember that it was the mentorship and guidance of then-President, Representative Mary Coleman (MS), which truly supported my transition into this role. For Representative Coleman—who assumed the leadership of an NBCSL with a deficit—her ability to network with the corporate community and gain its respect and support allowed her to shore up NBCSL's finances and place the organization back on track. She also increased the national office staff participation in the organization, as she believed they are its backbone. Representative Coleman thought that one of the tests of her leadership was embracing the need to be humble enough to accept criticism. Nevertheless, her strong faith and trust in God helped her to continue moving forward with her work, standing firm in her belief in what she knew was right, resulting in her having no regrets from her four-year presidency of NBCSL.

Representative Calvin Smyre (GA) assumed leadership of the organization next. He did not initially envision himself as president, even though he had served under all NBCSL presidents except one.  He focused his efforts on growing the organization and pushing forward its mission, while at the same time learning about the uniqueness of all legislators and how to be receptive and respectful of everyone’s ideas and experiences. This year, Representative Smyre celebrates 40 years of being a legislator.  This experience has helped to shape and inspire his leadership of NBCSL during his four years as President. While he expanded the focus of the organization to embrace non-traditional issues such as technology and energy, he had hoped to accomplish other goals such as establish an NBCSL State Liaison, a Black Caucus Chairs Council, as well as an NBCSL Foundation. However, he recognized the limitations of time, resources, and staff capacity to achieve these goals and was nevertheless proud of his achievement to take the organization to the next level.

In her role as President, Representative Barbara Ballard (KS) empowered NBCSL members to become more effective leaders within the organization, and helped them to understand and implement the mission and goals of NBCSL. She emphasized that while NBCSL members are African American, those legislators actually represent a very diverse constituency; therefore, it was critical to promote inclusivity within the organization. One test of her leadership was streamlining NBCSL’s resolutions process and ensuring that they aligned with the mission and values of the organization. Representative Ballard remarked that she learned a lot about managing conflict, negotiating, compromise, patience, as well as diligence as she led efforts to improve the process. Notwithstanding these challenges, she thoroughly enjoyed the journey. During her tenure, she had hoped to establish an alumni council of former legislators who would contribute their institutional and professional knowledge and experience. However, as the first president limited to a two-year leadership period, she also understood the limitations of time and resources to accomplish this goal.

Current NBCSL President, Representative Joe Armstrong (TN) pondered the direction his presidency—internal development or expansion of the organization—and decided that his approach would incorporate aspects of both options. He has focused on ensuring the organization was both fiscally and structurally sound, and he has enhanced the ability of the organization to network and provide support for its members, particularly through communications and social media. President Armstrong credits NBCSL with informing his work as a legislator, given that he was connected to NBCSL before he was elected to the Tennessee General Assembly. While he had hoped to increase attendance of NBCSL members at meetings during his presidency, especially among newly elected legislators, he is cognizant of the effects of state budgets on travel. Nevertheless, he continues to encourage Black legislators of every party affiliation across the country to become active members of NBCSL.

Each of these leaders also provided guidance for future NBCSL leaders. Representative Coleman counseled future leaders to be open and firm in their beliefs, but also to be willing to compromise for the good of the organization. Representative Smyre’s message was one of inclusivity and encouraging the recruitment of new individuals to the organization. Representative Ballard wanted future leaders to focus on strengthening the administration of the organization through its national staff, as well as ensuring that the mission of the organization remains the foundation of all its efforts. Finally, President Armstrong emphasized that leaders must recognize the position they assume is not about them as individuals, but the organization and communities they serve.

All of these NBCSL Presidents have had a profound effect on the trajectory and success of this organization and my role as the Executive Director.   I know I speak for many of you when I express my deepest appreciation of their contributions, support, leadership, and continued dedication to the work of state legislators across the country. Their perspectives on leadership will continue to provide me with inspiration and guidance.

“Thank you all for your leadership, I will continue to walk in your footsteps”.

It is clear to most economists, entrepreneurs, and policymakers that America’s ability to remain competitive in an increasingly global economy requires innovation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).  These innovations have the potential to solve domestic issues related to health, infrastructure, energy, transportation, housing, etc.  Globally, these innovations will determine the trajectory of international policies related to climate, public health, food production, and clean water—all of which will benefit this nation and the world.

Recent data from Silicon Valley – widely regarded the “technology and innovation capital” – indicate that America faces significant challenges with regard to workforce diversity in STEM-related professions.  Among the top seven technology giants, African Americans constitute 2% to 7% of the workforce, with not all of those employees working in STEM-related positions. While women fare better, they represent only 30% to 40% of the workforce, although they are approximately 50% of the population.  It is important to note that many of those positions in Silicon Valley are outside of the STEM fields, occurring in areas such as retail and sales.  The data confirm widespread concerns expressed over the last two decades regarding the limited number of women and people of color entering STEM professions.  Recognizing the challenges, some companies have already invested in bringing STEM programs to schools in communities of color and developing mentoring programs to support diversification of the workforce.  In the meantime, there have been few documented improvements in the data – anecdotal or otherwise – regarding the Silicon Valley workforce. 

There are many theories as to why there is such a lack of diversity with regard to gender, race, and ethnicity in STEM professions.  Some easily point to the lack of women and people of color graduating with degrees in relevant fields, while others say that the small number of the aforementioned populations entering STEM-related fields is because of the perception that STEM coursework is “hard.”  In addition to this, recent data indicate that although the number of African American women graduating with STEM degrees has increased slightly over the past decade, they often end up in non-STEM related jobs or spend only short periods in STEM-related positions before going to work in other fields.  Less than 1% of African American women complete PhDs in STEM, a pre-requisite for high-level, decision-making positions in technology companies.  Some people believe that the lack of STEM workforce diversity originates much earlier than college and that its roots are in elementary classrooms where bias, racism, and stereotypes limit students of color and girls from exploring, engaging, and excelling in STEM curricula.  In addition, there are few visible role models and mentors for girls and African Americans that demonstrate interest or capacity to excel at STEM education.

Strategies to increase STEM education for girls and children of color are underway via programs like Start-Up Middle School Summer Institute out of Howard University’s Middle School for Mathematics and Science (www.startupmiddleschool.org).  Through the program, students between the ages of 9 and 14 have opportunities to develop mobile applications that solve social problems.  Another example is Black Girls Code which provides education for social entrepreneurship and STEM with the goal to increase the number of women in the digital space (www.blackgirlscode.com).

While these programs represent increased awareness of the need for African Americans and girls to begin the journey to STEM careers through education opportunities, there must be complementary efforts to support recruitment and hiring of these graduates from STEM programs.  The path into Silicon Valley technology firms is heavily dependent upon relationships and networks that, by design, are most supportive of White male STEM graduates.  To open those networks to greater diversity, Silicon Valley must invest in making STEM education programs accessible and affordable for girls, women, and people of color.

Elected officials can support STEM education and workforce diversity by focusing funding on schools and programs dedicated to STEM while creating incentives for technology companies that demonstrate a strong interest in diversifying their workforce through targeted recruitment and hiring.  Efforts related to expanding STEM education and diversifying the Silicon Valley workforce have the potential to engage women and people of color in domestic and global innovation that not only supports problem-solving, but has the potential to create ladders of success and wealth for generations to come.  It is time to move beyond being consumers of technology to being creators and purveyors of technologies that will change the world for the better.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides nutrition subsidies to nearly 48 million low-income families and individuals.  It serves as the nation’s hunger safety net and is our best domestic policy weapon against food insecurity—when food is unavailable or people do not have ready access to it.  Recent policy decisions have led to significant cuts to SNAP at a time when benefits were already insufficient for many individuals and families, including an estimated 22 million children, according to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  The cuts, effective November 1, 2013, affect all SNAP recipients.  

While the cuts to the program will be difficult for all beneficiaries, there will be a disproportionately negative impact on women and people of color due to their higher rates of poverty.  According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 39% of Black women compared to 19% of White women receive SNAP benefits, while 21% of Black men compared to 11% of white men receive food assistance.  The states with the highest percentage of program beneficiaries are New Mexico, Tennessee, Mississippi, as well as the District of Columbia.  It is also important to note that states in the southern region tend to have higher percentages of SNAP participants than many in the northwest or northeast. Needless to say, the burden of the program cuts will not be experienced equitably.

The health implications of cuts to SNAP will likely be dangerous and widespread.   According to a recent study by the Virginia Commonwealth University Center on Society and Health, there is a direct relationship between income and health.  Reductions in food assistance lead to fewer overall resources for a household.  The study also states that those small increases in poverty have the potential to increase premature death and affect rates of chronic diseases such as diabetes, all of which have implications for health care for individuals, families, and state Medicaid costs.  Findings from the study indicate that over the long-term, healthcare cost increases as a result of SNAP cuts will be greater than the savings predicted.

The great need for SNAP indicates that the nation continues to struggle with systemic and structural issues related to poverty and inequities.  Absent resolving those issues, we are at risk of Americans going hungry.  In an immediate sense, the loss of SNAP benefits has real-world consequences that for some families and individuals could mean life or death.  For some people the question will be, “Do I eat today, or do I buy my medication?”  Those are choices that no one in America should have to make, particularly the most vulnerable among us.  

Many people who support the SNAP cuts believe the nonprofit sector will “step up” to patch the gaping hole left in the hunger safety net.  The stark reality, however, is that local food banks, places of worship with food pantries, and other local and national nonprofits have been experiencing significant challenges to their own budgets since the onset of the Great Recession, based on reductions in government funding, decreases in foundation support, and declining contributions from individual donors.  There is simply no evidence that the nonprofit sector has the financial wherewithal to fill a $10 to $21 billion shortfall in SNAP over the next 10 years.  

Another unsubstantiated claim of those supporting cuts is that there is significant and intentional SNAP fraud and abuse, which has been used to discredit the program and its recipients.  The data tell an entirely different story.  According to Feeding America,* trafficking of SNAP benefits actually decreased from 3.8 cents per dollar in 1993 to 1.3 cents per dollar from 2009-2011.  All of this indicates that the management of SNAP continues to improve as the need for benefits increases.

While federal policy will play out in the halls of Congress, states should consider cross-sector collaboration and innovative hunger programs to fill gaps left by the cuts.  It may well be time to bring some of those model programs to scale in the effort to ensure that no American goes hungry. Legislators should also advocate for the restoration of funds to address increasing public need.

Regardless of political disagreements over the efficacy or need for SNAP, we must live up to our responsibility to the 48 million people who depend on the program for their subsistence. From a public policy perspective, what are the actual costs of 22 million children arriving at school hungry every day and expecting them to achieve academically or have a real shot at growing into productive citizens?  Should we not take steps to prevent the diseases and conditions that we know very often occur as complications associated with food insecurity? 

Supporting SNAP is not just a matter of finances or budgeting. This is one instance in which society truly gets what it pays for. 

*To learn more about hunger-focused programming visit: www.feedingamerica.org

While the economy continues its slow but steady recovery, what can we do to support faster, yet sustainable growth?  The answer may lie in the emergence of innovation economies.  Although not the only answer, they can change the current trajectory of local, state, and federal economies, especially in communities of color.  In addition, innovation economies will create a fundamental shift in our economic culture, from a singular focus on consumerism to a focus on production.

Innovation economies solidify technology, entrepreneurship, and new knowledge as the core of an economic model that is less vulnerable to fluctuations in fiscal and other policies.  The goal is for innovation to catalyze growth and productivity—resulting in greater job creation and higher employment rates.  That growth will generate additional tax revenue to support education and the development of the nation’s next innovators. 

Three areas that signal opportunities in innovation economies are environment, energy, and transportation.  Historically, people of color have been powerful advocates in the environmental justice movement that has ebbed and flowed over the last several decades.  Their efforts have largely been fueled by their disproportionate exposure to toxic waste, vermin, run-off, and poor air quality, all of which lead to poor health and quality of life.  Over the past decade and with the emergence of global warming data, there has been a clear link established between the environmental, energy, and transportation sectors, resulting in the “green economies” we see developing in many places throughout the country.  Unfortunately, that development has not consistently benefitted communities most in need.     

The success of innovation economies depends on our willingness to invest in small businesses, “green jobs,” K-12 education, and adult re-training.  One example of this is in Massachusetts where the 2008 Green Economies Act seeks to cut greenhouse gases by 25 percent in the next decade, and by over 80 percent by 2050.  In addition, it seeks to improve energy efficiency in communities and spur renewable energy development.   As a result of the business opportunities created by the law, the Boston Energy Service Cooperative (BESC) has emerged to become the first minority-owned and operated weatherization company in Boston.

Companies like BESC require trained and educated employees ready to work and adjust to emerging innovations in the energy field.  To ensure that the workforce in communities of color is ready to engage in innovation economies on the production side, we must provide competitive K-12 and post-secondary education opportunities, in addition to re-training workers who are experiencing joblessness due to failed industries and the recession.

State legislators have a number of policy tools available to them to make innovation economies a reality in under-resourced communities.  By focusing policy to develop innovation-ready workers and creating environmentally friendly business opportunities, we can begin to engage all people in the economic future of our nation.

For decades, the focus in America has been on creating generations of consumers.  Now is the time to invest in future generations of producers who will serve as the foundation for innovation economies in communities where it is least expected.