UBIEXP Project
Conference on UBI and Basic Income Experiments
Program: https://ubiexperiments.weebly.com/international-meeting-braga.html
Universidade do Minho, Braga
29th June 2022
Report by Jamie Cooke, Head of RSA Scotland
(Consultant of the UBIEXP project)
Introduction
Following several years of the COVID-19 pandemic removing the ability for in-person meetings of global collaborators, the Conference on UBI and basic income experiments was a welcome chance to bring together a group of basic income experts and practitioners from across the world and to reflect upon the progress, opportunities and challenges which the topic faces. The Conference consisted of a series of roundtable discussions on key topics, with space for discussion and identification of ideas for future work. This paper aims to provide a brief overview of key areas covered, and to highlight some of these potential next steps.
Roundtable 1: The future of BIEN
Chair: Wolfgang Wopperer-Beholz (BIEN)
Participants: Sarath Davala (BIEN), Diana Bashur (BIEN/University of Vienna), Guy Standing (SOAS University of London), Karl Widerquist (Georgetown University), Philippe Van Parijs (Hoover Chair/Université Catholique de Louvain)
The first roundtable focused on the work of Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), its importance to the global basic income discussion and the barriers it faces to increasing its visibility, impact and membership. The participants on the panel brought a wealth of experience to the discussion, ranging from founders of the organisation to its current chair, allowing for an honest reflection on successes and missed opportunities to date.
With the COVID-19 pandemic having increased interest/visibility for basic income in many countries there was recognition that a global organisation such as BIEN has an important role to play – however there was a lack of clarity/agreement as to what exactly that role is or should be. An ongoing debate about the respective importance of academia and activism (and indeed if they are or should be seen as separate, more on that later) persists, with a notable missing centre aspect of policy influencing. The lack of relevance of BIEN to day-to-day working was raised by several delegates, suggesting that BIEN is sometimes seen as a group for ‘believers’ rather than an active contributor to the global basic income debate. This was disappointing, as examples were provided of where BIEN is evolving to have significant real-world impact, such as in partnering with different UN agencies and in the setting up of the BIRAL network of partners exploring issues such as municipal leadership. BIEN prides itself on its reputation for providing reliable, honest information and so has a role as a repository of basic income knowledge (as evidenced by the popularity of the ‘What is Basic Income’ page on the BIEN website) however it is an open question as to what role it can fulfil beyond this.
BIEN membership was a key area of discussion – despite having 13,700 newsletter subscribers, BIEN only possesses 418 members, a 3% conversion rate. It was not clear why people would choose to become members, as other than participating in the governance of BIEN through board membership, elections etc. there are no tangible benefits to membership. Indeed, most members have paid a one-off life membership, therefore acting more as supporters than active participants. Ideas for engagement were explored such as podcasts and networks of expertise, with support for BIEN to undertake a proactive recruitment drive to increase numbers and revenue. However, it is clear that work needs to be undertaken on what membership means if that drive is be successful and sustainable.
One challenge/opportunity to the vitality/growth of membership was the role of BIEN affiliate organisations. It is possible to be heavily involved in a national affiliate without being a member, or even aware, of BIEN. Affiliates are often seen as the main driver of basic income in their context, and so a clearer pathway and relationship to BIEN as the overarching membership body is required. This could include ideas such as linked membership/funding; BIEN-led events delivered with affiliates; or clearer branding/expectations around the relationship.
Overall, BIEN is evolving and striving to find its place in the growing basic income field. It offers a trusted, well established reputation and brand, and access to some key figures in the basic income movement. And recent work on building strategic relationships with global institutions, and the success of recent Congresses delivered collaboratively with affiliates, offers much to be optimistic about. However, it is clear that more work is required if BIEN is going to grow and develop its role and impact, and to bring together the global basic income community with those it needs to influence.
Roundtable 2: UBI experiments, the potential for a network
Chair: Pedro Silva (CEPS, UMinho)
Participants: Stephen Nuñez (Jain Family Institute), Sara Constantino (Compton Experiment), Jamie Cooke (RSA Scotland), Diana Bashur (BIEN/University of Vienna), Nick Langridge (University of Bath)
One defining characteristic of the recent growth in interest in basic income across the globe has been the role of experiments in that debate. With key pilot/test sites such as Finland, Ontario, India and Kenya frequently being highlighted in political and media reflections on basic income, there is a need to assess where experiments can be beneficial; and whether in some contexts they may actually be barriers to progress.
This roundtable examined some specific examples of where experiments are being explored in the US, Scotland and more widely in discussions with the UN.
The US has seen a surge in experiments recently, primarily at a city level and often through the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income (MGI) network. These experiments, in cities such as Stockton and Compton in California, have allowed testing of ideas on a local level with chances to evaluate impact. The range of experiments have largely been targeted to specific groups/demographics (particularly around poverty levels and/or people of colour), which opens up learning for impact, but also potentially limits wider understanding of basic income’s impact on society. Given the lack of progress for UBI on a federal level, cities and states offer the most realistic progress for the concept, so experiments offer a chance for making the case on a local level.
Scotland offers a contrasting context. With significant political progress having been made in recent years (the Scottish Government and 4/5 main political parties support basic income as a policy) large-scale experimentation is seen as a potential distraction or barrier to progress, particularly given the limitations to delivery that exist in the devolved context of Scotland in the UK. Debate around basic income in Scotland has recently focused on policy delivery (e.g. within the resurgent energy around potential Scottish independence) and less on the role of experiments. However, the recent launch of the Welsh Government’s targeted pilot with young people involved in the care system offers a model for smaller scale deliverable testing which can have policy impact in a devolved context.
BIEN is working with UNESCO to explore an online policy platform for them to utilise with their staff/experts around basic income, to ensure consistency of learning and language. UN agencies are moving strongly towards support for cash transfers as the optimal approach to development and support; however, they have encountered challenges with donors who view cash as a survival resource, not one for production or development.
Opportunities for progress focused on opportunities for learning/sharing findings across countries and contexts. For example, the Welsh pilot links with a similar approach taking in the County of Santa Clara in California – if impacts could be evaluated in both (and possibly with an additional pilot in Scotland) then a good amount of evidence could be gathered from relatively small interventions.
There is also a need for capturing the stories and qualitative data from small-scale interventions. Access exists to widespread evidence around the impact of cash transfers/basic income around the world – this clearly is not instantly translatable to every context, however there is much that can already be used. If looking to influence the public and decision makers is key, then the stories of how cash will be utilised will be a powerful contribution to that debate.
Finally, there was a recognition that more work would be beneficial around delivery mechanisms of cash in different contexts – how do we get money to the people who need it in a safe, consistent and efficient way? This can again be explored in small-scale interventions with relevance for different contexts.
Roundtable 3: Activism on UBI
Chair: Hugo Rajão (CEPS, UMinho)
Participants: Julio Linares (BIEN-BIRAL), Leandro Ferreira (Brazilian Basic Income Network), Otto Lehto (NYU School of Law/FRIBIS), Catarina Neves (CEPS/UMinho)
This roundtable raised again the ongoing, and longstanding, debate about the role of activists and academics within the basic income movement. There was disagreement amongst panellists as to whether the two roles/personas are incompatible; or alternatively that a synthesis between them is essential for impact. The separation argument was rooted in a belief that this allows the two roles to be focused/true to their primary intentions, rather than becoming confused/diluted. The synthesis argument values the rigor that research brings, but highlights that the energy and real world impact of activism is essential for turning that research into change. This is a long-standing debate that is unlikely to be resolved any time soon – at its best it brings reflection to how the basic income community best functions for maximum impact; at its worst it creates competing ‘tribes’ of approach which can undermine each other. There is also a missing link around the role of policy experts bridging the gap between the two which would merit further exploration.
Alongside this debate, other contributions reflected upon the nature of activism in the world today, particularly in light of current political headwinds and challenges. Municipal UBI, channelled through cities and communities, has offered a key space for impact in recent years, from groups in Brazil to cities across North America. It allows for localised pilots, often using local currencies and structures, to respond to key municipal challenges and opportunities. It can create challenges when ideas are too closely tied to one political leader or movement, and sometimes can be difficult to roll out further to other communities – likewise, the local driver behind the pilot/scheme (e.g. oil revenues in Maricá, Brazil) may not exist in other municipalities, even those in close proximity. However, despite these challenges city/municipal level pilots and tests remain a key opportunity for progress in many contexts.
A key reflection on activism was on the impact the pandemic had had in terms of organising activity. The experience was shared that it had proven easier to organise pan-European activity (using online engagement and communication tools) than it had been to push forward local activity in Portugal. This reflected the pandemic-reality of people working online a lot more, and in the breakdown of international barriers that it brought. It will be interesting to observe how this develops as we move out of the pandemic, however it offers a range of tools for international engagement that can be utilised.
There was also a reflection on the challenge that alternative or ‘partial’ policy initiatives can offer to the implementation of basic income. The debate over incremental versus radical change is another long-standing one, however there is a real challenge that partial policy introductions, particularly those which seem similar to basic income but which undermine unconditionality, can muddy political and public waters, and actually restrict or remove our ability to deliver a true basic income.
Roundtable 4: Collaborative research and funding on UBI
Chair: Catarina Neves (CEPS/UMinho)
Participants: Bernhard Neumärker (FRIBIS and GWP, University of Freiburg), Roberto Merrill (CEPS/UMinho), Stuart White (Jesus College, Oxford – could not attend)
The final session of the Conference focussed on opportunities for funding and collaboration that could be explored by participants moving forward. (The specific funding streams identified are contained within a presentation which will be shared by Prof Merrill).
The key question/opportunity for the funding opportunities is around how best to create multinational and multidisciplinary teams which can deliver research and impact collaboratively. As had been explored in the previous sessions, the basic income community is a diverse one, with participants in this one conference alone representing four continents and a wide range of academic disciplines and non-academic work. This allows for the creation of powerful research projects combining different contexts and approaches, as highlighted in previous sessions. Challenges exist around the capacity for pulling together funding bids, the respective abilities of institutions/organisations to bring their resources to bear, and how best to bring together academic and non-academic institutions. However, if these challenges can be funnelled into successful bids then substantial finances exist.
Building upon these opportunities, an in-depth overview of the FRIBIS institute at the University of Freiburg in Germany was provided. Using a multidisciplinary team approach, focused around different themes such as microsimulation, FRIBIS is looking to demonstrate in practice the approaches outlined in the funding discussion. There is a commitment to using the teams to transfer knowledge from academia to civic society, and back again, to ensure a vibrancy to the basic income debate. The FRIBIS approach is rooted in scientific evaluation, with opportunities to contribute lab-based experiments to the wider pool of evidence. With funding in place for its first five years, FRIBIS offers a chance to drive change. The team in Freiburg is keen to work with partners across the world to create new areas for collaboration, and to maximise impact in the real world.
This final discussion highlighted the need for bringing diverse teams together, and the potential impact that those teams could make. Money exists for the basic income community to access; however it is critical that money is utilised to deliver ideas and areas of work that are required, not just chased in its own right.
The current trend in accessing funding sources is heavily academic in leadership and composition (due to the nature of many of those sources), and so there is a need to identify ways to bring a more bottom-up civic society-led approach where possible/appropriate. By broadening the composition of teams, and the groups they work with, we can in turn broaden the impact of our work and ensure that the current opportunities for taking basic income forward in many countries are seized upon.
Conclusion
The UBIEXP Conference on UBI and Basic Income Experiments was a very welcome and timely contribution to the ongoing energy and enthusiasm around basic income. It brought together a range of key contributors from across the globe and, even in a short space of time, opened up ideas for new collaborations and policy interventions. Sharing learning is essential if progress is to be made and sustained, and so the type of network and relationships that an in-person event such as the conference offers is a critical resource as we move out of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The conference did highlight some of the challenges which exist for the basic income movement – the tension between academics and activists; the lack of diversity amongst participants in the movement; and the need to broaden involvement to wider civic society, policy environments and the public. However, these challenges are not insurmountable, and indeed offer a clear pathway for increasing the impact that the basic income community can and should be having.
Countries and contexts are very different, and therefore the type of progress or response that will be appropriate and most successful might be very different in Scotland than it is in the US. Despite this, the benefits of sharing learning, data and pitfalls is of huge benefit – and the momentum that success in one country could bring for all should not be underestimated.
The UBIEXP team have made an invaluable contribution to the global basic income discussion over their time in operation and should be recognised for that. It is important that this conference of June 2022 is a step along the path to change rather than an end – here is to the team continuing to create a collaborative, creative space for impact and to the work that will come next.
Conference on UBI and Basic Income Experiments
Program: https://ubiexperiments.weebly.com/international-meeting-braga.html
Universidade do Minho, Braga
29th June 2022
Report by Jamie Cooke, Head of RSA Scotland
(Consultant of the UBIEXP project)
Introduction
Following several years of the COVID-19 pandemic removing the ability for in-person meetings of global collaborators, the Conference on UBI and basic income experiments was a welcome chance to bring together a group of basic income experts and practitioners from across the world and to reflect upon the progress, opportunities and challenges which the topic faces. The Conference consisted of a series of roundtable discussions on key topics, with space for discussion and identification of ideas for future work. This paper aims to provide a brief overview of key areas covered, and to highlight some of these potential next steps.
Roundtable 1: The future of BIEN
Chair: Wolfgang Wopperer-Beholz (BIEN)
Participants: Sarath Davala (BIEN), Diana Bashur (BIEN/University of Vienna), Guy Standing (SOAS University of London), Karl Widerquist (Georgetown University), Philippe Van Parijs (Hoover Chair/Université Catholique de Louvain)
The first roundtable focused on the work of Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), its importance to the global basic income discussion and the barriers it faces to increasing its visibility, impact and membership. The participants on the panel brought a wealth of experience to the discussion, ranging from founders of the organisation to its current chair, allowing for an honest reflection on successes and missed opportunities to date.
With the COVID-19 pandemic having increased interest/visibility for basic income in many countries there was recognition that a global organisation such as BIEN has an important role to play – however there was a lack of clarity/agreement as to what exactly that role is or should be. An ongoing debate about the respective importance of academia and activism (and indeed if they are or should be seen as separate, more on that later) persists, with a notable missing centre aspect of policy influencing. The lack of relevance of BIEN to day-to-day working was raised by several delegates, suggesting that BIEN is sometimes seen as a group for ‘believers’ rather than an active contributor to the global basic income debate. This was disappointing, as examples were provided of where BIEN is evolving to have significant real-world impact, such as in partnering with different UN agencies and in the setting up of the BIRAL network of partners exploring issues such as municipal leadership. BIEN prides itself on its reputation for providing reliable, honest information and so has a role as a repository of basic income knowledge (as evidenced by the popularity of the ‘What is Basic Income’ page on the BIEN website) however it is an open question as to what role it can fulfil beyond this.
BIEN membership was a key area of discussion – despite having 13,700 newsletter subscribers, BIEN only possesses 418 members, a 3% conversion rate. It was not clear why people would choose to become members, as other than participating in the governance of BIEN through board membership, elections etc. there are no tangible benefits to membership. Indeed, most members have paid a one-off life membership, therefore acting more as supporters than active participants. Ideas for engagement were explored such as podcasts and networks of expertise, with support for BIEN to undertake a proactive recruitment drive to increase numbers and revenue. However, it is clear that work needs to be undertaken on what membership means if that drive is be successful and sustainable.
One challenge/opportunity to the vitality/growth of membership was the role of BIEN affiliate organisations. It is possible to be heavily involved in a national affiliate without being a member, or even aware, of BIEN. Affiliates are often seen as the main driver of basic income in their context, and so a clearer pathway and relationship to BIEN as the overarching membership body is required. This could include ideas such as linked membership/funding; BIEN-led events delivered with affiliates; or clearer branding/expectations around the relationship.
Overall, BIEN is evolving and striving to find its place in the growing basic income field. It offers a trusted, well established reputation and brand, and access to some key figures in the basic income movement. And recent work on building strategic relationships with global institutions, and the success of recent Congresses delivered collaboratively with affiliates, offers much to be optimistic about. However, it is clear that more work is required if BIEN is going to grow and develop its role and impact, and to bring together the global basic income community with those it needs to influence.
Roundtable 2: UBI experiments, the potential for a network
Chair: Pedro Silva (CEPS, UMinho)
Participants: Stephen Nuñez (Jain Family Institute), Sara Constantino (Compton Experiment), Jamie Cooke (RSA Scotland), Diana Bashur (BIEN/University of Vienna), Nick Langridge (University of Bath)
One defining characteristic of the recent growth in interest in basic income across the globe has been the role of experiments in that debate. With key pilot/test sites such as Finland, Ontario, India and Kenya frequently being highlighted in political and media reflections on basic income, there is a need to assess where experiments can be beneficial; and whether in some contexts they may actually be barriers to progress.
This roundtable examined some specific examples of where experiments are being explored in the US, Scotland and more widely in discussions with the UN.
The US has seen a surge in experiments recently, primarily at a city level and often through the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income (MGI) network. These experiments, in cities such as Stockton and Compton in California, have allowed testing of ideas on a local level with chances to evaluate impact. The range of experiments have largely been targeted to specific groups/demographics (particularly around poverty levels and/or people of colour), which opens up learning for impact, but also potentially limits wider understanding of basic income’s impact on society. Given the lack of progress for UBI on a federal level, cities and states offer the most realistic progress for the concept, so experiments offer a chance for making the case on a local level.
Scotland offers a contrasting context. With significant political progress having been made in recent years (the Scottish Government and 4/5 main political parties support basic income as a policy) large-scale experimentation is seen as a potential distraction or barrier to progress, particularly given the limitations to delivery that exist in the devolved context of Scotland in the UK. Debate around basic income in Scotland has recently focused on policy delivery (e.g. within the resurgent energy around potential Scottish independence) and less on the role of experiments. However, the recent launch of the Welsh Government’s targeted pilot with young people involved in the care system offers a model for smaller scale deliverable testing which can have policy impact in a devolved context.
BIEN is working with UNESCO to explore an online policy platform for them to utilise with their staff/experts around basic income, to ensure consistency of learning and language. UN agencies are moving strongly towards support for cash transfers as the optimal approach to development and support; however, they have encountered challenges with donors who view cash as a survival resource, not one for production or development.
Opportunities for progress focused on opportunities for learning/sharing findings across countries and contexts. For example, the Welsh pilot links with a similar approach taking in the County of Santa Clara in California – if impacts could be evaluated in both (and possibly with an additional pilot in Scotland) then a good amount of evidence could be gathered from relatively small interventions.
There is also a need for capturing the stories and qualitative data from small-scale interventions. Access exists to widespread evidence around the impact of cash transfers/basic income around the world – this clearly is not instantly translatable to every context, however there is much that can already be used. If looking to influence the public and decision makers is key, then the stories of how cash will be utilised will be a powerful contribution to that debate.
Finally, there was a recognition that more work would be beneficial around delivery mechanisms of cash in different contexts – how do we get money to the people who need it in a safe, consistent and efficient way? This can again be explored in small-scale interventions with relevance for different contexts.
Roundtable 3: Activism on UBI
Chair: Hugo Rajão (CEPS, UMinho)
Participants: Julio Linares (BIEN-BIRAL), Leandro Ferreira (Brazilian Basic Income Network), Otto Lehto (NYU School of Law/FRIBIS), Catarina Neves (CEPS/UMinho)
This roundtable raised again the ongoing, and longstanding, debate about the role of activists and academics within the basic income movement. There was disagreement amongst panellists as to whether the two roles/personas are incompatible; or alternatively that a synthesis between them is essential for impact. The separation argument was rooted in a belief that this allows the two roles to be focused/true to their primary intentions, rather than becoming confused/diluted. The synthesis argument values the rigor that research brings, but highlights that the energy and real world impact of activism is essential for turning that research into change. This is a long-standing debate that is unlikely to be resolved any time soon – at its best it brings reflection to how the basic income community best functions for maximum impact; at its worst it creates competing ‘tribes’ of approach which can undermine each other. There is also a missing link around the role of policy experts bridging the gap between the two which would merit further exploration.
Alongside this debate, other contributions reflected upon the nature of activism in the world today, particularly in light of current political headwinds and challenges. Municipal UBI, channelled through cities and communities, has offered a key space for impact in recent years, from groups in Brazil to cities across North America. It allows for localised pilots, often using local currencies and structures, to respond to key municipal challenges and opportunities. It can create challenges when ideas are too closely tied to one political leader or movement, and sometimes can be difficult to roll out further to other communities – likewise, the local driver behind the pilot/scheme (e.g. oil revenues in Maricá, Brazil) may not exist in other municipalities, even those in close proximity. However, despite these challenges city/municipal level pilots and tests remain a key opportunity for progress in many contexts.
A key reflection on activism was on the impact the pandemic had had in terms of organising activity. The experience was shared that it had proven easier to organise pan-European activity (using online engagement and communication tools) than it had been to push forward local activity in Portugal. This reflected the pandemic-reality of people working online a lot more, and in the breakdown of international barriers that it brought. It will be interesting to observe how this develops as we move out of the pandemic, however it offers a range of tools for international engagement that can be utilised.
There was also a reflection on the challenge that alternative or ‘partial’ policy initiatives can offer to the implementation of basic income. The debate over incremental versus radical change is another long-standing one, however there is a real challenge that partial policy introductions, particularly those which seem similar to basic income but which undermine unconditionality, can muddy political and public waters, and actually restrict or remove our ability to deliver a true basic income.
Roundtable 4: Collaborative research and funding on UBI
Chair: Catarina Neves (CEPS/UMinho)
Participants: Bernhard Neumärker (FRIBIS and GWP, University of Freiburg), Roberto Merrill (CEPS/UMinho), Stuart White (Jesus College, Oxford – could not attend)
The final session of the Conference focussed on opportunities for funding and collaboration that could be explored by participants moving forward. (The specific funding streams identified are contained within a presentation which will be shared by Prof Merrill).
The key question/opportunity for the funding opportunities is around how best to create multinational and multidisciplinary teams which can deliver research and impact collaboratively. As had been explored in the previous sessions, the basic income community is a diverse one, with participants in this one conference alone representing four continents and a wide range of academic disciplines and non-academic work. This allows for the creation of powerful research projects combining different contexts and approaches, as highlighted in previous sessions. Challenges exist around the capacity for pulling together funding bids, the respective abilities of institutions/organisations to bring their resources to bear, and how best to bring together academic and non-academic institutions. However, if these challenges can be funnelled into successful bids then substantial finances exist.
Building upon these opportunities, an in-depth overview of the FRIBIS institute at the University of Freiburg in Germany was provided. Using a multidisciplinary team approach, focused around different themes such as microsimulation, FRIBIS is looking to demonstrate in practice the approaches outlined in the funding discussion. There is a commitment to using the teams to transfer knowledge from academia to civic society, and back again, to ensure a vibrancy to the basic income debate. The FRIBIS approach is rooted in scientific evaluation, with opportunities to contribute lab-based experiments to the wider pool of evidence. With funding in place for its first five years, FRIBIS offers a chance to drive change. The team in Freiburg is keen to work with partners across the world to create new areas for collaboration, and to maximise impact in the real world.
This final discussion highlighted the need for bringing diverse teams together, and the potential impact that those teams could make. Money exists for the basic income community to access; however it is critical that money is utilised to deliver ideas and areas of work that are required, not just chased in its own right.
The current trend in accessing funding sources is heavily academic in leadership and composition (due to the nature of many of those sources), and so there is a need to identify ways to bring a more bottom-up civic society-led approach where possible/appropriate. By broadening the composition of teams, and the groups they work with, we can in turn broaden the impact of our work and ensure that the current opportunities for taking basic income forward in many countries are seized upon.
Conclusion
The UBIEXP Conference on UBI and Basic Income Experiments was a very welcome and timely contribution to the ongoing energy and enthusiasm around basic income. It brought together a range of key contributors from across the globe and, even in a short space of time, opened up ideas for new collaborations and policy interventions. Sharing learning is essential if progress is to be made and sustained, and so the type of network and relationships that an in-person event such as the conference offers is a critical resource as we move out of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The conference did highlight some of the challenges which exist for the basic income movement – the tension between academics and activists; the lack of diversity amongst participants in the movement; and the need to broaden involvement to wider civic society, policy environments and the public. However, these challenges are not insurmountable, and indeed offer a clear pathway for increasing the impact that the basic income community can and should be having.
Countries and contexts are very different, and therefore the type of progress or response that will be appropriate and most successful might be very different in Scotland than it is in the US. Despite this, the benefits of sharing learning, data and pitfalls is of huge benefit – and the momentum that success in one country could bring for all should not be underestimated.
The UBIEXP team have made an invaluable contribution to the global basic income discussion over their time in operation and should be recognised for that. It is important that this conference of June 2022 is a step along the path to change rather than an end – here is to the team continuing to create a collaborative, creative space for impact and to the work that will come next.
