Kit Chalberg Part 2 of 2

Kit Chalberg worked for about 10 years as a Conciliation Specialist in the Rocky Mountain (Denver) Region, and then became Program Director for Program Development Training and Evaluation at CRS Headquarters in Washington D.C.

There are 2 parts of this interview: Part 1, and Part 2. This is Part 2.

Play YouTube Video

https://youtu.be/2a2yZ6AUca0

Grande Lum (00:00:00): <silence> Okay kit, ,great to be back with you, today, here in our second session here. And let's start with doing a second case here. So why don't you tell me about a second case. We could do it very similarly to... what we did yesterday in how you described the case. We just give a little bit of background and tell us what the case was about.

Kit Chalberg (00:00:27): Sure, yeah. Thanks. So this is, this is a case that, I got involved in shortly after the passage of the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act. So I think this was probably 2010, 2011 or something like that. And, and as part of the agency's effort in working in those jurisdictional communities, the regions were doing a ton of outreach. So conciliators, were going to local pride centers, you know, LGBTQ+ centers trying to just understand who the people and the players and the community leaders were, you know, in their assigned locations. And, you know, as a part of that, I got to know some, some folks at what we call here in Denver called the Center, or the LBTQ, community Center of Colorado. And, you know, just did what we would normally do and do some outreach and talk about who we are and what we do and, and our approach to the work and so on and so forth.

Kit Chalberg (00:01:19): And, you know, by virtue of just laying some of those, that early foundation and relationships, I was, sort of keyed in on an issue that was going on at Johnson and Wales University, which is a, was a small, I believe private school in East Denver that is actually famous for pumping out a lot of really great chefs. I learned that later on at a really strong culinary school, among other disciplines that... they train people on. And, and so I, when I, when I learned about it, at Johnson and Wales, I didn't have any inroads. Nobody knew me. CRS was very, it was very early in our, you know, arrival on the scene for, you know, you know, hate crimes, sexual orientation, gender identity related hate crimes, as well as we, I didn't know anybody out at Johnson and Wales.

Kit Chalberg (00:02:06): And so it really started, unlike the case yesterday that we talked about at University of Northern Colorado, I, I went in totally cold. I made outreach to... the equity center there on campus, made outreach to ... the president's office and really wasn't getting any traction. I wasn't getting a callback. People were like, thank you, but no, thank you. That kind of thing. And what really broke that case loose in terms of CRS being able to make entry into the case was when, when you look at the history and where Johnson and Wales University campus, was located in Denver, it was in the traditional black community in the northeast part of the city. And... as a result of some, you know, allegations not only of, um, sexual orientation related hate crimes, but also racial related hate crimes, the black community started it.

Kit Chalberg (00:02:56): The tension started rising not only in the lgbtq plus community against Johnson and Wales, but also in the black community. And we had inroads in the black community. 'cause it, it's been a longstanding community and folks that we had known, um, advocates and so forth. And so, sort of what's really interesting about this case is what opened the door to do work on an LGBTQ plus hate crime was actually the, the black community opening that door, putting pressure on the university. And where the case really went from there was, it started as getting the black community, black pastors. Really what it was, it was an interfaith group of black pastors that I convened along with the equity director on campus, a small group of students, and then the president and her chief of staff sort of as, as a general kind of dialogue around what would safety for the community, what would safety look like here on campus?

Kit Chalberg (00:03:53): And... ultimately, what could the administration do? What could campus police do? What could the external Denver community do, you know, to make sure that when students show up on campus every day, you know, they feel safe, welcome and supported. And so out of probably a, I would say a series, not a long series, but let's, I probably less than five meetings, we mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, we came to some pretty good agreements... In that meeting, one part of it was Johnson and Wales agreed to do some more intentional and aggressive outreach in, into the black community, because they, they really didn't do that. Even though they were, they were, they were smack dab in the middle of the community. They didn't have inReach into those communities. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And so this group of back black pastors, over time worked with Johnson and Wales on establishing some small scholarships in the community, doing some outreach at local churches and so forth.

Kit Chalberg (00:04:41): And so that, that process really helped with, addressing the issues and concerns that the black community had. What it didn't do, or what we had to continue to work on was the impacts on the broader campus community as a result of the alleged sexual orientation specific hate crime or bias incident, really, that happened on campus. And so, part two of the case then became really what we eventually then called the campus spirit, which was looking at, the broader campus community and identifying different stakeholder groups, and then individuals within those stakeholders. And so, you know, when you think about a campus community, of course you have students, you, you have faculty, you have staff, you have the campus police, you have equity centers, you have, administrators. And so what I eventually did was, working with this individual named Tony Barrio, who I mentioned yesterday, was the person that questioned my approach to spirit.

Kit Chalberg (00:05:41): How do we make this better? He helped me pull together individuals from each one of those stakeholders group to put together a planning group so that we could figure out all the logistics and who should be there, how do we get out invites, how do we write good questions, where is the local facilities? All that kind of good stuff. And so, I would say over roughly a month or so we put together a plan and then convened what was over about four different sessions, I believe four or five different sessions. What eventually will become the campus spirit. And so going through a process of having stakeholders identify issues, and then having them go and develop solutions, the, the good, the good spirit process that CRS has been using for a long time. Out of that, we came to another set of agreements that were really more specific to, the LGBTQ+ communities.

Kit Chalberg (00:06:28): And that was, at that time, something that was relatively, I would say, new, especially for a campus of this size. They, had ... a more pride equity center for LGBTQ+ students specifically, versus just sort of like the general equity center. They had folks that were, that were working with and catering more to the specific needs of those students in those communities. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So that was one part of it. And another part of it was, the police department agreed. The local, I'm sorry, the campus police department agreed to work with students on developing some student led training that then they could get a little more cultural competency on, on the police side. 'cause there was some concerns about their response. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And then the third part of it was working with residential advisors on the college campus, because they're living there, they're living amongst their peers and they're, you know, in some sort of, you know, authoritative or influential role in the, in the dorms and in the campus community to where there was training that went on for them to help understand, you know, what ... are the types of issues that happen in dorms that could be either, either a potential hate crime or edging into a hate crime that then, you know, would impact individuals.

Kit Chalberg (00:07:46): And then obviously the campus community beyond that. And so, I really found that case to be, to be really interesting one because it sort of looked like it presented as one thing, as one issue, and I approached it as one issue. And that being, there's an alleged bias incident against kids who I, you know, who identify as, as gay and lesbian, couldn't get in pressure from the black community, actually opened the door for different concerns that were addressed through one process. And then the student led issues were addressed through a separate process, through Spirit. And even looking back years later, I don't know how it sits today, but even five years after that case, and I think this was probably in 2010 or 11 or something like that, that office was, was staffed in other words, there was capacity built on the college campus as a result of CRS's work that hadn't been there previously. And, that I felt like that was a big win for the community and that was a big win for CRS as well.

Grande Lum (00:08:48): Okay. Thank you for that background there. I'm curious... You did the work with the black pastors and you say, Hey, that opened the door for it. What happened is, did you then raise it again with the college administration? Or did somebody else come to you and say, let's, you know, let's do it. How did you know the success in one, what actually happened that led to the beginning of the, the second initiative, the spirit, specifically around LGBQT+ issues?

Kit Chalberg (00:09:18): Yeah... if my old brain remembers correctly, <laugh>, I think it was two parts. It was one part that by virtue of doing the work with the black pastors through that process, I earned some, some creds. Right. I earned some trust. I earned some rapport with, especially with the campus president at the time, because she was, she was open, but she was highly skeptical. You know, she was like, I'm open to this, but I, you know... I'm kind of letting you know that I'm, you know, we're this far from like calling this thing off, right? And so I think through that process and, and having people see that that process worked, right, going through dialogue and having people share issues, concerns, interests, and so forth, that there was a real opportunity there to address this other issue.

Kit Chalberg (00:10:09): And, and how it was raised was actually more internally, it was raised by the director of the more general equity center, Tony Barrio, who was... really approached by student leaders saying, you know... that's good... We're appreciative and we're glad that that's happening. And that the pastors have stepped up and there's been some agreements made, but we also have a lot of other issues that are going on that are impacting students in a particular, you know, LGBTQ+ students. And so, you know, how do we get at the seat at the table? And so then it was a, then it was a pivot. So it was a lot of internal buy-in from the leadership at Johnson and Wales. I think that was the catalyst, but layered over that was, they, they saw what that, what we were doing and what we were offering was actually working. Yeah.

Grande Lum (00:11:02): Me, I like that it's a local example of what we were trying to do as an agency as a whole, right? We were trying to pivot from all the race and ethnic work that had been done by CRS since sixty four. And because, and then 2009, the Matthew Shepherd & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act passes, and all of a sudden CRS has to work and all these other identity based issues. And there's a nice example of how the previous work, allowed a progression into the new, the newer work here.

Kit Chalberg (00:11:34): Yeah. Yeah. And just one thing to add really quick on that Grande ... and I think the one of the threads that kind of underlie these conversations we've been having around ... these case studies is, is really the importance of being proactive and the importance of relationships just really can't be replaced. And... I think the reason that the black pastors were eventually able to convince or through this process, convince the university president to continue participating was that, you know, with relationships that Silka Hanssen had built years before that Philip had built years before that Rosa Salamanca had built, built years before we'd been working with these black pastors, for the Martin Luther King Day Marade, which is a traditional event that happens here every year, as well as any other kind of, community related issues typically around officer involved shooting. So, you know... We had built that relationship over probably decades for all I know, and I just sort of reaped the benefit in the moment.

Grande Lum (00:12:37): Right. No, that, I'm glad you contributed that to the, to how you got to where working with the pastors and, the, in in that vein, in terms of how you framed the campus spirit, was it framed as a general exercise for any issues? Or were you already pinpointing specifically L-G-B-T-Q issues in the way that you framed the campus spirit?

Kit Chalberg (00:13:03): It was actually both. So ... we started in the first couple of sessions, the, how we framed it was around creating a campus environment where all students feel safe, welcome and supported. Those were our kind of three buzzwords. We mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, we, we wanted to hit on safety. Obviously welcoming is a big part of it. And, and feeling supported, right? When they show up to campus, do they feel like they're, you know, they're just out here alone in this really intimidating kind of environment. And the way that then we sort of started out broadly safe, welcome and supported. Then we spent different sessions talking about what does safety look like for different community groups? What does welcoming look like for different student groups? What does support look like for different groups? And so we weaved in the aspects of obviously the student's perspective, but because this was a, a campus spirit, we had many other stakeholders that were in the room.

Kit Chalberg (00:13:58): And I think that the power was around where people were most interested, rather, I think is when students spoke up around safe, being safe, welcome and supported. People were very, faculty was very eager to learn, right? The, the, the president's office and administrators were, were very eager to learn. And so, but I think by using that process, it allowed everyone, again, to speak to their interests, right? Like, everyone wants a safe campus. Everyone wants to feel welcome at the place where they spend a lot of time, and they also wanna feel supported. And so, you know, really trying to align around those, you know, values, feeling themes, really allowed people to have, I think, really good conversations. And then within that was layered specificity, I think, for LGBTQ plus students and as well as other diverse communities and, and diverse student populations.

Grande Lum (00:14:52): Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So it sounds like, the right, there's an initial call to work on response to a specific incident, where, where an L-G-B-T-Q student feels discriminated or, or victimized here, and you frame it in a way of being very around, around safety and welcoming and, and being supported. So it sounds like you actually did work on those other issues because whatever came up you were gonna work with here, and the issue that was the initial one that came up was also then worked on as well. Is that fair to say?

Kit Chalberg (00:15:27): Yeah, no, I yeah, I definitely think that's fair to say. We... made the decision as part of the planning group. And I love planning groups because I think it allows local people to own the process and then get others to buy into it. And then there isn't a lot of questions around, like, how did we get here? And who got chose and why didn't CRS pick this person or that person? We can sort of take a step back and drive and allow the group to make a lot of these decisions. And, and, and as far as I can remember, part of opening it up abroad, especially at the beginning, was because campus administrators in particular were really interested in hearing from other diverse community groups that honestly they did not have good relationships with. And they're like, well, if this is the way that LGBTQ plus students feel it, other students might feel the same way. How do we know? We don't know. We don't have a mechanism to, to get to that besides your usual sort of campus climate survey and those other kinds of things. And so t allowed other students to, to bring issues to the table. And, and just, I think created a little bit broader and a little more inclusive process without losing really the catalyst for why people came to the table to begin with.

Grande Lum (00:16:46): You know, yesterday you raised the concern about doing town halls. I can imagine for those who consider them <laugh>. 'cause like, who knows what's gonna happen, who knows what's gonna be said. I could imagine, not necessarily in this situation, but in, in a typical type situations where a college president or a college administrator might be concerned if you're open up to everybody, like who knows what they're gonna say? Or different if you're inviting all the groups. Was that a co a concern here?

Kit Chalberg (00:17:14): I don't think it was because... the spirit process, I'm sorry, the planning process for the spirit, we really made it invite only. So we had, I think probably total maybe 80 or so people, something like that. I don't remember the numbers. It wasn't a crazy huge number, but it also wasn't 10 people, you know. So it was a... good number of people. So one, it was invite only. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> (Grande). And two, it was closed door. So, you know, we didn't have any recording. We didn't do it in a big public space. It wasn't a come one come all kind of thing. There were as a way of communicating out the results and kind of the spirit report of the process. There were kind of come one come all different meetings that the group held to report out, Hey, we spent a couple of months doing this thing and, and here's some changes we would, we'd like to make ultimately.

Grande Lum (00:18:12): Yeah. And that, you know, part of CRS work, and I think brought more broadly of community mediation type work is like the decision of who to invite, who not to invite is a difficult one too. And I'm curious in this situation, was that a con, was that something that people were worried about or was thought through? And were there any folks who felt they should have been invited and were not? And how did you handle it?

Kit Chalberg (00:18:41): That's a great question. So another reason why I love planning groups is they make the decision for themselves. And I think what we do at CRS and the value that we bring is not to tell them who should be there. 'cause we don't know their communities. And they, they know, they know the players. They know the people that agree to everything, and they know the people that don't agree to anything and everybody in between. And so I think the value that CRS brings is pushing on that group to make sure that the folks at the table are representative of the diverse voices from across the campus. It can't just be the choir, you know, it can't just be a bunch of people that, you know, hang out together and are all gonna agree on things that there's got to be a diverse representation.

Kit Chalberg (00:19:25): And I think, so that's one part of it. And then I think as part, the other part is as the planning group does their work, and they start creating the stakeholder groups and then the list of individuals, it's constantly testing with them, who else needs to be here? Who else needs to be here? And one of the, one of the, the pushbacks that I've generally gotten is stakeholder groups or planning groups being like, but now it's too many people, to me, that's not the driver. To me, the driver is not how many butts are in the seat. The driver is, are the right people there? And if that needs to be a hundred people, that's, that's great. If it's 10 people, that's great. The value lies in what the folks are gonna contribute versus the number of people there. Because if we need to do another spirit, we'll just do another spirit and we'll figure out a way to combine the groups at the end. It's not, it's, it's not, you know, an insurmountable task. And so, I did not have that, in terms of people being like, why didn't you pick me in this particular situation? I've had that in other ones. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, where I, where I made some mistakes. But these are, these are the cases where I'm only doing the right thing. Grande. I'm not

Grande Lum (00:20:30): <laugh>. And that's, that's all we wanna put.

Kit Chalberg (00:20:31): <laugh>, I have plenty of mistakes. I have way more, I have way more misses than I do, than I do hits for sure. But in, in this particular one, I really... it really showed, I think the value, again, I am harping on it, but it showed the value of the planning, planning group. Yeah. And when the question was asked, how did we all get picked than members of their own community can stand up and talk about that process, which becomes much more, I think, powerful and acceptable than if an outsider like myself says, well, I just picked 'cause I thought you all would be great for this process. Right. That, that's, that's generally not a good answer for people.

Grande Lum (00:21:09): Yeah. And I think you were very articulate in sharing the, the power and the importance of a planning group to doing so. And also I think for you as the CRS conciliator there is that you help them think rigorously about the question. You know, who would be, who should be there to contribute? Who can bring value to it? That's the benefit. You know, I think that you certainly, brought there... you, I think you said very well, here's how it helped the L-G-B-T-Q community there. Were other, how were other groups or helped here? How was it? Did things come up that you weren't expecting? What benefits also transpired because of the work?

Kit Chalberg (00:22:02): That's a great question. I think the one, the one big benefit that I really saw was the university. I think for what I, from what I could tell for the first time in that camp, in that particular campuses existence, were really, I think challenged by these issues. It didn't seem to be a thing they were prepared for. It didn't seem a thing that they had the capacity for staffing wise, programmatic wise, funding wise, all the, you know, just basic sort of knowledge and skills wise. And I think that this process, because it was intentionally a collaborative process versus Right. People going to the media or filing complaints with, you know, department of Ed, OCR or whatever, it allowed the university to, I think, do some reflection based upon the feedback of their own community, in a, in a very, I think transparent and, also collaborative way to where at the end of it, you know, they ended up, you know, building out this office and

Kit Chalberg (00:23:07): making a more robust and intentional, effort to engage LGBTQ+ kids that they had never done before. So it's really building that capacity. I think that, you know, my hope would be, and I don't, I don't know this sort of empirically, but my hope would be that, that the longer that that office was around, the more it became recognized as a legitimate resource to ... different students on campus. Meaning that hopefully it helped with student retention because they had a place to go, a welcoming place to go. And that any kind of complaints or issues that were raised by that particular office, you know, were, were dealt with...in a fair kind of way. Meaning that it helps, increase the legitimacy of university leadership and their processes and programs for particular students. And so I hope that it sort of created, a more intentional legacy of working with these kids, Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> than, than it would have had we not provided services.

Grande Lum (00:24:10): Yeah. It, it's striking both for this case and, and, and the Northern Colorado University case you shared yesterday, you point to success as being so sustainability and capacity, I mean, if I were to think it through right? Part of it Yeah. Part, yeah. Is that how, maybe this is a more broader question. 'cause I think both of those cases strike me as like Yeah. You know, there, there is continued capacity to serve LGBTQ plus communities, you know, five years later. That ... the Mexican American Studies program is vibrant, those to me, are, they make sense ... as signs of a CRS success. Is that how you think of how, how do you think more broadly about the success of cases here? What, you know, when do you say that that felt right or that not just, or like, I can point to something objectively and say that was a success.

Kit Chalberg (00:25:06): Yeah. I, to me, that that is the, the capacity building piece, you know, creating of an office or standing up a human relations commission or a, a new policy or a new practice or something like that, that that has an institutionalized aspect to it. Therefore in my mind, creating more legitimacy for it to continue on as the people change, the practice continues on. And I would hope begins to change some culture as well. 'cause it kind of becomes more baked in than, you know, the whims of a person who just maybe wants to change something, for example. So that's one way I definitely look at it as, so if you, if it was like a pyramid, I would put that as sort of like the top of the pyramid. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> Somewhere below that though, we really have to look at, you know, how relationships have shifted as well.

Kit Chalberg (00:25:58): You know, relationships that were there, sorry, that weren't there previous to our work. That's a little more squishy right there. There's ways to measure that as, as well. But... that's a little more squishy and it, it's not as sort of output or outcome feeling. But nonetheless is incredibly valuable and, and definitely shouldn't be... dismissed. And then, then, and then the third layer, you know, to me, you know, sort of like the, is more out is more like outputs, right? Like a spirit report is an output. A MOU is an output. Those are pieces of paper and they...mean something symbolically, but in terms of like how much change that they made, you don't really know until people start implementing the practices that they agreed to. And then hopefully you start seeing some change in, in practices and behaviors and the, and maybe even mindsets in the way that people approach their work.

Kit Chalberg (00:26:56): But, that's the way that I think about it. They are, you know, those outputs that we talked about, like the creation of an office and some of these other things are a lot more easy to measure for those people who really care about measurements. You know, did you, did you create, how many new policies were created this year as a result of your work? Right? That, that for some, for some people, has a higher value than the relationship piece. Whereas for other folks, the relationship piece has more, has more value than the sort of institutionalizing piece. And I think it's, I think, I think you have to have both of those really at the end of the day to tell a really good story and to really show people the value that the agency ultimately brings.

Grande Lum (00:27:41): Yeah, thank you that. That makes a lot of sense in that you also think about the change in relationships between principal parties within the conflict for sure...That was helpful. One thing that struck me about both the cases, and I think you mentioned, you know, Tony Barrio, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, was a key player here and helped you think through how to actually even run the campus spirit for, for that. If I were to generalize it, you know, similarly to the last question would be, has it been important to have someone who champions CRS someone that you see as a primary, almost partner or someone who, who plays a role of providing CRS with both, credibility, but also as sort of almost a work partner here? I mean, maybe it was a, a black pastor who, as well, but I'm curious to how you think about that in, in terms of the work that you do of having someone who, who really does understand CRS's work and who has experienced it before or really plays a, a significant leadership role in working with CRS.

Kit Chalberg (00:28:53): Yeah... that's a really great question. I hadn't, and as you as, and as you were asking that, I was thinking about different cases and I'm like, did I have a Tony in that case? And I, and I'm thinking that in all of the cases that I would point to as sort of ones that were successful for me, there was a Tony, a Tony type person. Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think I did that by design. I don't think I went in with that being what I should do. Nobody told me I should do that, and nobody told me I shouldn't do it either, frankly. In this case, it just sort of happened with Tony. And I think one, it's because I really needed somebody to be able to help me understand and navigate the campus dynamics, the politics, the power struggles, the campus community, the campus climate, all these things that, that I would never know about.

Kit Chalberg (00:29:46): 'Cause I'm not there every day and you're not gonna find it on Google. So you've got to be able to find those folks that can help you navigate, but also that can open doors, right? ... Tony could give me a meeting with the president anytime I wanted to. I didn't need to try to call her and wait for her person to schedule or never get back to me or whatever Tony could make it happen. So those sorts of folks, I think, you know, provide in incredible value for the work. I think that where, where we all have to be cautious is the perception that working with just Tony leaves for others who may not trust Tony or the Tony's right. Of these, of these hypotheticals that we're giving in this particular case, there were no issues around impartiality or neutrality working with Tony.

Kit Chalberg (00:30:38): And I think that's because he was already playing a natural kind of mediator role among all of the parties anyway. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> Honestly, I probably could have walked Tony through the spirit process and he could have done it on his own. Like he was just that guy. Yeah. He believed in it. He knew what he was doing. He was already great at engaging people. He knew about consensus and collaborative problem solving and those sorts of things. But the value that we brought, of course, is that we have the program and we're from the outside. And there was a whole of a whole host of other reasons. But Tony was, he was really valuable in all of those ways. And the other way that he was really valuable is, you know, I'd been doing spirits for a handful of years at that point, and, you know, I was, I was feeling pretty confident about myself, and I thought I was, you know, doing pretty good and, and that, you know, they, all my spirits were, you know, successful or whatever.

Kit Chalberg (00:31:28): Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And so I, kind of, I brought in just the traditional CRS spirit and, you know, and he really pushed me on, on framing. That was his big thing is, is how do you, and you asked this question earlier, which is, as time has gone on... I've really come to appreciate the importance of how an issue is framed when you go in and you work with a group. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, How it's framed, ... the words that are on the page, how they're asked, what order they're asked in. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, All of these things I think are, are the nuances and the really critical decisions that need to be made. And, and Tony really pushed me on those things. He's the one that came up with the idea of safe welcome and supported. That was his idea. He said, what if we ask questions like this? And we, and we start like, funneling down. And so I learned a ton. I learned a ton just from that one case and just the way that he saw himself. And then the way that we partnered together really to make this thing a whole success. This was, this was just as much as the incredible work that he did and that the parties did as, as anything that I did.

Grande Lum (00:32:35): Yeah. I mean, as you know, I listen, I think about safe, welcome, supported, I think something like that is important for anyone in our, when we do work, when we are, when mediators do work in a situation, all the parties should feel safe, welcome, and supported. And to the extent that they are, they're more likely to bring their better selves... to the conflict.

Kit Chalberg (00:32:55): And you know, what's really crazy Grande is like when you asked that question, and now I'm thinking about, you know, when, when I was doing my more of my programmatic work at headquarters for all those years when we started writing down in the guides, writing down very, the script essentially for these programs, the SPCP program, the Strengthening Police and Community Partnerships, which is essentially a police community focused spirit. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, One of the pieces that, that we learned as we were pulling knowledge from Conciliators and everybody's brains or whatever, is the role of a, of a Tony is actually a part that we ended up writing in that guide because there was so much value... There was two, there was two PCPs that were done. There was one in Erie, Pennsylvania and one in Topeka, Kansas.

Kit Chalberg (00:33:42): And we joked around forever that, and the person that was the Tony in Erie was Michael Outlaw, who I think is at CRS now, actually. And we internally... we started calling that person, like, who's your Michael? Who's your Michael Outlaw? Right. And we're, we're coaching, we're coaching new Conciliators, and they're doing SPCP. We're like, who's your Michael? Like, we know the value of Michael. Nothing would've happened without him. It would not have been even remotely as successful. It was, so who's your Michael? And so, I hadn't thought about it in this way, but... there was a, there was a Tony before there was a Michael, I guess, and probably many, many others, any

Grande Lum (00:34:18): More, you go all the way back in the history of CRS

Kit Chalberg (00:34:21): All the way from the beginning. Yeah, totally. All the way from the beginning.

Grande Lum (00:34:24): Good. Why don't we transition a little bit since you know, you, you've spent, while you were at CRS, you did, you spent a lot of time thinking and working on training and development and, and evaluation. You know, that's, you know, that's one good thing I did at CRS was to have you do that work through headquarters here. And, I think it's a critical question now as CRS is hiring a lot of people and has gone through a lot of it is, it's constantly going through change, but a number of people, have, have left CRS a lot of the institutional memory has left. What do you think is important going forward in thinking about training and development that new Conciliators need to know and what, you know, what should CRS be doing going forward in how it approaches training and development?

Kit Chalberg (00:35:20): Oh, wow. Yeah. So you're talking specifically about training and development of new staff?

Grande Lum (00:35:24): Yes.

Kit Chalberg (00:35:24): Yeah. Okay. Versus like a program or something. So yeah, I, I think on the staff development side, so, so critical, right? I think, at least in my time at CRS before you came, it was, to say it was ad hoc at best is kind of a compliment. It was really left up to the regions and the regional directors to kind of, kind of do what they wanted, honestly. Which then led to, you know, me having one experience, my colleague who started, you know, a year before, a year after having a very different experience. We all kind of were on different career tracks, even though we all came at the same time. And it just, the standardization wasn't there. And then therefore the continued development and support of staff, and then eventually I think it affected retention as well.

Kit Chalberg (00:36:12): You know, it impacted all of those things. And so really, when I came into that position while you were director as, as a detail, was really laying the foundation for that work that then under, under Gerri Ratliff, when she was the acting director under the previous administration, I guess under the subsequent, the next administration was, was really taking that and trying to execute on it. And so a lot of the things that we did was built out, an extremely robust, I would call it extremely robust, basic conciliator training, 10 modules. It's like, it's got, you know, a buddy system built into it. It's got a cohort, it's got a capstone, it's got a bunch of practice. And then it's got a, you know, a bunch of, obviously a ton of content in between that really focuses on the CRS methodology, right?

Kit Chalberg (00:37:02): So you go from, you know, making entry to assessment to service delivery, you know, case closure and so forth, the sort of following the steps of the methodology. And so, to me, what becomes really important is, I think that really two things is one, folks need to be in their regions for a good 90 days, let's say before we, before we dump a bunch of training and content on them. So give them module one, which was the sort of the workbook, the asynchronous training, self-paced, easy to get through, follow some instructions on the web, on a website, and this, and this kind of thing. But most importantly is that those new conciliators should be out as much as they possibly can shadowing, whether it's in person and going to a place to a community meeting, whether it's participating in a training, whether it's doing any kind of outreach, and then obviously anything virtually as well, so that they're just getting a grounding in the work.

Kit Chalberg (00:38:02): You know, how is Derek saying his CRS 101 and how is that different from what Linda did? And, and, and how can you, as the new conciliator start coming up with your own way of saying the same thing? Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> Really, really valuable to just have people, have the time and the spacing to, to absorb those things. And then I would say in that, you know, three to six months, then you start getting into the actual content of, of this new conciliator training that I was talking about, right? At the same time continuing to do outreach, you know, looking at the case management system, becoming familiar with all of the sort of operational sorts of things that are going on in the agency. And, I think that, you know, by the time that folks complete their first year, the goal is to have them be exposed to obviously as many things as possible to be, to gone through this sort of sort of standardized training and then continue to be exposed, and then co-deliver from sort of a coaching point of view co-deliver, begin co-deliver the various programs, things like Spirit that we've mentioned, and maybe the trench gender program and some of these other ones.

Kit Chalberg (00:39:13): But for me, the foundation I think of CRS work is, is kind of two things from a training and development point of view. One, it is folks need to understand the process, our process, our methodology. Mm-hmm, <affirmative> Two, they need to be skilled in facilitating processes, right? So convening people together, setting, setting a good meeting agenda, being able to run a good meeting, those sorts of things. But then there's also this subject matter expertise ... that, that they need to know about, right? They need to know the words to engage with LGBTQ+ communities. What are the words I can say, what are the words that I shouldn't say? Because these words change all the time. The language is very dynamic, changes all the time. Even when we were on top of the language, we were behind the language, right?

Kit Chalberg (00:40:04): Like, it was that it was constantly, we were constantly doing that. But, you know, knowing about trans communities know about Muslim communities and Sikh communities knowing about the dynamics in African American, emerging Latino communities, refugee communities, who, who's here wherever you're working, and how do you learn about those communities in a way that's going that, that you're gonna be effective working with them, and you can build credibility. So, you know, it's this methodology piece, it's understanding process. And then I think it's also the subject matter expertise that are all really critical. And, and then I'll say one other thing, and I'll stop is, the other really critical part that I would remind Conciliators is patience. And, and breathing. I think when folks come into this work... It's exciting. It's energizing some, maybe it's something similar to what they've done before.

Kit Chalberg (00:40:58): They kind of have a sense of what it is they're doing. But giving themselves that space and that time to learn ... is really critical. And so having that patience and having regional directors and and headquarters give that space and that patience and, and wrapping that support around those, all these pieces we've talked about is gonna develop a really strong conciliators. And I think folks that'll wanna stick around for a really long time. What I've seen, the errors I've seen many times is Conciliators trying to go too fast. Or RG's keeping them back for too long, or RD'S pushing them too quickly. And ... it's not a science. I think everybody's a little bit different, and every region's gonna take a slightly different approach to it. But I know when I came, and I, and I've talked to many Conciliators who came in at the same time as me, I think that it took me about three years of being at the agency before I was like, I think I really got this, you know?

Kit Chalberg (00:41:59): And then it took another 10 years to be like, I feel like I'm like a master at this. Or, or close, maybe not a master, but like, but my mastery is very high. And so it just, we're not counting widgets, right? We're dealing with people and we're dealing with people in high conflict situations that are, that are centered around identity that have long, long histories in this country. And I think we have to recognize that and know that it's, it's, none of this is learned quickly. And having the grace and the patience, on all sides is just gonna pay off in the end.

Grande Lum (00:42:29): Yeah. Thanks for that. Now, I appreciate that, that last comment. I'll start from there of, of patience and grace, in order to do very challenging, difficult work. When I was listening, I was thinking, yeah, you know, the shadowing, I think is something that could be emphasized more, right? Yeah, for sure. And in terms of just watching others without feeling the pressure of having to do something, even <laugh>, right? Because it's different to shadow than to co-lead it or to, to play a role, you can learn something as an observer.

Kit Chalberg (00:43:04): Absolutely.

Grande Lum (00:43:04): That's your main goal there. Versus any of us would feel like, if I have to do something, I don't wanna look silly, I wanna do it. I wanna do it. Well, and you're focused on performance performance, which I think is important. ... Yeah when we're presenting, when we're facilitating, that's what your focus is because that's, that's, that's the obvious aspect of the job. Giving people the freedom to observe and to just relax and watch. I think is, I would agree. It is incredibly important. And I wonder, right? I worked at CRS at the time where we didn't have much video conferencing at all... But there is a benefit now to be able to, to shadow much more easily than you would have back, back in the day. There's no travel costs <laugh>... to observing or to being, on a zoom. And yet I think there's a, there can be a lot to be, be learned there for sure.

Kit Chalberg (00:44:01): You know, a hundred percent. I am a huge, huge proponent of shadowing. You know, when I think I shared yesterday, when I first jumped into this job, Grace Sage was a mentor of mine still is. And she, I spent about, I would say my first year we went everywhere together for like my first year. We, we'd go to Pine Ridge in South Dakota, we'd go to Missoula, up in Montana, we'd go to Aurora, we'd go to Pueblo. And I just spent as much as I could soaking up what it is she was doing, how she was approaching things. And then we debrief on the car ride back and come up with a strategy. And like, it was a very, it was a very important relationship for me to have early on in my career because I, I think that had had what happened to other people, at least what I, other people that I know that sort of just got like, pushed into the deep end of the pool, it was a very different experience for them than to have somebody who wasn't assigned Grace, wasn't told that she had to do this.

Kit Chalberg (00:45:00): She just is that person. And because we developed the relationship over time... she became in invaluable, the most, probably the most important person in my entire CRS experience to be, you know, to be successful. And so that shadowing...is irreplaceable. And I also think a combination of shadowing... I've always been a proponent of let's get people to region two to see this thing. Let's get people to region 10 to see another thing. Let's get people into Indian country and, and work them in North Dakota on another thing. Because there's so much to learn in all of these areas, and every place is different. Every situation has, has at least ... a degree of nuance, that I think that's really important to people's de development. And then the, the other part is thinking about the technology.

Kit Chalberg (00:45:46): You know, one of the silver linings of Covid was we had to pivot very quickly to technology, and we procured a bunch of platforms and that kind of thing. But what that allowed us to do, is to actually get as many people in involved... in a facilitation training, let's say that we, that we call FMAC, facilitating meeting around community conflicts training. Whereas before, it'd be like, if it were in person, you could get one or two conciliators there, maybe. And it just takes forever for people to get through the process, jump online. You can have a bunch of people watching, then you can do a debrief at the end. You can build a cohort out for people to sort of talk about challenges and opportunities of a particular program. And so, we had to pivot 'cause everybody had to pivot, but it ended up being a really good way to push the agency honestly, way past its comfort zone and use... technology for training that we hadn't done...in any other way previously.

Grande Lum (00:46:49): And, I would, when I was, when I heard you say the, the ability to debrief or to speak afterwards, the technology also allows that, and I think that's incredibly important, right? If you, if you've done a facilitation, whether in person or Zoom, then to have the CRS folks just jump on a call after that and say, well, why'd you do this? Or What'd you think about this? Yeah. There is such a benefit to the learning of the, the rationale behind making certain choices that people make when they are involved, whether as a facilitator or as a trainer, as well. And, I think that is something that can be emphasized as well.

Kit Chalberg (00:47:28): Absolutely. Yeah. I think that shared sort of collegial feedback piece and, you know, having the lead presenter just be like, I didn't know what to do in the moment. I just sort of went for it. You know, what, what do you all think? How did it go? And, you know, generally speaking, I think especially with a lot of the veteran folks at CRS, they, they've kind of been there and they have really good judgment. And that allows for the newer folks who, you know, maybe have, you know, done two trainings their whole life or something, right. To just see a different way of doing things to anticipate questions, in a different way to sort of think about how do you navigate a question you don't know the answer to. Do you have to answer the question? I said yesterday, Tim Johnson said, you don't have to answer the question, <laugh>. That was always my philosophy. Don't answer the question. Somebody else knows the answer. Kick it back to the group. What, what do you all think? This is a great question. You know, kick it back to 'em. Hopefully you'll land on something the group can, can agree to. But that same kind of process in leveraging that internally, in my opinion, think just really pays off for people's development,

Grande Lum (00:48:32): Right? And yeah. And articulating the rationale, having that person explain, here's why I made that choice. You're not gonna get that unless... you gather after ... the action or after that. Just wanna follow up with that a little bit and talk, get your sense of, you know, performance evaluation and how to think or, and think about evaluation of the work. I know you've thought a lot about and worked on that issue as well. That to me is incredibly critical, right? The ability to know whether, how to help professional development to help evaluate the program success. And that's something I think is an important piece that CRS, I think we can both agree that that's something that CRS needs to do in order to build on, build on it what's done the past.

Kit Chalberg (00:49:21): Yeah. I mean, I love this question 'cause I'm, I wasn't initially, but as I, the more time I spent sort of working in this space and thinking about this work, I started becoming a bit of an evaluation nerd, because I saw so much opportunity in this space. One CRS had never done it in any systematic kind of way. Data collection, data analysis, and then, you know, leveraging that data for various things, like you said. So...we didn't really know what kind of outcomes and then hopefully impacts our work was having. We had a, you know, we have a lot, we have, we have 60 years worth of really good stories and anecdotes. And those have gotten us, I think, to where we're at. But ... there's a more sophisticated, and I, and I think, important way that we can also leverage data collection and data analysis to actually drive decisions and be more effective in the work.

Kit Chalberg (00:50:16): And so... when Jerry Ratliff came on as the career deputy and then eventually the acting director, under the Trump administration, she really looked to me and to the folks that, that we were, that were supporting us on the contract team to think about, you know, what are we doing to evaluate? And really the answer was, was nothing. But we had a vision for sort of a two phased approach that eventually we implemented... before I left the agency. And, and part one was what's called level one evaluations, right? So it's your usual after a training evaluation, you know, did it meet its objectives? You know, was it a good use of your time? Is there anything you'd like to change? All of those sorts of, sorts of questions that we've all filled out many times in trainings.

Kit Chalberg (00:51:08): So we put those into place for, for every single program. So 12 or so programs for the agency and started, and we put another process into place for how do we collect it? How do we collect it in person, how do we collect it electronically using QR codes and technology and SurveyMonkey and all these kinds of things. And then, and then we've also put in a system to where every quarter we would, we would boil it down, we would analyze it, and then we would, and then I would present to the RDS and to the executive team and sometimes the department on, you know, over the last quarter or, you know, if we had, you know, at that point we had to think of two or three years of data that we could pull from for some presentations.

Kit Chalberg (00:51:46): We could see trends over time about, you know, what was working, what wasn't working, and, and how we could make some, some modifications. And so that was part one that, you know, was a piece ... that I think that was really important to help us understand, you know, things... that we didn't know the answer to. Like, is, is the Muslim and Sikh trainings, are they too long? We found out. Yeah. They're, they're too long. In fact, they were originally three hours. You know, I think at one point we got them down to like an hour and a half. And, and our attendance went up, our engagement went up, and our evals also went up. And so, you know, it's things like that, that, you know, when we're, when we're going out and, and, and facilitators are pitching programs, one of the first things they get asked is, how long is it?

Kit Chalberg (00:52:29): Well, we had data to say it should be shorter, so we made it shorter. So it's things like that that I think refined and perfected, you know, the programmatic approach. And so that was part one. And then part two, which to me was the more exciting part of it, was what's called a level three evaluation. And that is essentially taking a case study approach, going back to a community, doing interviews and doing, doing survey collection and finding out as a result of our work, in this case, in Erie, Pennsylvania as a result of an SPCP program that Charles Phillips did. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So what, what, what happened? What, what, what's been done since then? And so we went back about two and a half years after that program. That was, it was done, I think in April of 2018. I think we went back in early 2021, I believe.

Kit Chalberg (00:53:19): Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> And conducted interviews, collected data and, and found out all of these things that we didn't know that the Erie SPCP council, the Erie City Council, the Erie Police Department, and a bunch of community organizations had done that, at least from the community's perspective and the folks that we talked to, it really started to move the needle in terms of police community relations and engagement with the community, new policies in place, new collaborations in place, things that, that didn't exist, both from a sort of... an outcome point of view, right? Like new policies, new practices, but then there's also the relationship piece and then the impact piece. We were edging into really showing and demonstrating, the impacts of this council that was stood up and then facilitated for many years after the SPCP program was actually done.

Kit Chalberg (00:54:17): And so, that work was really exciting and I think added had the potential to add a lot of value to the agency, because one, we learn a lot and how we can do better. That's part one. But part two is that it's, it's a much more compelling story to tell to members of Congress, to the department, to anybody who asks those communities love it. People in Erie love the fact that they were featured. It got a lot of traction for a lot of leaders in that area, and helped to sort of lift up all this really hard work that they'd been doing that was kind of under the radar in a lot of ways. And so, to me, that work, yeah. Like I said, it was, I, I think really important. I don't think the agency's doing that work anymore... I don't have good insight on whether or not they're still doing the, what we call impact case studies, but I think they're still collecting sort of programmatic evaluations, that I talked about earlier.

Grande Lum (00:55:17): That's, I glad to hear that you're able to do, you know, level three evaluation. Right. And it's gonna be important both the quantitative and qualitative sort of evaluations. It's always been important, and I can't imagine it won't be more important in a time where data analytics ... is become, come to the forefront, and how we think about so many things here. Where, where was it? I'm just curious. Where was it published, the Erie? Was it put in the annual report? Was it put in a separate report? What, how did, how did that, how was that actually the, the data and information released?

Kit Chalberg (00:55:59): Yeah, so it's in a standalone report... that's, it should, I mean, as far as I know, it's still up on the CRS website. So it's a standalone report that we wrote that has, you know, a rollup of, of different sort of key data that we were tracking. You know, we wanted to know about people's perceptions of relationships changing. We wanted to know people's perceptions around 10 police community relations and tension changing, you know... as sort of a touchpoint prior to CRS getting involved, and then after the program was done. So yeah, that's published. We actually went to, myself and Jerry went to Erie and, and released it with the US attorney there and, and the mayor's office and the police department and different community members, and then made some presentations and had some open and closed door sessions with city council there as well. Because, you know, they were, they were obviously very interested in the findings ... and what value ultimately they thought it, that it brought to the community. So.

Grande Lum (00:57:02): Great. Great. Let me ask you a few more questions, more thematic trend questions, generally here. How did the changing nature of the civil Rights movement, you know, we can think about what happened with sort of, with George Floyd and, and the Black Lives Matter, with protest activity. I mean, there's certainly right now a lot going on, but when you were at CRS, did all that change? How did it affect your work?

Kit Chalberg (00:57:32): Yeah. Are you talking about sort of like the, the modern, kind of

Grande Lum (00:57:37): Modern civil rights era. You could, we can, you know, we could point back to the tragedies of Trayvon Martin and, and Michael Brown, but certainly, you know, yeah. More recently with, and, and with Black Lives Matter. And, and also with, you know, certainly there are other elements of it to... the ultra MAGA movement, the white supremacists issues that, that came up over the last few years as well. But certainly the change overall, the Me Too, you know, movement as well. I'm curious to whether this, this change in the civil rights and or how in, in identity based issues, did that affect your work while you were at CRS?

Kit Chalberg (00:58:18): I mean, I think so. I think, I think in the way that it showed up the most for the agency was, you know, especially around, it was especially around Michael Brown that I remember. So the shooting of Michael Brown and in Ferguson, and I remember at that time, we had done what we had always had done, and that is really leveraged more traditional, what I would call traditional civil rights groups and organizations within communities. So, you know, and your NAACPs, your Urban Leagues, LULAC's, all these, well-established, well-rooted, community centered advocacy organizations, making inroads with those groups, making inroads with interfaith alliances and black pastors unions, groups like that. And what, what I, what I really felt, was at that time, the sort of... the power or, or the access to communities shifted away from those traditional groups.

Kit Chalberg (00:59:21): To more ad hoc groups that, that really didn't have formal leaders. Right. I mean, I think Black Lives Matter has been at the forefront of that, of being a sort of quote unquote leaderless organization and having their own charters and their own organizations locally ... and having, the sort of the free will to navigate that, how they choose versus a traditional NAACP chapter, which has oversight and has to raise money and, you know, all these kinds of things. And so that was one of the biggest changes I, that I really felt at the time was these sort of leaderless organizations. They eventually, I think, started calling them autonomous organizations or something along those lines. And I think the other part of it was we saw a new younger group of leaders emerge, you know, it wasn't your traditional right.

Kit Chalberg (01:00:09): Sort of middle-aged person who was leading the charge anymore. Right. The kind of the Al Sharptons, it was a, was a new group of folks that, at least at that time, we didn't know them, and they didn't know us. And, you know, with, with some, you know, ebbs and flows of politics and those sorts of things, sometimes DOJ and CRS has a lot of credibility in a particular situation. Other times we have zero, right. Just depending on what's going on in a particular community. And so you can't lean on that. And so if you don't have, you don't have that piece, which sometimes works with you or sometimes works against you, and you don't have the relationship piece, and you don't have a website for, you to find out who the president of the chapter is.

Grande Lum (01:00:57): Mm-Hmm <affirmative>,

Kit Chalberg (01:00:59): You're, you're kind of left with, you gotta show up in those places and find out who those people are on the ground and try to develop relationships with them as quickly as you can, or try to get them to commit to set aside, we to meet with you later. But... I think continues to be a huge challenge for CRS, something that the agency I don't think has adjusted quickly or that well to. But absolutely recognizes it as, you know, well, what can, then what can we do? What are some challenges we can put into place or, or, I'm sorry, what are some strategies that we can put into place to, to address that challenge?

Grande Lum (01:01:38): Yeah. I, you know, I certainly remember that challenge, when I was director during the Michael Brown, during all those tragedies and, and the protests and response to it. Is it hiring people who have a better s sense of social media? Is it, it is clearly working relationship, having to create new relationships? Is there, are there any, is there any other recommendations you have you would have for CRS to adjust to this, these changes?

Kit Chalberg (01:02:12): Yeah. I think it's one part being much more technology savvy than the agency is. It's, it's been behind and I think continues to be behind. I think that that's a well-known, that's a well-known dynamic that the agency has. It's sort of, sort of technology adverse, honestly. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. I think the other part of it is the way that we recruit and hire, we tend to focus on people that come out of pretty professional types of tracks, right? Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> People that are, let's say civil rights attorneys or people that were former folks working in police departments and so forth as a, you know, district commander or something like that. Or somebody that has a PhD in conflict resolution, or like somebody like me who has a graduate degree, that kind of thing. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, The agency doesn't put a lot of emphasis on trying to find folks that have more, I think, more lived experience that are actually working in these communities and community based organizations doing the grind every day, working with clients and working, you know,the kind of the front lines, so to speak.

Kit Chalberg (01:03:21): Or at least to have enough of that experience that they can kind of bring it to bear, to navigate those communities. 'cause I think really at the end of the day, the folks that are out there doing .. the kind of the front lines work, are the folks that are gonna be able to develop those relationships with the folks that, that we just don't even probably know exist. Or they have the ability to, because they've been in the community. So people like seated and rooted in the community, I think is really critical. I think some of the challenge there is now that I've been outta government for a minute and taken a step back, Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, I don't know that a lot of people with that profile are really interested in working for the government necessarily.

Kit Chalberg (01:04:04): Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, I think... it's a different way of advocating, and ... it's a different way of being able to do the work that's important to them. And so getting to them, I think that's really the challenge. I think the profile of the person isn't hard to sort of theoretically write down some criteria. But I think getting to them and convincing them that they can, that they can make change and add value, through this other avenue, through a, you know, a, a bureau hugely bureaucratic avenue is gonna work for them, I think. I think that's where the tension point is.

Grande Lum (01:04:39): Okay. I wanna pick up on one thread, you know, around technology, social media, whether, you know, whether it's TikTok or X, formerly known as Twitter plays a huge, has played a huge role clearly in protests and, and in how everyone gets their information and conveys their information here. How did you see that affecting your work at CRS? And then the secondary question, which I think you started to answer a bit, was how should CRS adjust to that going forward?

Kit Chalberg (01:05:22): Yeah, I think how I saw it impact the work was, folks were able to organize in a way, you know, Michael Brown and... so many of these that we've, that we've mentioned as we've been talking, so many of those protests, right? The on the ground direct action protests, they were not organized in community meetings at the local church like, like we'd been accustomed to. Right? And we, sometimes those meetings were even posted, and we could go to those meetings and listen to what was going on. Like, they were open public meetings. That doesn't seem to be happening anymore. And everything has moved into, you know, private Facebook groups or, or other sorts of sodium social media platforms where people can do it in private. In some ways they can do it totally anonymous. It depends on how you profile is set up and all that kind of stuff.

Kit Chalberg (01:06:18): And, and, you know, they can pull something together really quickly through those social networks to where, you know, if it's a Tuesday night, they can have people on the streets tomorrow night, right? Like tonight, I mean, in hours. So things can are, are moving much more quickly. They're much more spontaneous. And they're done a little bit more, I don't wanna say secretive, but they're just, they're not done in sort of the traditional, let's get together for a couple planning meetings on a Wednesday that we had seen historically. Right. And even when I came into the agency, we, we attended those sorts of planning meetings or were invited to those sorts of planning meetings all the time. That was, that was a pretty common occurrence. And so I think that's one part of it. And, I think that the challenge that CRS has is because it's a DOJ agency, the only things that you can really look at without getting into privacy issues and people alleging that you're spying on them and other things like that, is you can really only see private Facebook pages.

Kit Chalberg (01:07:25): Or if you use your own personal Facebook page, for example. I think the... the legal guidance was you have to declare that you're there as part of D-O-J-C-R-S, and you have to make yourself known. You can't sit in the shadows and listen to what it is they're doing. And so that, those approaches really don't work. They really don't work in terms of the way the technology is set up and the limitations that by virtue of being a government agency, CRS really has to get information via social network unless it's public. And then if it's public, anybody can see anything, it doesn't matter. And so ... it's a real issue, it's a real challenge. And at least in the time that I was there, we didn't have any good answers, honestly. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>.

Grande Lum (01:08:08): Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Okay. No, but I appreciate your sharing what your experience was, right? Yeah. and the challenges that any conciliator would face in that situation because of the, the DOJ guidelines, which make total sense too, right. In terms of what a government agency should and should not do, in that situation. One question I want to ask, 'cause I know you have a strong perspective on it, and it was one that I certainly was aware of. Is your view on whether a CRS conciliator is neutral or I think more importantly, how should they frame what they do? Neutral is not a neutral term, <laugh> clearly here. How, how do you, how did you frame that, you know, the way that you would interact with the group, did you frame it as impartial, unbiased, nonpartisan? And why do you think that's important and what's your perspective on it?

Kit Chalberg (01:09:10): Yeah, no, great. I love this question. So, you know, just to stay off like my perspective on, on CRS and... the work is that CRS is not in, not, not neutral, definitely not at all. Right? If you, I think if you sort of get down to the technicalities of the two definitions between neutral and impartial, I don't know how much people care about the distinction, honestly, besides people like us. Like it matters to me, but, you know, maybe not everybody cares, but I, but I never saw the agency as being neutral for sure. And the reason I didn't is because of the way that the agency is centered, right? Smack dab and title 10 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and HCPA, we are, a part of a government arm that is meant to maintain at a minimum, but hopefully advance, the civil rights for people in this country.

Kit Chalberg (01:10:01): And, and that's not a neutral stance. That never bothered me. I never had an issue with that. The way that I talked about it with communities was I actually didn't use either one of those words very often. What I would talk about is the process that, that CRS can offer. So if, if we're putting together a series of community dialogues and facilitations, what does that process look like to make sure that there's, that, that we're striking a balance that everyone can agree to, that there's a sense of fairness in the process so that it isn't dominated by the city and the police department, but it's also not dominated by community advocates. And using the process and the design that we would put together and the facilitation to make sure that it felt... fair to people, that it felt balanced.

Kit Chalberg (01:10:50): Those are the things that, that I would really speak to. And, the other piece that I would really highlight is, you know, CRS's expertise is bringing this process to bear, which is convening diverse stakeholders together to go through a dialogue process, to explore and analyze issues, come up with solutions. Now, those solutions and those, and, and those outputs and those outcomes from this dialogue process, they own those, those outcomes. They, they own those solutions. I, as a conciliator or anybody else who works for CRS is not in the business of mm-Hmm. <affirmative> prescribing what the outcomes should be. You know, you should really do this. You should really rewrite a new policy. You should really hire a community outreach officer.

Kit Chalberg (01:11:38): We may have those things in our heads, right? And we may have heard during our assessment that people may want those things. How is the police department gonna hire more community outreach officers? Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, you know, we wouldn't do that. What we would do is ask questions like, what are, what are ways that the, that, that the community would feel as though the police department could do a better job of outreach? Or what are ways that the police department could develop better relationships with the community by asking those questions 10 times outta 10? Eventually they'll get to the solution. Maybe we should hire some, some outreach officers. And then, and then the power of the process then created an outcome that, that folks, you know, in this case would, you know, I, I would hope would generally buy into. And so those are the ways that I would couch it.

Kit Chalberg (01:12:28): I wouldn't, I wouldn't be like, I'm neutral and impartial. I'd be like, I, I'm not here to advocate. I'm not here to take sides. I'm not here to tell you that anybody did anything right or wrong. What I'm here to do is to offer a process by which we can get all the voices to the table. We can go through some dialogue, we can come up with some, some solutions. Hopefully we can, you know, put in a plan to start implementing those solutions. But that's the value that I can bring. If you're looking for somebody to, to find, you know, find fault... you're talking to the wrong agency. I'm, I'm happy to make a referral... or whatever, you know, folks would like to do.

Grande Lum (01:13:03): Okay. Thanks for that kit. We could continue on for I think hours here. But we are at the, we are at at time today. Any last things that you want to share that we haven't talked about that you would like to share in this interview?

Kit Chalberg (01:13:23): No, I just, I just really appreciate the opportunity to, to do this Grande. I think, this helped me, reflect on some really positive and, and sort of like remarkable moments in my 17 years at CRS, some things I hadn't thought about, honestly, in a really long time. You know, I spent seven years at headquarters and forgot, you know, forgot about my, to think through those memories and some of those people that had just, you know, really big, and positive influences on my work. So yeah, I just appreciate the opportunity to share, you know, this, the part of my story and this, this little fraction of, of time that I've, that I was able to, to be part of the CRS history and legacy.

Grande Lum (01:14:13): Yeah. Well, thank you kid. No, it was terrific to have this time, to hear from, from you and the terrific work that you did in, in those 17 years. So, thank you much. Thank you so much for taking the time. I learned a ton and it was great to, to think through and to listen to, to the work that you did in your development over time, the mentors that you had and what important role that played. And I think there's a lot of good stuff, that that's here. So thank you.