Barbara considers herself to be a conscientious and engaged voter. Several months ago, she attended a community meeting organized by a government agency that sought to develop a citywide economic development policy. She realized that many voices from communities of color were not in attendance. She knew that this policy would involve major taxpayer or public funding to back projects to the tune of millions of dollars per year. She asked the city representatives about their plans to engage these communities. The city admitted that it had not intended to host any additional community meetings other than this one-time meeting.

That prompted her and other attendees to disapprove of the city’s goals until such a plan could be identified. Following the meeting, Barbara helped to form a diverse coalition that included African American and Hispanic community leaders from religious, non-profit, and business sectors, as well as small business owners. They wrote a coalition letter and developed an inclusive economic policy guide that accounted for the employment, housing, and health needs of all residents. They sent their documents to the mayor and city council. For several months, the planning office ignored the coalition’s demands, which caused the coalition to pushed harder. They staged a protest at the next city council meeting and circulated a petition garnering hundreds of signatures. Eventually, the city capitulated. The fallout attracted the attention of the local media and forced the city to reset all policy deliberations.

The city hired a new planning director who formed a community advisory board and included health and the social of determinants as one of the key priorities of economic development.

Marsha had worked as a social worker for five years and was beginning to feel burned out. She had an unpredictable schedule. The pay wasn’t great. The hours were long. It was beginning to take its toll. She and her husband wanted to start a family, so she knew that something needed to change. She felt that many of the issues that she was seeing daily were driven by the social determinants of health. She was considering a career change by applying to law school. She figured that challenging the laws would enable structural change. Then something happened in city policy that would change the course of her life.

For decades, the city had engaged in environmental racism by permitting industrial activity next to a low-income African American community. Industrialists had convinced the city to pursue a new policy in which this industrial “park” would expand in capacity worsening the air quality for nearby communities, worse than what it was already.

Marsha felt that this policy needed to be challenged. She began consulting with friends of hers who had graduated from law school and realized that the community had many pathways to resist these plans. She reached out to community leaders and pro bono legal firms to collectively devise a strategy. To her surprise, few in the community had any knowledge of the proposals. She helped the community retain pro bono representation. Together, they sought an injunction to prevent the policy from being implemented. First, they testified at public hearings. Public officials tried to reassure the community that no adverse change would occur and that the proposal was just that - a proposal. Marsha knew better.

When the case went before the judge, the city argued that due to the community’s existing poor health and resilience that additional industry would have a negligible health effect. Marsha and the community were flabbergasted - how dare the city use the effects of its own harmful policies against the community. Luckily, the judge wasn’t persuaded by the city’s argument and required an independent agency to oversee further industrialization in the community. Recognizing that the costs of expansion and greater oversight were too great, the industrial polluters decided to withdraw their support. The city ceased all planning.

Kathy had been with her consulting for seven years and had enjoyed her experiences. She was proud of the work that helped local governments with a wide array of needs with gathering information, conducting analyses, and developing policies. She never felt pressure to fudge data or capitulate to political pressure.

However, when her supervisor assigned her a new consulting contract, Kathy was stopped in her tracks. She was told that this assignment would not require any independent analysis. Her only task was to provide legal and policy justification for the city to switch Liberty City’s water supply from Thine River to the Proker River. Kathy had no background in public health, but her roommates, who were born and raised in Liberty, told her that the Proker River was populated.

Kathy took several days to do more research, which confirmed that the Proker River was highly polluted. Although she wrestled with the decision whether to take this information to her manager, she decided that the company should be aware. She also asked to be taken off the assignment because it would not allow her to maintain her independence as a researcher, which she had always done.

The next week, Kathy’s supervisor asked her to attend a meeting. To her surprise, she entered a room with her supervisor and the executive leadership of the company. She feared that she was about to be terminated. Instead, the leadership asked her to explain her research findings. The company, which had cultivated a brand of responsible and ethical consulting, decided within the next week to terminate this contract with Liberty City, providing Kathy’s research as a basis.