What cities can learn from Seattle’s racial and social justice bill

The right-wing political campaign against diversity, equality and inclusion policies taking place in several US states has called into question the country’s commitment to achieving racial equality.

In this landscape, Seattle marks a milestone of sorts: the first anniversary of the passage of the Race and Social Justice Initiative ordinance.

The ordinance, which was signed into law in April 2023, places the Race and Social Justice Initiative under the Seattle Office of Civil Rights and states that all departments of city government are responsible for “implementing changes toward ending institutional racism,” which is defined in Seattle as “policies, practices, procedures, and culture of an institution or system that work better for white people and harm people of color, often unintentionally or unintentionally.”

This ordinance highlights race and racism due to the widespread inequalities that people of color face in Seattle.

For example, the median household income in Seattle for whites in 2021 was $96,333, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Prosperity Now. This was as much as 1.5 times higher than the median income of Asian households of $77,470 and that of Latino households of $64,240. White household income was as much as three times higher than that of black households at $39,936 and that of Native American households at $31,519.

Other cities have adopted equity-oriented policies for specific programs related to, for example, housing access or policing. Seattle is notable for passing a citywide ordinance to address institutional racism.

Based on our current and recent research as urban policy scholars, Seattle’s Racial and Social Justice Act offers crucial lessons for other cities seeking to create more just places. We believe that more commitments like Seattle’s are needed if the U.S. is to make substantive progress toward racial equality.

Developing the Race and Social Justice Initiative

Seattle’s persistent racial wealth and income gap — and its impact on housing, health care, educational outcomes and other key social components of daily life — was part of the reason Seattle officials launched the Race and Social Justice Initiative two decades ago .

Then-Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels called for the initiative’s development after learning more about how race affected people’s experiences in Seattle.

A report from the University of Washington’s Civil Rights and Labor History Consortium shows a persistent disparity in homeownership rates between white households and people of color in King County, where Seattle is located.

U.S. Census data indicate that in 1980, 41% of black households owned a home. This number dropped to 37% in 2000. In contrast, 64% of white households owned a home in 1980, and this percentage remained stable at 65% in 2000. Racial disparities in homeownership are even greater now.

A critical part of the Race and Social Justice Initiative is creating professional development training to ensure a shared understanding of how racism impacts city government. For example, contributors explore how the location of city meetings can send signals about the expected audience and then discuss the importance of having city materials available in multiple languages. Ongoing training helps employees apply racial equity to their workplace practices and the programs the government implements.

The trainings have not only led to changes in city policy to include more equitable planning practices, but also an increase in the number of contracts awarded to women and minority-owned businesses.

Seattle’s commitment to racial justice

Another way racial justice efforts are being integrated into Seattle city government is with step-by-step guides that show how to put racial equity into practice. For example, a two-question budget filter launched in 2008 required employees to rate whether each line item in a budget reduced disparities based on race. This helped align the city’s priorities and values ​​with actual resource allocation.

Over time, city officials developed the Racial Equity Toolkit. This toolkit describes each step to take to evaluate whether or not a policy, initiative, program, or budget item is alleviating or advancing racial inequality. The toolkit is updated regularly and used throughout the city government to make decisions on everything from school meals to maintenance repairs for city vehicles.

Not everyone in Seattle has supported the initiative. In April 2023, a former white city employee sued the city for alleged racial harassment.

Other community members have expressed frustration at the disparity between the everyday discrimination people of color face and city officials’ stated commitment to racial justice.

Lessons for other cities

We believe Seattle officials have built capacity for social transformation across the city government. This has been made possible by a twenty-year commitment to creating a culture where achieving equality is an integral part of city governance. Working to end institutional racism is part of every employee’s job and part of the functioning of municipal government.

It is still too early to assess the effect of the regulation. At the same time, we see the support for the law’s passage as evidence that city staff believe it is worthwhile to formalize the Race and Social Justice Initiative into law.

Seattle’s experience shows that passing a racial equity law requires a sustained, long-term commitment. However, we believe that other places can also do such work.

Here’s how.

First, if people don’t fully understand the scope of a problem—such as institutional racism and how it relates to their professional work—they are less likely to change the way they do their work. What Seattle officials learned is that robust professional development training for employees creates common understandings and shared knowledge.

Second, developing a clear process for implementing changes makes it easier to implement them at scale. A racial equity toolkit means that equality is not an afterthought. Instead, it is a central part of how all decisions are made in city government.

Third, institutional change takes time and involves more than compliance with legislation. It is important to start small and see what works in the local context. By laying a foundation for creating further change, efforts continue to move forward.

In our view, passing a racial justice bill without existing social infrastructure is neither as likely nor as successful. Strong institutional commitment demonstrated over time helps give racial justice laws legitimacy.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we recognize the uniqueness of different cities and towns and caution against the impulse to widely copy Seattle’s efforts. City governments are better served by first assessing the local context of racial and social justice and then adapting what has worked in Seattle to advance racial equity in each place.

Everyone benefits from a more equitable approach to urban governance. Creating and supporting municipal programs that focus on racial equity is possible for cities seeking a more equitable future.