"Actualmente, la mayoría de los recursos se invierten para apoyar las estrategias tradicionales de represión por parte de las agencias policiales, sin mucho reconocimiento de los proveedores de servicios existentes que ofrecen servicios a los jóvenes y familias de manera más preventiva. Este análisis ha expuesto preocupaciones y oportunidades de seguridad significativas para fortalecer la visión de seguridad comunitaria de la ciudad, a través de la coordinación y colaboración estratégica."


1) Santa Ana tiene la capacidad de crear soluciones nuevas para viejos problemas. Hay que mantenerse en el curso y expandir lo que está funcionando.

2) Ampliar la visión y definición de la seguridad pública. Considerar la naturaleza integral de la seguridad púbica que no solo responde a la violencia, sino previene, interviene y trata la violencia.

3) Crear áreas geográficas priorizadas por índices de delincuencia y violencia, indicadores de salud pública, servicios sociales y pobreza para poder activar un sistema localizado de respuesta coordinada.

4) Dado el regionalismo de los asuntos, aprovechar la infraestructura de servicios a nivel condado. Santa Ana no está sola.

5) El Departamento de Policía de Santa Ana necesita ampliar y expandir su definición actual sobre el patrullaje comunitario. Las soluciones antiguas no responden a los asuntos del 2019, se necesita evolucionar para ser efectivos y eficientes.

6) Invertir y desarrollar capacidad comunitaria a través de la participación cívica, creación de poder y de base, abogacía, rendición de cuentas, inclusión y representación.

7) Fortalecer la comunicación y colaboración de diversos sectores para impactar el cambio de narrativa para la Ciudad de Santa Ana.


Letter to The LGBT Center OC Leadership

Youth of YETA outside the LGBT Center to delivering a letter to the leadership inviting them to the community forum

This letter is written on behalf of the Santa Ana Building Healthy Communities (SABHC) Board Committee composed of Adult, Youth, and Organization representatives from the Education for All, Equity for All, and Health for All workgroups. 

The SABHC Board Committee is compelled to write this letter to express its disappointment in the actions of our SABHC partner, The LGBT Center OC (The Center), specifically their leadership, its Board of Directors and Executive Director, Peg Corley. The Center’s leadership decided to march with uniformed and armed law enforcement officers in the Pride Parade despite vocal opposition from members of the LGBTQIA community and other SABHC partners.   

After this event, The Center’s leadership failed to engage with the community that opposed this decision and instead dismissed and silenced their voices time and time again. The lack of genuine community accountability specially to impacted youth has been unacceptable. The youth from Youth Empowered To Act (YETA) have done the work that The Center’s leadership has refused to. When the youth of YETA met with the Executive Director (ED) Peg Corley, they were invited to bring their concerns to the Centers Board of Directors meeting. The youth prepared a letter to hand-deliver to the board meeting on August 12th, only to find out that it was canceled. Following the last-minute cancellation, the Youth of YETA visited the Center on Spurgeon to hand-deliver the letter to invite the Board and ED to a community forum. The YETA youth have been proactive in providing a community forum for impacted community members to come together.  They invited The Center’s Board of Directors and Executive Director, Peg Corley, to attend; and no leadership attended. We are proud of the YETA youth for hosting a community forum and disappointed that The Center’s leadership has not been willing to engage.

As the Building Healthy Communities initiative reaches its 10th year we are developing a plan for beyond 2020. At the core of this plan is a Transformative Framework that CENTERS Youth and Adult residents in the work and campaigns making it community-Led/ resident-driven. This means partner organizations and their leadership who see themselves as part of this new framework will make sure the roles of power reflect the participation of impacted communities.  Under this Transformative Framework and the values that support it, we see a clear disconnect between the values of SABHC and those that The Center’s leadership displays.  

We stand in support of LGBTQIA community members that have been hurt by the actions of The LGBT Center of OC’s leadership.  We stand in support of the YETA youth and their demands of The LGBT Center OC’s leadership. 


Santa Ana Building Healthy Communities 

Board Committee

Youth of YETA Invite the LGBT Center of OC’s Executive Director Peg Corley and Board of Directors to Community Forum

By: Youth of YETA

Intersectional. Safe. Supported. In a space meant to “advocate on behalf of the Orange County Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer/Questioning communities and provide services that ensure its well-being and positive identity,” many youth believed the LGBT Center of Orange County (the Center OC)would prioritize these core values. When we came to understand and accept our own identities, we went to the Center OC to find a community that recognizes and uplifts our experiences. For these reasons we plan to host a public community forum to dialogue with the Center OC’s leadership and the Board of Directors, and we invite their attendance so that our community may begin to heal.

Our relationship with the LGBT Center of OC began with their youth social justice, activist, and advocacy group, Youth Empowered to Act (YETA). For many of us, this is where we have grown and developed as leaders and individuals. YETA was a safe place to be our authentic selves with like-minded people who desired to improve our community. We dreamt of broadening the narratives of  LGBTQ experiences. The Center provided us with great mentors, who taught us how to advocate, lead, and think critically about issues surrounding the LGBTQ community. We learned to take note of which community members were missing from our spaces and to ask why they were missing. 

It is for all these reasons we view the Center OC’s response to criticism, raised in opposition to the inclusion of armed police officers in the Center OC’s Pride Parade contingent, as an attack. A week before the Pride parade, we were informed that the Center had decided to invite armed police officers to march alongside LGBT Center staff, community members, and volunteers. Community members immediately began to raise concerns when the decision was announced. The community reached out to the Center via social media, only to have their comments deleted and their social media accounts blocked. The Center OC’s active censorship of criticism demonstrates what little value the Center OC’s leadership places in the community they claim to serve. Many individuals in YETA felt betrayed, and the decision created a disconnect between YETA and the the Center OC. YETA prides itself on being a coalition of LGBTQ and allied youth leaders working to create a safe, supportive, and intersectional space in order to engage in advocacy and social justice. This group fostered community change, but given the Center’s actions, it is difficult to believe that our work is supported by the Center OC. 

Members of YETA participated in the “die-in” during Pride. Though it felt strange to stand in opposition to those with whom we usually work alongside, it was more important for us to stand with the victims of violence and discrimination from police forces across all communities. We needed to show our opposition to the Center OC leadership’s decision to include armed police officers in its Pride Parade contingent.  As we lay in the street the Center instructed people to march over us and around us. The Center OC’s actions evidence their dismissal of the experience of LGBTQ+ people of color, especially Black and Brown individuals in their own communities. After the parade, a member of the Center OC Board of Trustees commented that youth taking part in the demonstration were “misguided.” How are we misguided, if the Center OC’s own leadership taught us to self-empower and take action in making our voices heard?

After being offered the opportunity to discuss events in a listening circle hosted by Orange County Human Relations (OCHR), we decided that we ultimately wanted to meet directly with the Center OC leadership with the intention of facilitating open and direct dialogue. After reaching out, we were able to schedule a meeting with Executive Director Peg Corley for July 28, 2019, and we were glad to hear that she was open to having direct dialogue with us. Going into the meeting, we hoped that Peg Corley would acknowledge the harm caused and take accountability. We came to the meeting with intentions to heal and move forward. 

Unfortunately, the meeting created an even bigger disconnect. To Peg Corley, accountability means being accountable to only her bosses, the Center OC’s Board of Directors. To us, being accountable means being accountable to the community. In our meeting Corley stated, “I have a problem with the word accountable.” Corley then argued that “I did my job.” When further questioned about the decision, the Center’s Executive Director reiterated that decisions made are based on the Center OC’s Board of Directors opinions, not the community. “The community does not drive the Center,” stated Corley. 

The Center OC’s Board of Directors cannot claim to represent and meet the community’s needs when its decision making process is self-contained and its perspective is limited. The Board of Directors must seek out community members’ lived experiences and listen to the community from which it capitalizes. We left the meeting with Peg Corley feeling disillusioned with the Center OC because everything we had learned there was turned upside down in Corley’s words and actions. In that moment, the divide between the Center and the community became a chasm. 

As young people who learned advocacy from the Center, we seek to mobilize and host a community forum. We believe the best path forward honors the community through honest and open dialogue while the Center OC acknowledges accountability for the harm done. During the forum, we plan to discuss the harms caused by the Center OC’s actions and ways to bridge the community divide. If the Center OC truly wants to “advocate on behalf of the Orange County Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer/Questioning communities,” they must reexamine their actions and decision-making processes, while they engage with community members through transparent dialogue. 

This past week at their Monday, August 12 meeting, we intended to invite the Board of Directors to our community forum, but Board of Directors abruptly canceled their meeting. We suspect this happened because we intended to attend. In place of speaking to the Board of Directors at their meeting, we instead delivered a letter in person to the Center OC staff, asking them to pass along the invitation to Executive Director Peg Corley. 

We are thankful for the space the Center provides the community, and that is exactly why we remain critical of leadership and the Center OC’s decision-making processes. The Center of OC is a hub for LGBTQ+ and allied community members. We want it to remain as such. 

We implore the Center OC’s Executive Director and the Board of Directors to take part in community dialogue. We want the Center to be what we believed it could be, a place where community voices are at the heart of the Center OC’s decisions and where the community it serves is valued and supported. As the Youth of YETA, we believe this is the only way to truly fulfill their mission statement.

Community Demands for the LGBT Center OC Forum

Thursday, August 15, 6:30pm-9pm

El Centro Cultural de Mexico 

837 N Ross St, Santa Ana, CA 92701

Youth of YETA Biographies:

Melanie Michel is a queer activist from Orange County. She is a graduate of California State University, Fullerton and had been an active member of Youth Empowered to Act (Y.E.T.A.) at the LGBT Center of OC since 2017.

Esmeralda Michel is queer civic engagement organizer with Resilience Orange County. She has been involved with Y.E.T.A at the LGBT Center of OC for the past two and a half years. She recently graduated high school and will be attending the University of California, Berkeley in the fall.  

Em Jensen is a queer activist and organizer in Orange County. They have been involved with Y.E.T.A since 2018 and supported with communications and graphic design.

AJ Jensen is a queer youth organizer and activists from Orange County. They have been a part of Y.E.T.A since summer 2018 and have supported with communications and graphic design. They are majoring in graphic design and photography.


El LGBT Center de OC Necesita Participar en un Diálogo

De Stevie Vu y Victoria Nguyen

En el último mes, el LGBT Center de OC ha demostrado estar gravemente desconectado de la comunidad que pretende servir. Es decepcionante que una organización que se auto designó para abogar por la comunidad LGBTQ+ decida silenciar las voces de la comunidad en defensa de unas cuantas personas en su mesa directiva.

El 20 de junio de 2019, el LGBT Center de OC, conocido como “the Center”, invitó a agentes de policía armados y con uniforme a marchar con ellos durante el Desfile del Orgullo OC (“OC Pride”). A pesar de que “Pride” es una celebración de nuestras múltiples identidades, es ahistórico ignorar su origen como el resultado de una lucha de varias décadas liderada por mujeres transgénero y de color contra la brutalidad policial. El trauma que resulta de la brutalidad policial continúa existiendo hoy en día en las comunidades LGBTQ+ negras y latinas. Sabiendo esto, el LGBT Center de OC avanzó con su decisión. No se permitió la oportunidad para discutirlo.

Miembros de la comunidad y organizaciones comunitarias representativas, incluyendo Resilience OC (ROC, por sus siglas en inglés), VietRISE, Centro Coreano de Recursos (KRC, por sus siglas en inglés), Viet Arcoíris del Condado de Orange (VROC, por sus siglas en inglés) y el Equipo Asiático Pacífico para la intervención del VIH (APAIT, por sus siglas en inglés) se expresaron en contra de la decisión. Como respuesta, el LGBT Center de OC borró comentarios, bloqueó individuos e ignoró nuestras peticiones por un diálogo.

Al contrario, nos pidieron comprobar que nuestro trauma es continuo. En el Desfile del Orgullo OC, organizamos una manifestación “hacerse el muerto” para elevar a las personas víctimas de la violencia policial en nuestras comunidades. Dentro y fuera de las redes, el Centro LGBT OC se rehusó a reconocer nuestros esfuerzos. Al contrario, se mantuvieron firmes con su decisión pisando sobre nuestros cuerpos y publicando fotos de agentes policiales armados en varios eventos del orgullo LGBTQ en las redes sociales, aprovechándose de fotos que no fueron tomadas en el Desfile del Orgullo OC para justificar sus propias acciones.

El 23 de junio, OC Human Relations (OCHR, por sus siglas en inglés) envió un correo electrónico a VROC con la intención de desempeñarse como un tercer partido neutral para facilitar la comunicación entre VROC y el LGBT Center de OC. VROC aclaró con OCHR que la conversación no era para realizarse entre dos organizaciones, sino entre el LGBT Center de OC y la comunidad en general. Se logró un acuerdo para que organizaciones representativas y OCHR se reunieran el 19 de julio.

El 17 de julio, diez días antes de su evento Orgullo Trans, el LGBT Center de OC publicó un post de Facebook agradeciendo a OCHR y declarando que están trabajando en tándem para “realizar círculos para escuchar” con la comunidad sobre la presencia policial en su grupo. Esta declaración fue una falsa representación de OCHR, un tercer partido neutral que no había hecho ningún plan por realizar tales círculos. A petición de las organizaciones comunitarias involucradas, la Directora Ejecutiva de OCHR, Norma López, envió un correo electrónico a la Directora Ejecutiva del LGBT Center de OC, Peg Corley, el 18 de julio, aclarando el papel de OCHR y el proceso de diálogo. Las organizaciones comunitarias involucradas procedieron de buena fe con la reunión planificada con OCHR.

Tres puntos fueron enfatizados y propuestos durante la reunión el 19 de julio con OCHR. Primero, queremos un diálogo comunitario, no un “círculo para escuchar”. Es posible que un círculo para escuchar permita que el LGBT Center de OC adopte una pose de simpatizar con nuestras preocupaciones, pero no garantiza que nos darán respuestas, y mucho menos que tomarán acción. De hecho, remueve por completo la responsabilidad del LGBT Center de OC. Segundo, todas las organizaciones presentes en la junta acordaron que cualquier diálogo comunitario debe estar abierto a la comunidad entera, no solo a los miembros de las organizaciones representativas. Esto no es negociable. Por último, para que quede claro: nuestra cuestión principal con el LGBT Center de OC es su desprecio flagrante hacia el aporte comunitario en su toma de decisiones. Representar la situación de otra manera sería deliberadamente obtuso. OCHR tenía el cargo de compartir nuestras preocupaciones y peticiones expresadas directamente al LGBT Center de OC.

Al contrario, el 24 de julio el LGBT Center de OC decidió divulgar una encuesta de cinco preguntas como parte de las sesiones “para escuchar” que habían prometido:

  • Del 1 al 5, 1 siendo no participar para nada y 5 participar con regularidad, ¿cuánto participas con el LGBT Center de OC?
  • Del 1 al 5, 1 siendo muy negativo y 5 muy positivo, ¿cómo calificarías tu propia experiencia personal con las autoridades policiales locales?
  • Del 1 al 5, 1 siendo muy negativo y 5 muy positivo, ¿cómo te sientes cuando nuestros agentes policiales LGBTQ y aliados marchan con el LGBT Centrer de OC en desfiles del orgullo y el Día de la Memoria Transgénero para demostrar su apoyo [a la] comunidad LGBTQ?
  • Por favor escribe tu respuesta abajo: ¿Cómo podemos mejorar nuestra relación con las autoridades policiales como comunidad en el Condado de Orange?
  • Por favor escribe tu respuesta abajo: Describe tu participación actual con el Centro LGBT OC.

Esta encuesta fue percibida por muchas personas en la comunidad como un fracaso. Cinco preguntas breves, inductivas y mal informadas, no es la manera genuina para invocar la participación comunitaria. Esta encuesta no solo demuestra la falta del LGBT Center de OC de poder presentar preguntas significativas y objetivas, también establece a quién sirven. Para el LGBT Center de OC, “la comunidad” es un proceso selectivo.

Las organizaciones comunitarias representativas procedieron con su participación con OCHR con una petición definitiva de un diálogo comunitario público. No queríamos continuar reuniéndonos detrás de puertas cerradas y dejar la comunidad fuera. Después de tres semanas, recibimos un aviso el 7 de agosto que el LGBT Center de OC ha declinado la modificación a la propuesta que garantiza un foro comunitario público.

Hoy por hoy, cualquier tipo de diálogo, en todo caso, realizado bajo el LGBT Center de OC no reflejará las verdaderas necesidades de nuestra comunidad. Cuando el grupo de abogacía juvenil del propio LGBT Center de OC—Personas Jóvenes Empoderadas para tomar Acción (YETA, por sus siglas en inglés)—preguntó al liderazgo del LGBT Center de OC por qué no consultaron con la comunidad, la Directora Ejecutiva Peg Corley dijo, “la comunidad no impulsa lo que hacemos.” Dada la negligencia sin resolver del Centro LGBT OC, continuamos tomando rienda de la situación.

Ya que la comunidad en general no ha recibido ninguna actualización comprehensiva de las acciones tomadas, es importante priorizar la transparencia. Aunque escribimos esto con la intención de actualizar a nuestra comunidad, también queremos documentar públicamente el proceso para asegurar que nuestras preocupaciones, nuestro trabajo y nuestras vidas no continúen siendo borradas.

Hacemos un llamado a la comunidad para apoyar a YETA en la junta de la mesa directiva del Centro LGBT OC el 12 de agosto de 2019. Ya que YETA es un programa del Centro LGBT OC, es sumamente importante que elevemos las voces de las personas jóvenes LGBTQ+ que están siendo ignoradas por las decisiones de la mesa directiva. ***ACTUALIZACION: El LGBT Center de OC cancelo su junta de la mesa directiva un dia antes sin avisar a la comunidad y el grupo de YETA que habian sido invitado*** 

Luego, planeamos organizar un foro abierto de y para la comunidad. En los últimos dos meses, personas de la comunidad se han comunicado continuamente con el LGBT Center de OC para ser parte de sus discusiones. Pero incluso esto representa sus prácticas de exclusión—debería ser el LGBT Center de OC los que hacen el alcance para ser parte de las nuestras.

Foro Comunitario: Demandas de la comunidad para el LGBT Center de OC

Jueves, 15 de Agosto, 2019


El Centro Cultural de Mexico

837 N Ross St, Santa Ana, CA 92701

Esperamos que Peg Corley y la Mesa Directiva del Centro LGBT OC acepten esta invitación para finalmente participar en el diálogo comunitario que supuestamente es importante para ellos.

Nadie en el poder es exento de comunicarse con las personas que se supone deben representar. Cualquier acción que requiere esfuerzo de la comunidad para prosperar es inherentemente impulsada por la comunidad.

Community Safety Assessment

Santa Ana Community Safety Assessment

In Santa Ana, UPI works with The California Endowment’s Building Healthy Communities initiative to develop and promote coordinated violence reduction and prevention strategies. Beginning in Fall 2017, UPI concentrated its efforts to build cross-sector support for the completion of a community safety assessment.

UPI worked in partnership with Santa Ana Building Healthy Communities to assess residents’ top safety concerns. UPI met with nearly 1,000 residents, including a wide variety of populations, ranging from youth to seniors, and from persons experiencing homelessness to those coming out of jail. UPI also met with community leaders, and 15 partner organizations throughout the city of Santa Ana to conduct surveys, focus groups, and detailed interviews.

Our resulting Community Safety Assessment Report found:

  • Homelessness, Fear of Deportation, and Drug Sales/Use are among the top 3 safety concerns
  • Schools and Family are the most effective in addressing safety while Law Enforcement and Elected Officials are the least effective
  • Over the last 5 years, Santa Ana has experienced a 62% increase in homicides
  • Public trust and credibility of SAPD is only half of what it should be

Most importantly, our report concluded that Santa Ana’s “business as usual” approach is not working. Residents are not getting what they ask for or the public safety they are paying for.




Santa Ana Community Budget Survey/Encuesta Comunitaria del Presupuesto de Santa Ana



Over the course of two months, we surveyed 231 Santa Ana residents from across the City in both Spanish and English to learn their budget priorities. It is our intention that this survey aide and inform the Santa Ana’s budget development process, more specifically, how Measure X dollars are allocated. Ultimately, our survey found that residents would rather see Measure X dollars be used for services for youth, homeless individuals, seniors and for street infrastructure.


In 2018, Santa Ana voters approved the passage of Measure X, a 1.5 cent sales tax increase, with the promise that these funds would fund a variety of homeless and youth programs and services. Measure X is projected to raise $60 million each year over the next 10 years and then $40 million each year for another 10 years for the City’s General Fund - in total this measure will have raised $1 billion over its 20-year existence.

Survey Findings 

Resident Budget Priorities

#1 Youth Investments was the highest rated budget priority, this includes funding free programs and services for youth and connecting them with internships and jobs.  

#2 Housing and Homeless Prevention services that include, renter protections, rent control enforcement, eviction defense, and homeless prevention efforts.

#3 Park, Recreation, and Library Services came in third with residents seeking well-maintained parks, extended operating hours, and free senior community programs.

#4 Public Works more spending on bike lanes, street maintenance, and clean water.  

#5 In cases where public safety is needed, residents favored Comprehensive Crime Reduction which includes non-police first responders, social workers, and community intervention works over suppression-based activities.

#6 The least favored priorities were City Management-related discretionary spending and Police Salary Increases. 

Issue Specific Priorities

Keeping Families Together

  • 97% of respondents believe the City should be involved in keeping families together. This can be achieved by protecting the due process rights for immigrants facing separation in the legal system.
  • 66% felt like the City could spend $200,000 or more a year on helping 50+ individuals fight their deportation cases.

Develop a Comprehensive Youth Strategic Plan

  • 96% of responders want a Comprehensive Youth Strategic Plan. The City is home to one of the youngest youth populations in the nation, however, it is operating without a plan in place.
  • Residents want a plan in place that calls for more youth centers, city-funded mental health services, career pathways for undocumented and formerly incarcerated youth, and transportation supports to name a few.

Protect Vulnerable Renters from Evictions.

  • 90% of responders believe that Santa Ana City should support a Legal Defense Fund to protect vulnerable renters from evictions.
  • Support for renters includes renter protections through policies such as Just Cause Evictions, rent control enforcement, eviction defense, and homeless prevention efforts.

Redefining Public Safety

  • Likewise, 66% of respondents felt like the Santa Ana jail should be closed in order to eliminate the $10 million deficit the facility is incurring annually.
  • In the instances where more public safety spending is called for, respondents preferred the City take a comprehensive crime reduction approach that focuses on social workers and community intervention specialists over methods that rely on incarceration and suppression.

Santa Ana Community Budget Survey Results

Encuesta Comunitaria del Presupuesto de Santa Ana 



Dear Grantees, Partners, Colleagues:

I REALLY need 20 minutes of your brain’s time. We need your input in deciding on how to spend our next billion dollars. Now, is your chance to provide input,

On October 12 our Board of Directors released a visioning statement for the work of TCE beyond 2020, when the ten-year Building Healthy Communities (BHC) campaign draws to a close. In that statement, which was inspired and shaped by many of you during our BHC journey, the Board affirmed its support for a healthier, inclusive California, and put forth Three Bold Ideas to build a strategy around. Those Three California Ideas were, in short: 1) People Power, 2) Reimagining Our Institutions, and 3) 21st Century “Health for All” system. We believe a racial equity lens to this work is critical. These ideas have flowed from our experience with you as grantees and as our partners.

We have also heard from a number of you about the importance of support for the development of a shared vision or narrative for a healthier, more just, and equitable California, and we welcome your reaction to the idea of a community-driven “Social Contract” for our state and nation.

We want to assess the relevance of this vision and accompanying ideas to your work as you see it, and begin to gather some wisdom about the strategies needed to get there.

This survey represents a first step for us in a participatory design process in the months ahead; we’ll also embark on smaller group regional- and issue-based strategy sessions and conversations that we hope many of you can participate in.

This survey is due by December 14, and we pledge to share the highlights and findings of this survey with you by May 2019.

In closing, I’d like to convey, on behalf of our Board, our appreciation for the work of wellness, equity, and justice that you do. If the past two years of our divided nation’s political discourse has taught us anything, it is the role that philanthropy must play in being more intentional about voice, civic participation, youth engagement, and community organizing – what we have learned as People Power -- in pursuit of a vision of wellness for our state. We need your thinking to help more this vision and ideas forward.

Robert K. Ross, M.D.
President and CEO, The California Endowment


Queridos beneficiarios, socios, colegas:

SINCERAMENTE necesito 20 minutos de su mente y de su tiempo. Necesitamos su opinión y sugerencias para que nos ayuden a decidir cómo utilizar nuestros próximos mil millones de dólares. Ahora es la oportunidad de decirnos lo que piensan,

El 12 de octubre nuestra Mesa Directiva dio a conocer la declaración de visión sobre el trabajo de TCE para la próxima década — más allá del 2020 — cuando la campaña de diez años de Building Healthy Communities (BHC) llegue a su fin. En esa declaración, que fue inspirada y desarrollada por muchos de ustedes durante nuestro trayecto juntos en BHC, la Mesa Directiva enfatizó su apoyo por una California más saludable e inclusiva, y presentó Tres Ideas Audaces con la finalidad de elaborar una estrategia efectiva para lograr este objetivo. Esas tres ideas de California fueron: 1) El Poder de las Personas, 2) Reimaginar nuestras Instituciones y 3) Un Sistema de Salud para Todos en el siglo XXI. Creemos que tener un enfoque claro de equidad racial es realmente crítico para poder realizar este trabajo. Estas ideas han surgido como resultado de nuestra experiencia con ustedes como nuestros beneficiarios y nuestros socios.

También hemos escuchado de varios de ustedes sobre la importancia de recibir apoyo para ayudar a desarrollar una visión o narrativa compartida para poder lograr una California más saludable, más justa y equitativa. También agradecemos su opinión sobre la idea de un “Contrato Social” enfocado en la comunidad para nuestro estado y nuestra nación.

Queremos evaluar la relevancia de esta visión y las ideas que la respaldan, con su trabajo de acuerdo a su punto de vista, y de esta forma comenzar a adquirir cierta sabiduría sobre las estrategias necesarias para poder lograr este objetivo.

Esta encuesta representa un primer paso para nosotros como parte de un proceso de planificación participativo en los próximos meses. También nos embarcaremos en sesiones estratégicas basadas en temas clave y conversaciones con grupos pequeños, y esperamos que muchos de ustedes puedan participar.

Esta encuesta debe completarse antes del 15 de diciembre, y nos comprometemos a compartir con ustedes los puntos destacados y los hallazgos de esta encuesta en mayo de 2019.

Para terminar, me gustaría compartirles en nombre de la Mesa Directiva nuestro agradecimiento por el trabajo de bienestar, equidad y justicia que usted realiza diariamente. Si hay algo que nos han enseñado los últimos dos años del discurso político dividido de nuestro país, es el papel clave que debe desempeñar la filantropía para lograr ser más intencional en resaltar nuestra voz, la participación cívica, la participación y compromiso de los jóvenes, y la organización comunitaria, lo cual hemos aprendido por medio del Poder de las Personas, todo con la finalidad de alcanzar una visión de bienestar para nuestro estado. Necesitamos saber lo que piensa para hacer más efectiva esta visión, y ayudarnos a llevar a cabo estas ideas para seguir adelante.


Residents and Renters Rights Groups to Rally In Support of Leader Facing Displacement

Santa Ana, CA - Residents and renter’s rights groups in Santa Ana will rally in support of Reyna, a community leader facing displacement.

Reyna and her three daughters have lived in the same house with other families for the last 26 years. This year, without warning, the property owners sold the house to a developer who is now evicting Reyna and the other families.

Reyna is being supported by resident groups and tenant rights organizations, who have seen the alarming number of evictions increase in Santa Ana,* and made a call to city leaders to address the crisis through a series of policy proposals under the platform to Remain and Thrive.

Press Release

Press Conference Audio