1. Human Rights Cities: Where Are We Going? Josh Heath ◆ Tahina Vatel ◆ Tasha Wheatley

2. Introduction Background Human Rights Cities is an ideology where human rights are addressed at the local level using local activism and local governments Movement is international with at least 23 cities across the globe adopting Human Rights Cities frameworks American Friends Service Committee

3. Introduction Our Project Output 1: Report status and activities of the different HRC movements Output 2: Analyze the HRC movement and identify best practices and HRC recommendations for the future Intended Outcome: a more vibrant and sustainable HRC movement

4. Methodology Officials and activists from 7 of 10 HRCs interviewed Boston, MA Carrboro / Chapel Hill, NC Columbus, IN Interviews conducted via phone, Skype, and electronic correspondence Combination of qualitative and quantitative data usage Additional secondary and tertiary sources used Eugene, OR Pittsburgh, PA Washington, DC

5. Literature Review There is little written on the overall HRC movement or theory Human Rights Cities: Civic Engagement for Societal Development: The Human Rights City Model is designed to focus on the grassroots development of human rights knowledge and human rights based activism. (Marks et al. 2008) Criticism that human rights are only addressed at international and national levels where local activism is disempowered (Marks et al. 2008) Some precedent for human rights at local level using other models (Hearne 2013; Neilly 2007)

6. Summary of Interview Responses

7. CityMissionResponsibilitiesProjects Pittsburgh, PA - Promoting HR education - Explore ways to make policy changes - Promoting public awareness of human rights - Linking activists and policy makers. - Summit Against Racism - Human Rights Cities workshop - University Human Rights Network Boston, MA - Non-profits have the lead role to push the issues to policymakers, public - Water rights project Columbus, IN - To educate and empower cities to develop human rights initiatives - Create an environment that increases collaborative behavior - Safe schools training - Anti-discrimination ordinance Eugene, OR - Human rights language to discuss their programs - Human rights commission called in to advise various citizens groups - Homelessness project - Human rights at home - Support for Amnesty Int’l - Youth human rights committee

8. Evaluation Results Identified Factors Leadership Types: government, organizational, coalition, individual Issue Focus: civil rights, HR education, basic needs access, economic empowerment Data Tracking: quantitative, qualitative, formal, informal, none Age/Status: duration of movement, declaration status Identified Impacts Leadership Types: government more sustainable, organizational more activist, coalition addresses broader issues than individual Issue Focus: decision by movement allows for local buy-in, there is no comparison of success against other methods Data Tracking: no baseline for quantitative comparison, programs/movement lack self- accountability Age/Status: burnout over time due to lack of benchmarks, declaration status as an end v. as a means to an end

9. Action Plan Four Key Recommendations 1. Regular Interaction Schedule -Biannual Conferences with rotating hosts -Creates perception of deadlines for projects, build a sense of connected community as opposed to individual movements 2. Improved Information Sharing -Shared contact sheet -Include contact details and projects/city details -Potential “Buddy System” to improve continuity and information sharing 3. Seek Institutional Housing -Developments in Boston could be an example -Allow for a permanent place for dialogue 4. Evaluation Matrix

10. Evaluation Matrix A city that is capable of a high level of adherence to all of these parameters will likely be more successful as a human rights city. ● Cities should seek the highest level of Buy- In ● Program Specifics that adhere to and support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and any City level Declarations ● Program Follow-Through (Matrix) to ensure programs are completed and fully implemented ● Challenges that prevent full implementation of projects or are outside of the cities control ●F inancial Support and sustainment of programs

11. Buy-In Matrix

12. Program Follow-Through Matrix

13. Program Funding Is program funded fully? Were funds used efficiently? Score 1-25 Score should reflect funding percentage. Reduced efficiency may relate to contract options and fraud, waste and abuse concerns. Points should be subtracted for incidences. Program Completion Is program complete? Does the program require further programs to support implementation? Score 1-25 Score should reflect completion percentage if limited program. On-going programs or projects should score based on the necessity for supplemental programming to support the initial project. Goals Met What were the program goals? Were program goals met? Does the program design address the correct goals? Score 1-25 Score should reflect adherence to original goals and if the program goals are logical for the end product. Human Rights Language Was human rights language used in publications or directives related to the project? Was the project truly human rights related? Score 1-25 Score should be evaluated on the use of human rights language and if the project is in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and City Declarations as applicable.

14. Questions?

15. Contact Us Josh Heath Jh7128a@student.american.edu 603-397-7089 Tahina Vatel Tahina.vatel@student.american.edu Tasha Wheatley nw5344a@american.edu