Economic opportunity Archives - Page 2 of 10

Five Minutes with… Stacey Abrams on why health equity starts close to home

Posted on May 20, 2026May 21, 2026 by Brianna Provenzano

For years, Stacey Abrams has been one of America’s most recognizable champions for expanding access to the ballot box, to economic opportunity, and to the systems that shape who gets to thrive. A former Georgia House minority leader, two-time gubernatorial candidate, bestselling author, and founder of organizations including Fair Fight and American Pride Rises, Abrams has built a national profile by connecting the dots between structural inequities and the everyday lives they shape.

That same desire to expand access is what animates Close to Home: a new health equity initiative from American Pride Rises designed to help people better understand how wellness is shaped by policy, place, and the everyday pressures we all face. Alongside a public education campaign, the initiative also pairs storytelling and resource-sharing with a 2026 health equity microgrant program designed to surface community-driven solutions.

In this installment of Five Minutes With…, NationSwell asked Abrams to reflect on why health equity belongs in the same conversation as democracy and economic mobility; what makes such an initiative remarkable in a moment when even the language of equity is under attack; and what she hopes funders, business leaders, and civic institutions will do to bring this work close to their own homes.

NationSwell: In the simplest terms, what is “Close to Home,” and why did American Pride Rises want to make health equity one of its flagship fights right now?

Stacey Abrams, founder of American Pride Rises: American Pride Rises focuses on DEI in our everyday lives, and one of the most important and high impact places where DEI has been critical is in the healthcare space. The Close to Home campaign is focused on how we can best surface, understand, and invest in community-driven solutions that reflect the lived healthcare experiences of the most impacted communities.

Put more simply, the Close to Home campaign is a place to understand how health connects to our daily lives and to one another through the lens of DEI.

NationSwell: The name “Close to Home” is significant. What does that phrase mean to you, and how does it help people understand how inequity actually shows up in everyday life?

Abrams, APR: We know that health equity is a fairly misunderstood issue. It often feels like something that’s being done to you; as if your access to healthcare is shaped by Washington, D.C., that your access to a hospital is being changed by your state, or that your access to a fair chance at good health is being determined by your background or your zip code. What we want to do is say that it is close to home, it is your community, it is your family, but if the problems are there, so are the solutions.

At the same time, we also want folks to understand that these health outcomes, these challenges, are not personal: It’s close to home, but it’s not you. So many of us are made to believe that a poor health outcome is a personal failure, and Close to Home is designed to help us understand the gaps that exist in access, and between people and opportunities, and that the solutions are close to home.

NationSwell: Close to Home seems designed to do three things at once: public education, community-based microgrants, and policy advocacy. How do those pieces work together, and why was it important to build an initiative that operates across all three?

Abrams, APR: First and foremost, we have to understand the systemic failure that has led to the healthcare crisis. We’re talking about communities that face barriers to preventive care, higher rates of chronic illness, environmental hazards, and rising healthcare costs, and all of that can be traced back to what you know, who you know, how much things cost, and who’s in charge. That’s why we always say it comes back to education, economics, and elections.

On the education side, we are stronger when we understand what we’re facing. Too many Americans of all backgrounds are experiencing persistent health challenges because of gaps in access to care. And that’s part of the onus of DEI: understanding that diversity means all people, equity means fair access to opportunity, and inclusion means respect for belonging — especially when it comes to healthcare.

So the education piece is about making sure people know what they’re entitled to and understand the barriers they face. The microgrants are the economic piece. We know that, at scale, it’s going to take public policy to solve these problems — but close to home, we are already incubating and ideating solutions. One of the most important things we want to lift up is that wherever you live, you probably have a neighbor, a friend, or a community member who’s thinking about how to make life better and improve access to healthcare.

The intention of the microgrants is to invest in those ideas. Because of the attacks on DEI and the attacks on the Affordable Care Act, resources that could make us stronger are instead making us sicker, more divided, and more vulnerable. So the microgrants are really about investing in communities to surface extraordinary ideas, test those experiments, and then say: based on what we now know, let’s build systems that can scale them.

And that leads to the third piece: policy. It is a political decision to undermine public health infrastructure. It is a political decision to use executive orders to attack equity in healthcare. It is a policy decision to roll back protections for women’s bodily autonomy, and to undermine care for communities facing the AIDS and HIV epidemic.

These are policy decisions, and therefore it is our responsibility to advocate for the policies that can make us healthier, help unite us, and strengthen not only those most directly impacted, but the communities they’re part of. We all win, regardless of where we start, when we solve healthcare inequity.

NationSwell: What feels differentiated about the approach American Pride Rises is taking here, particularly in a moment when even the language of equity is under attack?

Abrams, APR: We begin with the belief that we have to understand what we face. And to your very first question about what “Close to Home” means, we know that the language we hear helps shape what we believe we’re entitled to. That’s why we’re focusing on the language of “Close to Home”: because we want people to understand that this is an everyday issue. It’s not remote. It’s about you, your loved ones, and your community. For us, it’s about helping people understand how the values of DEI improve health outcomes for all communities.

We’re talking about providers who are trained to deliver competent care based on your cultural needs. For example, we know that men can experience PSA levels differently in ways that affect whether prostate cancer is detected. That’s culturally competent care. And that doesn’t care about who you are; it cares about what biology tells us about your health needs. We know that women, especially women going through menopause, have very specific needs, and that policies should be designed around the people most impacted. We know that rural communities often have less access to healthcare simply because of geography.

So part of our intention is to use language that helps people understand that diversity isn’t a curse. It is one of the superpowers of our society, but it can only work if we understand how it can be used for us, or weaponized against us.

NationSwell: When you look at the communities this initiative is meant to serve, what do you see as the most overlooked drivers of health inequity — the forces upstream from the doctor’s office that too many leaders still treat as separate from “health”?

Abrams, APR: Well, let’s just start with the current administration’s decisions: We began with the slashing of federal funding for healthcare, and we saw this administration double healthcare premiums for 20 million Americans and kick 14 million people off their coverage in order to fund a permanent tax handout for the top 1%.

That has real consequences, because those are still people who are going to show up in our hospitals. They’re still going to show up in urgent care, but they’re not going to have the care they need. And there’s a cost to every American. We don’t often think about this, but when someone goes to the hospital and can’t afford care, the hospital absorbs that as uncompensated care and then passes those costs along to everyone else. One of the realities is that our affordability crisis is caused, in part, by our broken healthcare system.

You can’t afford to get what you need because when you do get support, you’re being charged more than you should. Number two: this administration also cut environmental justice investments. That may sound esoteric, until you realize what it actually means: they cut efforts to address the health burdens facing vulnerable communities, including communities living with high levels of pollution. When you roll back environmental protections, you create an environmental hazard that becomes a healthcare cost.

And then there’s something very close to me, and to where I live in Georgia: we have one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the nation. But this is not endemic to Georgia, and it’s not endemic to the South. When maternal mortality rises, it’s not just healthcare costs that go up, the economic costs to the entire community go up as well. There are real economic harms that come with persistent health challenges.

We are all made stronger when we have a public health infrastructure that goes beyond the medicine we’re given and extends into the communities we live in.

NationSwell: At a time when many institutions are retreating from equity language or narrowing their ambitions, what does it look like to make the case for health equity in a way that is both morally clear and broadly resonant?

Abrams, APR: I was having a conversation with someone earlier today who asked me, “Why do you talk about DEI and equity so brazenly?” And I said it comes down to two things. First, when we adapt our language, we change our minds. That’s not always a bad thing; sometimes we change our language because we’ve learned something new. New language can help us evolve our thinking, but that same dynamic can also be used against us.

So when it comes to the attacks on DEI, my question is always: Which letter don’t you agree with? Do you oppose diversity? Are you offended by equity? Are you afraid of inclusion? What part is problematic? Equity simply means fair access to opportunity. And in healthcare, equity means understanding that when one person is healthier — when a system is healthier — we all benefit.

That goes back to a fundamental recognition: too many of us have been trained to believe that broken healthcare is a personal failing, that our needs are simply the result of individual choices. But health is shaped by the places we call home. It’s shaped by the work we do. It’s shaped by the pressures we face. It’s shaped by what we can afford.

That’s why it’s so important to talk about health equity and to talk about DEI. Because when we internalize that language, we also internalize the power to know that things can be made better. The attacks on DEI are not happening because DEI has failed. They’re happening because DEI has been working — because Americans of all backgrounds were getting better access and a fairer shot at living healthy, thriving lives.

Those who oppose it demonized the language. So for me, it is a power move to keep using it, because when we own the language, we own the narrative. And the narrative should be that everyone in this country deserves a fair shot at living a healthy and thriving life, no matter where they are — but especially close to home.

NationSwell: You’ve spent so much of your career expanding access to power in democracy, in the economy, in public life. Why does health equity belong in that same conversation?

Abrams, APR: I grew up in southern Mississippi. I used to be on the debate team when I was young, and when we’d pass through Louisiana, we would drive through what was known as “Cancer Alley.” The fact that there was a nationally recognized name for an entire community defined by environmental harm was devastating. What it said was that, in pursuit of revenue, it was acceptable for industry to poison a whole community. And that community was predominantly Black and predominantly poor.

My family did not have health insurance. When we got sick, prayer was our best option — and then Tylenol. Those should not be the choices we have to make. My dad fell off scaffolding and broke his back in an on-the-job accident, but his employer refused to pay for it. So my parents had to figure out how to cover extraordinary medical bills while also fighting a legal system that ignored my father because of his race.

Now my parents are older, and they’re grappling with healthcare issues again. But the difference is: now they have health insurance, and now they have a daughter who knows who to call and has the ability to open doors. What I can do on an individual level for my parents today should be available to every person, for every member of their family, every day.

Equity is about fair access. I should not have more access simply because more people know my name. This comes close to home for me because I cannot believe in a democracy that is real if it does not include all people.

NationSwell: If you could leave corporate leaders, funders, and civic institutions with one challenge as they think about their own role in health equity, what would you want them to do differently? How could they start the work close to home?

Abrams, APR: A healthy workforce is the least expensive form of labor. At the most basic economic level, it is better for industry and better for companies to have a healthy workforce. People work faster, they work better, and they’re not stressed about the next accident or the next mistake. So at a very basic level, it’s in the interest of business leaders to want a healthcare system that works for all of us.

At the societal level, we know that DEI helps ensure the healthcare system reflects real communities — that we have providers trained to deliver culturally competent care, and that policies are designed around the people most impacted. When we invest in DEI and healthcare, we build systems that work better for everyone. When we solve healthcare problems for the most vulnerable or the most complex cases, there’s a follow-on benefit for everyone else.

And ultimately, in a democracy, business does better when people can afford to invest, afford to come to work, and afford to value your products. “Close to Home” is about connecting those dots and making sure we are building healthier, more equitable communities everywhere we go, and supporting the ideas that actually lift us up.

Companies already know from the data that when people do better, they are more productive, more engaged, and stronger community members. So at the individual, corporate, and societal level, health equity makes us all richer.

Five Minutes with… the Northern New Mexico Pathways to Opportunity Strategy Table

Posted on May 19, 2026May 26, 2026 by Brianna Provenzano

As funders look to move from isolated grants to systems-level impact, the need for durable, place-based models that communities can shape — not just receive — has never been clearer. In northern New Mexico, the LANL Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation are collaborating with twenty other funders to pioneer the next frontier of place-based funding with the Northern New Mexico Pathways to Opportunity Strategy Table: a 15-member collaborative that brings philanthropy, public agencies, community leaders, and young people themselves together to align resources for those too often left out of education and workforce pathways.

What began as a listening process and a fund-mapping exercise has since evolved into a distinctly ambitious model that blends pooled philanthropic, corporate, and public dollars; youth-led participatory grantmaking; and capacity-building designed to help nonprofit and tribal organizations grow stronger over time. The result is a more community-rooted way of thinking about how grant funding moves, who helps shape it, and what long-term success looks like.

For this installment of Five Minutes With…, NationSwell spoke with Alvin Warren, Vice President of Policy and Impact at the LANL Foundation, and Tomi Hiers, Vice President of Center for Civic Sites and Community Change at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, about what it took to move this work from convening to action, why the Strategy Table built youth voice into the model from the start, and what other funders around the country can learn from this effort.

NationSwell: What is the Strategy Table, and what challenge was it built to address?

Alvin Warren, LANL Foundation: From our side, it’s important to understand that we’re a 100% place-based foundation based in Española, New Mexico, and we serve a predominantly rural and tribal region across north-central New Mexico. We were created to address a very specific geography: a seven-county, eighteen-tribe region of northern New Mexico.

One thing I knew from my time at Kellogg was that when national funders looked at New Mexico, they often focused only on Albuquerque, and there are understandable reasons for that, especially when funders are trying to meet numerical targets. But what struck me were the many opportunities to invest in good work in rural New Mexico — including work aligned with Casey’s Thrive by 25 framework — and yet that work often wasn’t visible or accessible to larger funders. Sometimes it was happening at a smaller scale; sometimes there were structural barriers that made it difficult for national funders to support smaller, rural organizations or tribes.

So we realized a mechanism might be needed to both draw attention to the opportunities and needs in Northern New Mexico and also make it logistically possible for funders, especially national funders, to invest in a way that felt informed, respectful, and shared. That’s really the blueprint for what the Strategy Table became.

Tomi Hiers, Annie E. Casey Foundation: At the Annie E. Casey Foundation, we made the decision to dedicate roughly 50% of our grantmaking to improving access to opportunity for young people ages 14 to 24 through our Thrive by 25 commitment, and we wanted to begin implementing that work in three places: our hometowns of Baltimore and Atlanta, and also Albuquerque, New Mexico — a place where the Foundation had already been active for about two decades, particularly around systems impacting justice-involved and child welfare-involved youth.

As we started thinking about a place-based strategy in Albuquerque and about working in deep partnership with nonprofits helping young people connect to education, training, employment, youth leadership, and financial stability, we knew it was important to understand the local philanthropic landscape. As a national funder, there can sometimes be tension around how national philanthropy shows up in a place, so we wanted to be a strategic co-investor; we wanted to know who the local funders were, what their priorities were, how those priorities aligned with ours, and how they wanted national philanthropy to support their work.

That’s how we began building relationships with local funders, and with Alvin, who was then at Kellogg and later transitioned to LANL Foundation. Those early conversations about what was important in the broader community, and what kinds of partnerships could help address barriers facing young people, were really the building blocks that eventually led to the Strategy Table.

NationSwell: What makes this different from a traditional workforce or economic development effort?

Warren, LANL Foundation: Northern New Mexico has one of the highest rates of disconnected, or “opportunity,” youth in the country: nearly one in four. For some populations, including Native youth and young parents, that number can be even higher. And this is happening in a region that also has real deserts of opportunity — places where access to paid internships, career training, or youth development programs are limited or uneven. So the goal isn’t simply workforce development in the conventional sense, it’s about transforming the landscape of opportunity so that young people, regardless of where they live in the region, have access to meaningful pathways.

What makes this model distinct is that it’s a pooled fund with three important differences. First, it’s designed to pool philanthropic, corporate, and public dollars, which is relatively unusual. Second, the grantmaking is done through a youth-led participatory process. And third, the model includes dedicated capacity-building support through a Regional Resource Hub, so grantees aren’t just getting one-off dollars, they’re also getting technical assistance, peer learning, and support to become more competitive for larger public and philanthropic funding over time.

Hiers, Annie E. Casey Foundation: What was attractive to us about the Strategy Table was that it offered leverage, sustainability, and scale. We rarely go it alone as a funder; we think a lot about how to use philanthropic dollars to leverage public funding or to bring other philanthropic partners into the work. We’re always asking: how do we have impact beyond a few hundred young people served directly? How do we influence policy and practice?

So part of what was exciting here was that there were already strong efforts underway, and a number of the funders at the table were supporting that work, including state agencies. The question became: how do we scale the best and most promising practices around education, training, and employment for young people, especially those who are often left behind and locked out of opportunity?

NationSwell: How have the Annie E. Casey and LANL Foundations helped move the work from convening to action?

Warren, LANL Foundation: We formally launched in 2021, and the first major step was a fiscal map. We partnered with the Children’s Funding Project and used the Thrive by 25 framework to do a five-year lookback on philanthropic investments in the region. Initially, we were only going to look at philanthropy, but the Casey Foundation pushed us to include public investments as well, and that was transformational; it would have been a huge missing piece otherwise.

At that point, the table had grown from an initial group of four funders to about ten. When the fiscal map was completed, we made what turned out to be a very important decision: instead of releasing the report publicly right away, we paused and took the findings out to our community first. We held a series of community gatherings, including a tribal-specific gathering, across the region, including in very rural communities. We also ran a survey and held focus groups, including one focused on underrepresented youth and another for policymakers and public funders. That process took about a year, and it was all about listening to how community understood the data and what they believed should happen next.

The other major shift from convening to action came when Casey helped us recognize that if we were serious about this, we needed infrastructure. Casey was the first funder to commit real resources to support the backbone and operations of the collaborative. Without that early investment, we would not have been able to grow the table or move toward implementation.

Hiers, Annie E. Casey Foundation: We think a lot about leverage. There’s power in bringing other funders to the table and in aligning philanthropic dollars with public systems. For us, this was an opportunity to support a table that was already rooted in a particular place and to help build something that could influence systems, not just fund isolated programs.

Once the fund mapping report came back, it became easier to think strategically. It helped us understand both where resources were flowing and where they weren’t. There was one county, for example, where the lack of investment was striking. That allowed the table to ask: What problem are we trying to solve, and what can a pooled set of more nimble philanthropic resources actually do?

From there, it was about planning carefully and building toward a model that could invite local partners into a meaningful, well-designed process for competing for and receiving resources.

NationSwell: What does the most helpful philanthropic support look like in a collaborative like this?

Hiers, Annie E. Casey Foundation: Flexibility is really important. In the early days, there was some willingness from other funders to include Albuquerque because Casey was doing work there. But we took the position that even though we were active in Albuquerque, this table was focused on northern New Mexico, and that was okay. We didn’t want our partners to contort themselves to make something work for us just because of how we had originally framed our priorities.

So for other funders or strategic partners joining a table, I think one of the biggest lessons is: if there are places where you can be flexible in service of the broader effort, you should seriously consider that.

Warren, LANL Foundation: I’d add that impact comes from infrastructure. Funders often want as much money as possible going directly out the door, and of course that matters. But if you under-resource the infrastructure it takes to do something complex like this, you undercut the impact. That means staffing, facilitation, evaluation, communications, support for the youth advisory members, and all the connective tissue that makes a collaborative actually function. Those investments may not always feel as exciting as direct grants, but they’re what make the grants more effective.

The other thing is: lend a hand. This doesn’t work if one organization is doing all the labor. Casey and other funders have actively helped make introductions, bring in new partners, and expand the pool, and that’s part of how we’ve grown the number of contributing funders.

And finally: show up. It matters when national funders come in person, meet grantees, and participate face to face. That presence builds trust and changes the quality of the relationship.

NationSwell: What’s one anecdote or example of progress you’ve seen that shows the model is working?

Hiers, Annie E. Casey Foundation: One sign is simply that partners are still there, and new partners keep joining. My understanding is that this kind of table is something relatively new for northern New Mexico: funders coming together in this way with each other, with public systems, and with the broader community. The fact that the table has held together and continued to attract interest is itself a meaningful sign that the model is offering something valuable.

Warren, LANL Foundation: We’ve now been able to make 19 grants, almost all at the $100,000 level, with a couple slightly smaller based on what grantees requested. Based on grantee data, we anticipate reaching at least 800 young people by the end of the first year.

What’s especially exciting is the growth in participation in the pooled fund itself. As of the end of last week, we had 21 corporate and philanthropic funders either contributing or engaged in supporting the youth fund in some way, including 17 philanthropic funders and four corporate funders. And our largest state agency partner, the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions (essentially our Department of Labor), has committed a $1.5 million match for our second grantmaking round.

NationSwell: What’s been your biggest challenge in standing up this work, and what have funders needed to understand about that complexity?

Warren, LANL Foundation: One of the biggest challenges was the tension between moving thoughtfully and moving quickly. We spent what I think was an appropriate amount of time doing shared analysis and relationship building. That meant bringing funders together repeatedly, defining terms, developing guiding principles, and getting clear on what success actually meant across organizations with very different strategies and metrics.

That took time — a couple of years, really. And during that period, there were certainly people saying, “We’ve been in this space too long; we need to move to action.” That pressure is understandable. But if you don’t spend time building shared understanding, you can end up with a collaborative that looks aligned on paper but isn’t actually aligned in practice.

Hiers, Annie E. Casey Foundation: I think it also helps to have a broader definition of success. To me, the table being formed was a success. Having diverse philanthropic and public partners at the table was a success. Conducting the fund map and having honest conversations about what the data told us, and what it didn’t, was a success. Those things matter. And then, yes, the grants and the impact on young people are the “cherry on top,” but the process that led there matters too.

NationSwell: What felt important about building youth voice and participatory grantmaking into the Strategy Table’s design from the start?

Hiers, Annie E. Casey Foundation: Youth leadership is one of the pillars of Thrive by 25, and our Foundation has also been doing a lot of work around intergenerational engagement. It’s one thing to talk about youth voice or youth development. It’s another to think seriously about how adults and young people actually sit together, share decision-making, and govern together.

That was part of what made this model so intriguing to us. I’ll be honest — I didn’t know exactly how it would play out. I had questions: How would the youth advisory group be structured? Who would support them? How would adults and young people sit alongside each other in a real decision-making process? But when you’re part of a collaborative, you also have to trust the design process and the partners at the table. This was a chance to see what meaningful youth leadership and intergenerational governance could actually look like in practice.

Warren, LANL Foundation: We were very intentional about making sure the young people involved actually reflected the populations the work is designed to serve. The original members of the Regional Youth Advisory Council represented Native youth and Opportunity Youth, among others. In fact, two of the most active members are young parents.

We also didn’t just bring in young people who had never been exposed to philanthropy or leadership spaces. We recruited young people who had already participated in youth development efforts and were ready for this to be the next step in their leadership. And the reason we were able to do this well is because we had already spent so much time developing shared guiding principles that became a touchstone for the table. They made it much easier to say: if we really believe these things, then youth leadership and participatory grantmaking aren’t optional — they’re part of the model.

NationSwell: What can other funders and regional leaders take away from this model?

Hiers, Annie E. Casey Foundation: Flexibility is one of the biggest takeaways. If you’re joining or building a collaborative, there may be places where you can loosen your grip on your own preferences in order to strengthen the broader effort, but that doesn’t mean losing your priorities, it means being willing to support something bigger than any one organization.

Also: time matters. If you want to build something durable, you have to resist the urge to rush to visible outputs before the foundation is there. Build intentionally, document what matters, and be prepared to adapt as the work evolves. The goal is not speed for its own sake — it’s sustainability.

And finally, I advise folks to define success broadly. The process of building alignment, doing the analysis, surfacing the data, and creating a real table with diverse stakeholders is not just pre-work, it is part of the impact.

Warren, LANL Foundation: If I had to put it in bullet points, I’d say:

Be willing to learn together. We wouldn’t have this table, or this success, without the Casey Foundation, our other Strategy Table partners, and other contributors. In particular, if Casey had gotten a year in and said, “Actually, it’s been great, see you later,” I honestly don’t know where we’d be.
Stay the course. Philanthropy is often too quick to pivot just as things begin to work. When you stay the course, you begin to build capacity and move towards long-term impact.
Recognize that impact comes from infrastructure. You don’t win by undercutting the resources it takes to do something this complex. Funders have to invest in the infrastructure, too — staffing, evaluation, communications, facilitation, the support it takes to manage and train the Regional Youth Advisory Council. All of that is what makes the impact possible, alongside the dollars going into the fund itself.
Lend a hand: Don’t assume one backbone organization should do all the labor.
Show up, especially in person. National funders, in particular, need to remember that their presence matters. It matters when they come to the community, meet grantees, and participate via relationships, not just transactions. That can make all the difference.

The Northern New Mexico Pathways to Opportunity Strategy Table is made possible by a collaborative of 15 members: Anchorum Health Foundation, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions, The Cricket Island Foundation, LANL Foundation, Los Alamos National Laboratory Community Partnerships Office / Triad National Security, LLC, Las Vegas (New Mexico) Community Foundation, Marshall L. and Perrine D. McCune Charitable Foundation, New Mexico Foundation, Regional Youth Advisory Council, Santa Fe Community Foundation, Taos Community Foundation, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, Thornburg Foundation, United Way North Central New Mexico, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

The Placed-based Action Map

RESOURCE

Posted on May 19, 2026May 29, 2026

Access

Where is effective place-based impact actually happening, and who is involved? Until now, it’s been difficult to answer that with any clarity.

The Place-Based Impact Map allows users to explore initiatives across the U.S., making it easy to explore what’s happening in your region and others, and who to reach out to for insights. And the map offers place-base leaders an opportunity to promote their work to curious funders and regional supporters. A companion to the Place-based Impact Measurement Toolkit.

Share this report

Recommended Features

The Principled Approach: Place-based Measurement Toolkit

A toolkit to guide thoughtful, community-led, effective measurement of place-based impact.

Beyond the Map: Rethinking How We Invest in Rural Communities

Takeaways from NationSwell’s March 19 virtual Leader Roundtable, Beyond the Map: Rethinking How We Invest in Rural Philanthropy.

The Principled Approach: Place-based Measurement Toolkit

TOOLKIT

Posted on May 19, 2026July 1, 2026

Download

Measuring impact can be hard to do accurately and effectively. Place Based Impact Measurement in particular, because every region and neighborhood is different. That can lead to overlapping KPIs and confusion over how to chart progress, and scale good ideas.

So, NationSwell’s Place Based Collaborative have created a new resource to address this gap:‘The Principled Approach’ — A toolkit to guide thoughtful, community-led, effective
measurement of place-based impact.

Whether you are embarking on place based work, or deep into it, this toolkit illuminates the key principles that put communities at the heart of not just the programs being funded, but the way the success of those efforts is quantified. A perfect companion to NationSwell’s Place-based Action Map.

Share this report

Recommended Features

The Placed-based Action Map

The Impact Map allows users to discover and learn from place-based initiatives across the U.S.

Place-Based Impact: Building Beyond the Pilot

Takeaways from NationSwell’s November 13 Leader Roundtable on Place-Based Impact: Building Beyond the Pilot.

Leveraging AI & Technology to Connect More Communities to Quality Healthcare

Posted on May 6, 2026May 26, 2026 by Brianna Provenzano

Technology is reshaping healthcare access, but progress is uneven. AI, digital tools, and data platforms have the potential to extend care to underserved communities, address workforce shortages, and improve outcomes. At the same time, gaps in infrastructure, trust, and governance risk widening disparities rather than closing them.

On May 5, NationSwell convened a group of leaders from the healthcare, technology, philanthropy, and the social sectors to unpack how AI and technology can be used to connect more communities to quality care. Together, the group focused on practical strategies for deploying technology responsibly, building partnerships that center community needs, and ensuring that innovation strengthens equity, affordability, and trust in healthcare systems. Some of the most salient takeaways from the discussion appear below:

Key Takeaways:

Ensure that technology empowers community health workers as relationship builders. AI and tech are most valuable when they augment the work of community health workers rather than substitute it. The trusted, relational role that CHWs play in their communities is the irreplaceable foundation of effective care connection. All technology deployed should be designed to protect and extend that capacity.

Design AI tools with CHWs and communities. The most responsible AI adoption in healthcare requires community health workers and the communities they serve to be active participants in tool design. Without mechanisms for feedback, bias mitigation, and accountability, technology risks widening the very health inequities it aims to address.

Prioritize data security and trust as foundational. Organizations working at the intersection of technology and community health must treat data stewardship with the same rigor as the healthcare system itself. Achieving certifications, committing to governance structures, and designing platforms that bring AI into the human loop are essential to maintaining the trust that makes community engagement possible.

Address the full picture of need, not just point-of-care data. Existing data systems often capture only what brings someone into the healthcare system, missing the co-occurring social determinants of health that shape outcomes. Continuous, relationship-based data collection with the support of technology can surface a more complete and actionable picture that enables both better resource connection and effective advocacy.

Invest in AI literacy and critical capacity for the CHW workforce. Community health workers need both the practical skills to use AI tools effectively and the critical frameworks to evaluate how those tools are designed and deployed. Approaches that build competency while also developing CHW voice in governance and advocacy are critical to ensuring that the workforce shaping communities is not left behind as technology advances.

Build toward interoperability and sustainable models. For community-based organizations to achieve lasting impact through technology, they must be able to integrate securely with healthcare payer systems. Achieving interoperability opens pathways to revenue that sustains mission-driven work in ways that philanthropic funding alone cannot.

Shift the question from “can we?” to “should we?” Across sectors, the most important orientation toward AI adoption is not simply capability, but intentionality. Keeping the focus on how technology can better serve CHWs, and continuously asking whether each application advances their interventions, is the compass that keeps this work on the right path.

Five Minutes with… Walton Family Foundation’s Tina Fletcher

Posted on April 28, 2026May 20, 2026 by Brianna Provenzano

The Arkansas-Mississippi Delta is a case study in what community-rooted investment can make possible. Too often framed through deficit and disinvestment, the Delta is also a place of deep resilience, cultural richness, and local leadership; a region where people have been building and adapting solutions for generations, often without the level of sustained support they deserve.

Tina Fletcher, who helps lead the Walton Family Foundation’s work in the Delta, is focused on helping shift that narrative by pairing long-term commitment with a community-centered approach to partnership. Across education, economic mobility, and leadership development, Fletcher’s work centers on strengthening what’s already working in the region and connecting the people and institutions best positioned to carry that momentum forward.

For this installment of Five Minutes With…, NationSwell spoke with Tina about what makes the Delta such a distinctive and inspiring place to work and why the greatest opportunity may be less about reinventing the Delta than investing in the talent and leadership that’s already there.

Here’s what she had to say:

NationSwell: For those less familiar, how would you describe the Delta — and what makes this region both unique and inspiring to you?

Tina Fletcher, Senior Program Officer, Walton Family Foundation: When it comes to the Delta, what stands out to me is just how much determination and resilience already exists. The Delta is a region rich in culture, community, and getting things done, with deep relationships and a strong sense of place that you can feel immediately. What makes it especially inspiring is that, despite being under-funded, the Delta has never lacked the capability to thrive. The Delta is full of people who have been leading and building for generations, people who aren’t waiting for solutions; they’re generating them in real time and in and meaningful ways. What’s needed now is investment that recognizes and accelerates that momentum because when you shift from “What’s wrong?” to “What’s working?”, the Delta looks entirely different.

NationSwell: How would you describe the Walton Family Foundation’s strategy on building trust and momentum in the Delta region over time?

Fletcher, WFF: At the Walton Family Foundation, our Delta Region strategy is simple, but not easy: show up, listen, be a good partner, and stay committed. Building trust in the Delta means investing in relationships just as much as we invest in results. In my role, I focus on strengthening what’s already working across education, economic mobility, and leadership, while finding creative ways to connect the individuals driving progress. I also bring a learning mindset to every table and conversation I join, using data to inform the work without losing sight of community voice. That combination-commitment, consistency, humility, and rigor—is what turns trust into real momentum.

NationSwell: Can you share a moment or partnership in the Delta that changed how you think about community-centered philanthropy?

Fletcher, WFF: The biggest shift for me has been seeing what happens when communities aren’t just included—they’re in the lead. Across the Delta, I’ve seen young people, educators, and local leaders design solutions that are more relevant, effective, and sustainable than anything we could prescribe from the outside. I saw this firsthand in Jonestown, Mississippi, during a conversation with Mayor Columbus Russell, Jr., the youngest mayor in the state, and again in Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, led by Mayor Joseph Whitfield. Both are young, energetic leaders working in step with residents, partners, and funders to move their communities forward. Those moments reinforced that proximity matters. Community-centered philanthropy isn’t just about engagement, it’s about shared ownership. When communities lead together, the results aren’t just impactful, they’re sustainable. And that’s when the work doesn’t just land, it takes root.

NationSwell: For funders looking to invest in the Delta, what guidance would you offer to ensure their approach is both effective and community-centered? What are some common mistakes you’d recommend they avoid?

Fletcher, WFF: First, start by listening and plan to stay longer than you initially imagined. The Delta doesn’t need more one-off investments; it needs partners willing to build over time. Fund what’s already working, invest in capacity, and trust local leaders to guide the way. A common mistake is chasing quick wins without understanding the broader system or underestimating how long trust takes to build. In the Delta, philanthropy must focus on building trust and staying committed, because that’s what ultimately drives results. Opportunities for impact are real and plentiful, but they require patience, partnership, and a deep belief in the people closest to the work.

NationSwell: As a leader, how has working in the Delta shaped your personal leadership style, or clarified what kind of leadership this work requires?

Fletcher, WFF: This work has taught me that leadership isn’t about having all the answers, it’s about creating the conditions for the right answers to emerge. In the Delta, that means listening deeply, sharing power, and being intentional about whose voices shape your decision-making around the work. It’s also reinforced the importance of staying grounded in both data and humanity, balancing the desire for accountability and rigor with the realistic challenges Delta communities face. As a result, I am much more focused on connecting dots amongst stakeholders, leverage my organizations connections to benefit the communities we serve, funding what has proven to work, and making space for others to learn and lead. The kind of leadership this work requires is steady, collaborative, and deeply rooted in trust.

NationSwell: What gives you the most optimism about the future of the Delta, and where do you see the greatest opportunities for impact in the years ahead?

Fletcher, WFF: What gives me optimism is the talent and leadership already present, especially young leaders who are stepping up to shape what comes next, alongside seasoned leaders supporting them along the way. There’s a growing ecosystem of organizations doing powerful work, and the opportunity now is to connect and scale those efforts. I see real potential in more intentionally linking education to economic mobility, creating clear, local pathways from learning to earning and investing. The Delta doesn’t need to be reinvented; it needs to be invested in. And for funders willing to lean in, this is a moment with real momentum.

NationSwell op-ed: Predicting the Future of Work

Posted on April 28, 2026May 28, 2026Jacob Lepiarz and Allie Mahler

We are currently living through one of the most profound shifts in the history of work. As AI, automation, and other emerging technologies redefine jobs, skills, and career pathways wholesale, leaders across sectors are being called to meet these industry-wide undulations head-on and help shape what comes next.

That imperative is at the heart of NationSwell’s new Workforce Innovation Collaborative — a cross-sector effort designed to help leaders explore emerging workforce trends and co-design scalable solutions for a more future-ready and inclusive economy. Through shared learning, strategic dialogue, and collective action, the Collaborative aims to create the kind of trusted space leaders need to navigate uncertainty and create a future-ready workforce where every person has the skills, opportunities, and support to succeed.

To mark the launch of that work, NationSwell invited leaders from the Collaborative to respond to a shared prompt:

Which emerging signals are giving you the most optimism about the future of work right now? And where do you currently see the greatest opportunity to build a system that is more responsive to where work is headed next?

Although their responses reflect different vantage points, they converge around the common belief that the future of work will be shaped by how well leaders connect learning to real opportunity, pair innovation with inclusion, and design workforce systems that can adapt as quickly as the world around them changes.

Prompt: Which emerging signals are giving you the most optimism about the future of work right now? Where do you currently see the greatest opportunity to build a workforce system that is more responsive to where work is headed next?

“We are at an inflection point in the future of work, and I believe the greatest source of optimism and opportunity is in mastering the art and science of building truly responsive workforce systems.

The science is the strategic leveraging of predictive labor market intelligence. By shifting away from reactive measures, we can now leverage data and insights to anticipate skill demands driven by global trends. Our data provides the scientific rigor needed to pinpoint future talent shortages, standardize risk indicators, and replace guesswork with reliable, real-time insights, allowing us to accelerate our workforce investments across the globe.

However, the true opportunity — the art — lies in translating those insights and data into hyper-local execution that allows us to co-create with the communities we work in. This essential human-centered approach ensures our work doesn’t just fill a business gap, but actively builds equitable, transparent systems that deliver a net-positive impact in local communities. We achieve this by cultivating bespoke, long-term partnerships with community leaders, educational institutions, and nonprofits.

Linking our global data-driven approach to local trust and co-creation is the systemic approach necessary to ensure our interventions foster equity and accessibility, building the sustainable, resilient workforce the future demands.”

— Courtney Williams, Global Workforce Development & Labor Market Intelligence, Google

“Across the Design and Make industries, I’m seeing promising workforce solutions that connect access, applied skills, and real hiring pathways. It’s no longer enough to train people on tools in isolation — what’s emerging now are integrated models that build capability in real workflows, validate those skills through industry recognized credentials, and link learners directly to opportunity. That’s how we ensure both students and experienced professionals can adapt and thrive as technology reshapes the future of work.”

— Kate Buchanan, Workforce Innovation & Investment Lead, Autodesk Foundation

“Right now, what gives me the most optimism about the future of work is the growing consensus that, as AI reshapes roles, human-centric skills — critical thinking, communication, and creativity — matter more, not less. It’s really important that optimism is matched with action in this moment, and through Barclays LifeSkills, our programs are helping people to develop these skills in order to differentiate themselves for current and future roles.

As we look at the workforce development sector, the greatest opportunity is to build a system that keeps pace with change by connecting learning to work earlier and more often, and by updating training as employer needs evolve faster. That means scaling employer-aligned earn-and-learn pathways — apprenticeships, fellowships, internships and project-based work — so learners graduate with an increased level of experience. It also means widening access to growth sectors, including AI-enabled roles and the skilled trades, where we continue to see strong demand. Through Barclays LifeSkills, we’re working across our partnerships to turn demand into clear routes to good jobs.”

— Deborah Goldfarb, Global Head of Citizenship, Barclays

“What gives me optimism is how clearly manufacturing and industrial skills are being redefined as both high-tech and people-driven. Advances in automation, digital tools and connected systems are changing work on the factory floor and at job sites. Realizing the full value of those advances depends on sustained investment in our people through skills-building, learning and clear career pathways. I’m also encouraged by how employers are engaging more intentionally with collaborators beyond their organizations. We’re witnessing stronger coordination among educators, workforce systems and local communities to ensure training keeps pace with technological advancement. This alignment — of innovation, skills and purpose — is a compelling signal that manufacturing can provide meaningful, fulfilling careers in a dynamic industry.

One of the greatest opportunities lies in modernizing workforce systems to evolve alongside the technologies shaping manufacturing. High schools, community colleges and regional training providers are critical anchors in this system, and we need to align more closely and dynamically with them, given that roles and skill requirements are changing faster than traditional training cycles can keep pace.

That means co‑designing training pathways that blend hands‑on experience with digital and technology‑enabled learning. It also means creating opportunities for continuous upskilling throughout a career. When workforce systems are built to adapt — rather than react — they not only prepare people for today’s manufacturing roles, but also for the future. They also help ensure the industry can remain innovative, competitive, and resilient over the long term.”

— Asha Varghese, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, Caterpillar Inc. and President of the Caterpillar Foundation

“We are seeing a historic surge in systems readiness work at the local, state, and national levels. Stakeholders in the workforce ecosystem sometimes work in silos, but I’m seeing sustained interest in collaboration, especially across sectors. We are collectively examining what worked in the past to determine what must evolve for the future.

There’s also growing consensus that career journeys of the future will be less linear. We know upskilling isn’t one-dimensional. It might mean deepening expertise to grow within an existing career trajectory, diversifying skills to transition into an adjacent role, or pivoting into an entirely new profession. A big opportunity right now is to reimagine our support systems to recognize this full spectrum of movement, ensuring that our infrastructure is as flexible as the workers it serves.”

— Diana Fischer, Senior Director, Workday Foundation

“One of the greatest opportunities is in building accelerated, more flexible pathways into the skilled trades that are tightly connected with employer needs. A more responsive workforce system should focus on expanding apprenticeships, investing in short-term training, and exposing students earlier to these fulfilling and well-paying careers.”

— Betsy Conway, Executive Director, Lowe’s Foundation

Building a More Inclusive and Empowering Narrative Around Wealth

Posted on April 24, 2026May 26, 2026 by Brianna Provenzano

Across the impact field, efforts to advance economic mobility and inclusive growth are encountering friction with the language we use. Wealth is often understood narrowly as accumulation or privilege rather than as a practical foundation for stability, choice, and long-term opportunity. When the narrative is muddled or loaded, it becomes harder to build durable public support for policies and programs that expand economic power.

On April 23, NationSwell invited leaders from the philanthropy, business, and social sectors to a conversation on how the impact field can develop a clearer, more inclusive narrative and vocabulary around wealth. Together, participants discussed how words like ownership, assets, security, and opportunity are landing today, where they fall short, and how reframing can better support economic mobility and inclusive growth initiatives. Some of the most salient takeaways from the conversation appear below:

Key takeaways:

Shift narratives from individual financial behavior to structural drivers of wealth. While personal choices play a role, wealth outcomes are often shaped by structural factors, such as employer retirement benefits, housing markets, and federal policies, rather than individual choices. Personal stories often highlight how factors like low wages, lack of access to capital, student debt, and historical inequities (e.g., redlining, exclusion) shape financial outcomes over generations. It is important to move away from framing wealth as purely a result of personal decision-making and toward acknowledging systemic influences.

Use more relatable language to describe wealth and financial well-being. The term “wealth” can feel abstract or associated with extreme affluence, making it hard for many people, especially young people, to relate to. Reframing wealth in terms of savings, financial stability, or the ability to handle everyday expenses makes the concept more accessible. For example, wealth in practical terms can be described as having savings that provide a buffer against unexpected events and enable future investments like education or housing. This framing reflects how many individuals and young people actually experience financial well-being.

Normalize investing as accessible to all income levels. Individuals and communities often have the capability to build wealth but lack access to financial, social, and knowledge capital. Research shared in the discussion showed that many individuals, including those with retirement accounts, do not see themselves as “investors” and instead associate investing with a narrow demographic. Shifting this perception, so that people view themselves as investors regardless of income, is critical to changing long-term financial behavior.

Move beyond financial literacy toward asset-building opportunities. Programs focused only on budgeting or financial literacy don’t meet the needs of all populations. More effective approaches include pairing guidance with tangible opportunities – such as matched savings programs, early investment accounts, homeownership support, and youth “earn and learn” initiatives – that enable actual wealth accumulation. Additionally, social capital, especially through mentorship, is a key mechanism for helping individuals navigate systems like financial aid, education, and homeownership. Building and scaling these relationships can support broader access to economic mobility.

Bridge place-based and national approaches to wealth-building strategies. It is important to combine locally tailored strategies – grounded in community history and context – with broader national resources and infrastructure. This balance can help scale solutions while maintaining relevance to specific communities.

Improve how insights and solutions are shared across philanthropy. Philanthropy does not always effectively share knowledge about what works. Better distribution of actionable insights, especially in accessible formats, is a major opportunity for increasing impact in the community wealth-building field.

When and How AI Can Improve Grantmaking

Posted on April 22, 2026July 1, 2026 by Brianna Provenzano

AI is moving fast, but grantmakers are rightly cautious. Funders are under pressure to move money more efficiently, learn faster, and support grantees better, all without adding risk, burden, or opacity to an already complex system. The question is no longer whether AI will touch grantmaking, but where it can actually add value—and where it shouldn’t.

On April 16, NationSwell invited philanthropic and impact leaders to take part in a conversation on the practical use of AI in grantmaking. The conversation featured ideas about when AI can meaningfully improve decisions and workflows and how to adopt it in ways that strengthen, rather than undermine, equity, accountability, and relationships with grantees. Some of the most salient takeaways from the discussion appear below:

Key takeaways:

Assess where AI meaningfully adds value across the grantmaking process. Rather than applying AI indiscriminately, organizations should take a step back and evaluate workflows end-to-end to determine where these tools can be most effective. A thoughtful, system-level approach can promote AI application in ways that enhance, rather than complicate, existing processes.

Use AI to streamline manual and error-prone grantmaking workflows. Financial due diligence can be a highly manual, time-intensive, and error-prone process, often involving spreadsheet-based analysis or visual review of financial statements. AI tools like Grant Guardian were developed to improve accuracy and efficiency in this specific workflow.

Reinvest time savings from AI into deeper grantee engagement. Small grantmaking teams often face hundreds of applications, creating capacity constraints. AI can be used to support summarization, rubric-based pre-review, and prioritization to help manage this volume. The reduction in processing time, from hours to minutes, can allow staff to spend more time having meaningful conversations with grantees and improving the quality of their work.

Recognize and normalize AI use among applicants and grantees. There is growing recognition that applicants and grantees are using AI to improve efficiency, particularly in drafting and responding to applications. When used thoughtfully, this can help reduce administrative burden, though differentiation still relies on the substance of proposals and outcomes.

Consider supporting grantees’ capacity to adopt AI tools and infrastructure. As AI becomes more embedded in workflows, there is an opportunity for funders to think about how grantees can access and use these tools effectively. Supporting this capacity, particularly through flexible, operational funding, can help organizations integrate AI in ways that enhance their work, rather than treating it as a one-off programmatic expense.

Develop and deploy AI systems with responsible AI principles. Specific principles should guide all AI adoption work in grantmaking, including safety and transparency, community-centered design, bias mitigation, human-in-the-loop validation, enterprise-grade security, and sustainability considerations. Start AI adoption through structured experimentation with clear guardrails, and consider empowering early adopters to test tools within defined parameters (e.g., “stoplight” approaches to acceptable use). These frameworks can also support clearer communication and transparency about how AI is being used.

Consider AI disclosure as contextual and relational: Whether and how to disclose AI use in grantmaking processes depends on organizational policies and levels of AI involvement. While practices may vary between organizations, especially as technology grows and with wider experimentation, keep a relational and trust-based mindset.

Maintain human oversight as a core requirement in AI-assisted workflows. AI is never a substitute for human judgment, and validation and verification by users must be built into the process. Being explicit about this, both internally and externally, can help reinforce trust, particularly in a field like philanthropy that is deeply relationship-driven and values human expertise.

Design for customization of AI tools to reflect different evaluation contexts. Grantmaking organizations assess financial health and programmatic fit differently, and AI tools can be configured with varying metrics, thresholds, and profiles to match those needs. This flexibility can also support more context-sensitive and equitable evaluation approaches; for example, assessing early-stage organizations differently than more established ones.

Predicting the Future of Work: Using Data to Build More Inclusive Workforce Systems

Posted on April 22, 2026May 26, 2026 by Brianna Provenzano

As AI and automation accelerate change across the labor market, predictive analytics offer powerful tools to anticipate which jobs, skills, and communities face the greatest risk – and where new opportunities are emerging.

On April 14, NationSwell convened a group of cross-sector leaders for a conversation on how data-driven insights can inform equitable training pathways, smarter investments, and workforce systems that are more responsive, inclusive, and resilient – ensuring workers are prepared for what’s next. Some of the most salient takeaways from the discussion appear below:

Key takeaways

Build workforce systems around capabilities, not credentials. A skills-first labor market only works if the underlying data infrastructure can recognize how people actually build skills through work, not just through degrees. When systems continue to privilege credential proxies over demonstrated capability, they miss large pools of qualified talent and reinforce inequities that workforce initiatives are meant to solve.

Pair predictive tools with better upstream data. Forecasting tools are only as strong as the signals they rely on. If workforce data continues to over-index on traditional credentials or lagging indicators, even sophisticated models will reproduce old blind spots; the real opportunity is to feed these systems richer, skills-based, real-world signals that surface emerging pathways earlier.

Invest in verified outcomes data, not just self-reported program metrics. Too much workforce decision-making still depends on incomplete or anecdotal outcome data. Expanding access to administrative wage data and other verified sources can help providers understand which programs are actually driving employment and earnings gains, and make more strategic decisions about what to scale, refine, or retire.

Use labor market data to map mobility, not just demand. It is not enough to know which jobs are growing. More useful systems help workers and practitioners understand how people can move from one role to the next based on shared skills, adjacent occupations, and realistic transition pathways, especially in a labor market where workers will increasingly need to pivot across sectors over time.

Treat durable human skills as core infrastructure. As AI and automation continue to reshape tasks, foundational capabilities like problem-solving, judgment, adaptability, collaboration, and communication are becoming more valuable. Technical requirements will keep evolving, but these underlying skills are what allow workers to remain resilient and mobile across changing tools, roles, and industries.

Redesign learning environments for experiential learning, not just memorization. Traditional teaching methodologies are increasingly challenged in a labor market where workers are expected to interpret information, make decisions, and adapt in real time. Experiential learning where people must apply knowledge, navigate ambiguity, and solve real problems better prepares learners for a world in which execution is increasingly automated and judgment is the differentiator.

Center the learner’s lived experience when designing workforce pathways. Workforce systems often default to employer demand signals and institutional priorities, but durable pathways require equal attention to how individuals actually make decisions. People choose careers based on identity, values, belonging, perceived risk, and developmental stage so the strongest systems help learners navigate options rather than simply presenting them.

Avoid replacing one rigid pathway with another. As enthusiasm grows around alternatives to four-year degrees, there is a risk of steering lower-income learners into workforce tracks while more privileged peers retain access to broader optionality. The goal is not to substitute “college for some, training for others,” but to build multiple high-quality pathways that preserve dignity, mobility, and long-term choice across backgrounds.Reframe middle-skill and nontraditional career paths as real engines of mobility. Many high-demand roles outside the traditional college track now offer strong wages, lower debt burden, and meaningful advancement potential, yet outdated perceptions still diminish their value. Shifting both rhetoric and practice to put career and college readiness on more equal footing is essential if workforce systems are going to reflect today’s economic realities.