From Crisis to Prevention: Working Together To Build Safer Communities for All

Speaker A: We created this volume on identity based mass violence in urban contexts. Just because we must learn from those who speak truth to power, who trust their own power to reimagine a world that is more empathetic, more just and more peaceful.

Speaker B: Welcome to the Just because podcast. In a space in which the scarcity mindset has been normal for far too long, discover how we're helping nonprofits finally take back their power, find your true purpose, and even use mindfulness to manifest their dream solutions into reality. I'm your host, Katherine Lacefield, a lifetime nonprofit professional. Together we'll master the tools needed to overcome limitations, rise in times of adversity, and understand the interconnectedness of all causes towards a more conscious philanthropy. Just because it's the right thing to do. Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of the Just because podcast. With these two episodes right now are kind of a transition towards season two, which will be coming short shortly, which is really going to be around, uh, fundraising coaching calls with non profits. But with everything going on in the world right now, there was these two episodes that I just had to launch before we get into those fundraising coaching calls that are really around questions of peace and security, which are really top of mind at the time of this recording. We're in February 2026, so the world is a bit of a tough cookie right now. Without getting too much into the politics of the situation, it's still kind of hard not to feel the global unrest, uh, be it in the States, in Mexico and Canada, around the world, things are happening. And this episode couldn't be more timely as we dive into the topic of peace and security and the connections with violence and what we can do about it from different institutions and different perspectives. So I have two amazing guests today that I very much looking Forward to talking. 1 Jaila. Jaila.

Speaker C: Jaila.

Speaker B: JailA. 1, Jaela Sutherland of the Stanley center for Peace and Security. And we have Rachel Locke, co founder and principal of Peace in Our Cities, to talk about these important topics. So both of you, welcome to the show. So glad to have you, first time doing a three part interview.

Speaker C: Thank you so much for having us.

Speaker A: Thank you for having us.

Speaker B: All right, so before we get into the meat of the matter, let's start by talking about the two organizations that you're working with and how you work together. So, so maybe we can talk about starting with the Stanley center for Peace and Security, um, where we what is it exactly that you do and how does your organization work? And then we can talk about what's the connection with Rachel's work.

Speaker C: Sure. Um, so, yeah, I work for the Stanley center for Peace and Security. We are a, ah, private, um, sorry. We are a private operating foundation, nonprofit that uh, is based actually in Muscatine, Iowa, in the middle of the United States. We are focused on major issues of peace and security. And my area of emphasis is mass violence and atrocities and what we can do to prevent them, particularly at the structural level. Um, the organization is really focused on collective action and improving global governance. And that is how I initially met Rachel in our work, to think about ways to make peace more real, more observable, more experienced. Um, and we've been collaborating together for many years at this point. I don't know how, how many exactly. Um, but we, we get to work together in a lot of different ways. And this book, Identity Based Mass Violence in Urban Contexts Uncovered, is one of the ways our collaboration, um, has come together. Um, it's an incredible piece of work that took many, many years to pull together. Um, and we were co editors on the book and our institutions partnered to bring it to life. So that is a little bit about how Rachel and I work together specifically as it relates to this book. But we are also, um, partners and co facilitators of the Peace in Our Cities network. And so without saying more about that right now, because I'm sure we will talk more about it, um, down, you know, in this conversation, I'll just let Rachel, um, go from there. There's lots.

Speaker B: Before you do that, I just had to say this piece of work. I couldn't help but like, smile a bit of like the work on piece is a nice piece of work.

Speaker C: Yeah. Oh, there you go.

Speaker B: I couldn't help myself.

Speaker C: Unintended, but, you know, we could use it.

Speaker B: All right, so Rachel, uh, let's hear more about the work that you're doing with, uh, Peace in Our Cities and then we can dive into the book and how this whole. What is the book about and what this collaboration, uh, dives into.

Speaker A: Yeah, great. Thank you. So Peace in Our Cities is a network, uh, that I co founded in September of 2019, was when we started with this, um, idea and intention that if we weren't serious about significantly reducing violence in urban centers around the world, then we were going to fail in the ambition that had been set, the global ambition that had been set by the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, which includes this big target to significantly reduce all forms of violence everywhere. Um, and there just was not a lot of emphasis on violence in the urban space. And the urban space is where the majority of people live. Um, and increasingly that is true and will continue to be true. That's the trend. So we started Peace in our Cities, um, to bring more attention both to the scope and scale of violence in cities today, but also really to bring attention to the vast amount of resources, knowledge, tools and capacity to reduce violence in our cities today. So we're going to talk about this later, but people think everything is bad, um, and we don't think about or recognize the fact that in the US in the past couple years cities have reduced their violence levels, their homicide, their lethal violence levels to rates sometimes never seen in the um, recent history.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: Or in decades, huge reductions, um, which equals people alive today that wouldn't be alive today, communities that are healing that wouldn't be healing. So anyway, we started Peace in Our Cities to bring attention to that. We are a network that works with roughly 30 cities around the world as well as 50 plus organizations to support justice centered rights based on evidence, informed processes and practices to reduce and prevent all forms of serious violence, uh, in the urban space. We came to this volume uh, in a variety of different ways that I'm sure we'll get into. Um, but one thing that I think is really important, um, for myself and for Jai, for the Stanley center for Peace in Our Cities is, is to recognize that violence um, manifests in a lot of different ways and we need to understand violence, experience violence, talk about violence in a lot of different ways and not reduce it to just thinking about uh, homicide type violence or war type violence or political violence or extremism type violence that it manifests in a variety of different ways. We need to talk about and understand it in a variety of different ways and we need to understand the way that different forms of violence are connected to one another. Um, so we'll get into more of that. But that was one of the really important and exciting aspects of this book project.

Speaker B: So many follow up questions, but I'll stick with two. One, so you mentioned how the focus had really not been a lot on urban centers and on cities, but where was the focus this on? If it wasn't like what were they focusing on violence if it wasn't in cities? I would assume that that is where the majority of violence stems from. Like I traveled a lot through Central America and like I remember when I was passing through Honduras, they were like, just don't go anywhere near Tegucigalpa, don't go towards the city because that's where, that's where the biggest centers of violence are. But when you go into the country like I spent lots of time in El Salvador, this was 10 years ago before what's happening now. And things have quieted down. But outside of the cities people are living relatively peaceful lives. I'm curious, what was the focus on violence if it wasn't in urban centers?

Speaker A: Yeah. So it's a great follow up. And it also goes to the point about how different forms of violence are connected. The Sustainable Development Goals were articulated by the international community through the UN system, um, uh, at the General assembly. The multilateral system tends to focus on violence that is uh, has the potential to be state destructive, so it threatens the existence of the state, um, and, or is interstate. Right. So war type violence or war type conflict. And so a lot of the emphasis that comes from the multilateral system is placed on that type of violence. It's placed on war, it's placed on violent extremism, particularly extremism that um, in particular powerful states, fear is a threat to them. Um, and violence that is considered more internal, whether that's uh, high levels of gender based violence or interpersonal violence, um, tends to be treated more as a. Again I'm using hand quotes here as a criminal justice issue. Right. So what you do for a criminal justice issue is you invest in police, if you invest in courts and justice systems. That's the assumption. That's the hypothesis however where you have high levels of interpersonal violence that are also connected to historical um, social dynamics, political dynamics, economic dynamics. For example in El Salvador, a long civil war, same in Guatemala or in many countries. I would include my own in this. The US levels of real deep um, identity based inequality, injustice, institutions that have been founded on the basis of inequality and injustice. What you do when you just think about it as a criminal justice problem, quote unquote, is you don't acknowledge and recognize those kind of historical antecedents or the seeds if you will, that mean that the way that criminal justice um, solutions are pursued are actually harm reinforcing, not necessarily just addressing a simple violence problem, but they continue to reinforce deep deep inequality within communities that contributes to long cycles of violence. So that's where the fact that these different forms of violence are connected matters and that the international community doesn't really think about that and that we often as violence prevention practitioners don't always think about that is really problematic. And it's one of the issues that this book brings to the forest.

Speaker B: And so I'd love um, Dai, maybe you can pop in of what is the role of the Stanley center for peace and security in all of this. What is your role? Because I'm hearing that this is a global movement. Is Stanley center for Peace and Security also working on a national level? On a global level. What's your organization's part to play in this particular conversation? You're on m. Mute.

Speaker A: Sorry.

Speaker C: So that's exactly what I was thinking about. And it's exactly why this partnership with Rachel and the way that Rachel sees the world from her background and area of expertise, it has been such a different and unique framing for me because I am coming from much more the multilateral, the mass atrocity prevention space. The Stanley center has historically, not so much now, but previously really worked on strengthening the. The norm and the commitment to the responsibility to protect, which again is, um, you know, it's a. It's a commitment that was made at the global level by nation states about the role of states to both prevent mass atrocities within their own borders and to engage in collective action to prevent it, um, outside of their own borders. And when we were talking about, um, what does it mean to prevent mass violence or what does it mean to prevent mass atrocities? There's. There's a spectrum, of course, of ways that you can engage. Um, you can engage before there's risk, you can engage at the time that the risk is making itself known, and there's when the violence is happening. So, you know, there's this whole. There's this whole spectrum. And we at the Stanley center have tended to focus really upstream, really early on at the structural. In the structural space. Um, but when it comes to wondering, well, what. What is. What does structural prevention of mass atrocities actually look like? Well, to Rachel's point earlier, cities are actually doing incredible work to affect and to change the structural conditions that make peace either possible or unlikely. And so that's where I think this work has been so groundbreaking and so interesting. Because really, when you think about preventing structural violence, whether it's mass atrocities or it's chronic violence within communities, a lot of the solutions are quite similar and the aim of violence prevention is the same. So it's not that all of the solutions are going to look the same in every community, because every community is different, but certainly there is space to be learning and engaging with one another, because ultimately we're trying to come together to make the world a safer place for as many people as possible. And I think to the point that Rachel was making earlier, if we're wanting to reduce violence globally, if the multilateral organizations that are responsible for coming to these commitments and getting Everyone on board to make these commitments. If we're leaving the urban violence out of the picture, then we're leaving out the majority of violence that's happening in the world. So it's also strategic that we have to engage with one another to both understand solutions, but also to make that important difference which is saving the lives, helping communities heal to the points that Rachel was making before. So um, yeah, that's kind of how we came into the conversation. And um, and also just cities in particular, um, historically have not necessarily been part of that multilateral, multilateral level conversation around violence prevention. In the same way that cities have been part of other global issue,

Speaker A: other

Speaker C: conversations that are related to global issues such as climate change, such as migration. Cities are actually at the multilateral table because cities are the ones who are most effective. Mhm.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker C: Um, and so there's also this other component of where is the space for cities in this global dialogue. And that's really where peace in our cities is. Um, is doing some work too to both engage locally but also advocate and amplify solutions that are working, um, good practices best, you know, guiding principles at the multilateral and global level as well.

Speaker B: So if I can unpack this because I feel like this is, this is, this is a heavy topic and it's a complex one. So if I can, if I'm understanding correctly, um, there is the macro, international level work that is doing a lot of what we see on the news as these major conflicts like wars inter, like what's happening right now in Mexico that is like, it's big. It's things that are happening on the national level or on the global level. But there's also more of the local city level violence that is happening that is probably affecting much more people in the sense of on a daily basis we're seeing a lot more people active in the thing. So there's like the macro and the micro perspective, but they also interconnect. Exactly. In the example you're using around refugees around global crisis and conflict. That also puts pressure on city centers on the micro level. So I kind of see it as. Yes, there's solutions that work on the macro, don't necessarily work on the micro. And not all of the same small city solutions are the same depending on cultural, uh, depending on so many like the historical. What are the roots of the violence? I kind of see it as like when we're trying to, I work a lot in the environmental space around with have an organization working on pesticides when they throw the same pesticides onto the same problem, it ends up causing much more problems and ends up creating these super weeds and creating these super conflicts and it actually ingrains the problem much deeper. And so I kind of, to make a little uh, an eco comparison. I kind of see it as that sometimes when we're trying to use the same solution that might have worked in one place, in another, climate can be completely different. Um, so am I kind of summarizing that it very succinctly and you know, not necessarily going into the details, but is that kind of how I see both of your works, Connecting, connecting the dots between the two?

Speaker C: Yeah, I think so. I'll just say quickly to another, another piece of this that I think we have stated. But, but specifically, you know, in terms of this macro micro, um, kind of framing, at the macro level, everything looks horrible, everything looks desperate and there uh, is so much suffering and no one wants to undermine or say anything that doesn't reflect that reality. And also the conversation about violence prevention is not entirely one of despair. And that's uh, to the point Rachel was making earlier. There are a lot of people who are A living in peace all over the world, so we need to remember that peace does exist. And B, there are cities in particular and leaders at the local level who are doing work that is making a meaningful difference. And so it also interjects um, hope, possibility, opportunity in a space where it's very easy to become numb or you know, to just feel in total despair. Because that macro level picture is, is very, very grim, negative, it's dark. Um, and so I think it's important, it's also, it's important too as a practitioner to, to say this isn't all bad news and there are spaces for, for hope and really good practices. So that's the only other thing I wanted to add. But Rachel, I think you were coming into.

Speaker A: Yeah, if it's okay just picking off of where both of you went with that. Catherine. I think actually the environmental point is really, it's a, it's a really good analogy. Right. Like I lived in northern Uganda for a few years in um, a conflict zone. And we were really cut off in many ways from um, kind of like majority trade routes, safe travel routes and all that. And yet the farmers who were trying to produce um, there were still impacted by sort of global um, dynamics in the agricultural field. Whether that's about pesticides or fertilizer or markets and how global markets impacted national markets, impacted local markets. And so you had to sort of pay attention to all these things that's very true for farmers everywhere now.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: You have to. We're such an interconnected world, you have to pay attention. The same is true for violence. So what's happening in Mexico right now is not just with the killing of the uh, head of the cartel, the new generation Jalisco, new generation cartel is that it's not just a local thing. Right. It is both connected to the pressure that the US has put on Mexico to be more aggressive about its tactics. It is also in a country where the vast majority of weapons, firearms that are used by cartels and others come from the US Come from a marketplace for weapons that refuses to regulate those weapons both internally and trade of those weapons internationally and just the diffusion of weapons across our borders. So the impact of that is that you have more weapons on the streets in Mexico. That ratchets up the lethality of all sorts of different types of violence, which may be cartel related, might be interpersonal, might be within the home. Right. The diffuse, the mass increase of weapons makes conflict more lethal regardless of the type of conflict that it is. So um, yes, what's happening within cities or even rural areas is internal to those places and is also very much connected to global dynamics. I could literally give you like 15 different examples of this. But I think, um, because of that, when we are doing our work as peace in our cities, with cities, or when we're talking to global networks that are more focused on the multilateral system which right now is under a lot of threat. Right. Itself as a system, um, we are always thinking about how we're smart about the global dynamics and the very local dynamics in a way that really respects the similarities and the differences, um, and to the point that Jai was just making, which is so incredibly important, the fatalism, um, that so many people fall into in this field. The world's on fire, everything's bad. It's. Chaos is not a healthy thing. Right. It leads to a sense of um, disempowerment and a lack of agency. Because if things are that bad, you can't do anything. Right? Like we might as well all just uh, give up.

Speaker B: It's also like, it normalizes it, it makes it feel like this is just, it's normal. This is how the world has always been. It's ah, always in conflict, there's always war. We can't do anything against it.

Speaker A: And we know that's not true. Right? We know that in fact the Post World War II period, although there were lots of conflicts and lots of um, violence was incredibly peaceful when compared to the rest of human history. Right. So we know there's so much that can be done and it is incumbent upon all of us to keep kind of raising that voice, um, of progress and of peace and like don't, don't give up. Because giving up is, um, especially when you're in a position of privilege. Giving up means you're essentially sacrificing the well being and the lives of those who don't have that privilege. Um, and that is a responsibility that we all need to take on a little bit more.

Speaker B: And just to dive into that topic, I think it's really important. There's two things I want to say. Number one, around the negativity. I read this amazing book and it's is becoming more and more popular. It's ah, Humankind A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman. Uh, I read it and it was just like the positivity that I needed to continue feeling like there was a point of working in the nonprofit space. And it just gave me that hope of we are biologically. Uh, I definitely encourage everyone listening to read the book. He'll explain it so much better. But if I can take. The main idea is our, our brains are trained to focus on the negative from a defense mechanism perspective. But the media is also. It works based on what is shocking. So what are they going to be putting on the news and what are we seeing and what is capturing attention is all this negative negativity. But then if we look at like this, this is my thoughts, not from the book. What are the most watched videos on YouTube for the longest time was cat videos. People love watching positive things too. We just don't put that uh, forward as much because it doesn't create that sense of fear which also has so much other consequences of when people are in that mood. So like, I love following channels that are like positive news channels because we don't talk about all the amazing innovations that are happening in communities around the world. This is what I love about my podcast, is that I tend to work with people that are bringing about such these amazing positive changes for animals, for people, for the environment. We don't hear about those. We hear about the wars. We hear about the people, the violence, those six cases of crazy violence that are happening. But we don't see all the other ones that are like, wow, we've actually made this place safer. So it's not sexy to talk about. So I'm really glad you, you brought that up and I'm glad that there's organizations that are working on, on showcasing and also I'm assuming studying like what has been making those cities transform into peaceful cities. Is that also, I'm assuming part of this, this work is showing not just like what causes the problems, that also what made these cities work in a more peaceful way?

Speaker A: Jai, I don't know. So I would just say really intentionally. This book, Identity Based Mass Violence in Urban Contexts, um, was really thoughtful about that because what we wanted to do was have chapters that were authored by individuals who were kind of more wonky, whether they were academics or policymakers or kind of think tank folks who thought both about the problems and about the solutions. But we also really wanted readers of this volume to feel it so not just to think about it, to feel it. So in addition to those more wonky people, we also have individuals who've contributed chapters from a more personal lived experience perspective. So more storytelling again from a problem perspective, what challenges, um, what is the uh, emotion or the feeling or the harm that they have experienced, um, living through situations of mass violence but also from a solutions perspective or a ah, harm reducing perspective. Because sometimes the like problem solution gets a little binary, right? So tend to use slightly different language but from a harm reducing perspective, um, where you can then see the, the full humanity and you can see the hope. So the book is really intentionally uh, weaving together these different perspectives that engage the mind, that engage the heart, that engagement people talking about. Because the trick is balance, right? If all you're doing is watching cat videos, you're not aware, very happy,

Speaker B: very

Speaker A: happy and in a bubble

Speaker B: you're not

Speaker A: self, you're not aware of what's happening. And so then you can't fight for justice, right? Or you can't help to pursue uh, justice. But if all you're doing is watching the really horrible stuff, you're not um, refilling your reservoir if it as it were, right? You're not supporting yourself and your emotional well being. So there has to be a balance. And that was something that we as co editors were really intentional about um, putting into this book, right, that balanced perspective from a variety of different uh, avenues.

Speaker B: Well now I want to read the book um, because I think we all need especially these days, that's what we're feeling. The world is on fire, there's wars happening everywhere. No matter what we do, it seems like the people in power are doing whatever they want. But this is why I believe that a lot of the most interesting case studies are happening on the local level. Cities that are taking control because you can have much more Power. When you have a smaller population because you can actually go and talk to people, you can actually have that more interpersonal connection of dealing with situations more on the local level. Maybe not in huge cities, like, like New York, you know, like they're uh, la. Like that's huge. But on the, the more small borough level, I feel like a lot of changes can happen there and we can, we can see changes. Like I'm living in the most peaceful town right now in Hungary. Like people are like, oh, hungry. There's so much things happening like on the ground. When I look outside, like after 9pm super quiet, everything is super peaceful. Like this happens everywhere in the world that we're not seeing those peaceful communities that are, are working together, finding solutions. I have clients that work in Uganda and very rural parts of the country. And yet they're building things together to support the infrastructure of their, of their communities. They're building water systems, they're bringing education. All of these like amazing innovative solutions. We're not talking about that. Um, we're talking about the. All we see now on social media is all the, the violence happening in Mexico. But Mexico's a really big country. Like there's many parts that are super peaceful still and that are not dealing with these issues. So I thought that's a really interesting point to be made. Um, and I like that there is the like evidence base. Like what, like studies and the numbers and the rational arguments. But you know, human beings are not the most rational of species and so having those storytellings where we can also connect it to lived experience, to emotions, to storytelling, I think is really important. So I really love how you guys combine the two in this book. Um, so is that this is a combination of both of your work. Um, combined the network, but also um, the, the Stanley center coming together to write this book and now you're launching it as a collab.

Speaker C: Yeah. I wondered maybe if I could tell you a little bit about the process. And you don't have to include this, but I do think it's a really interesting. It's actually the process that, that, that we really sat at the helm of. We as in the co editors in particular. Um, we sat at the helm but, but this was a collective process too and we've actually gotten a lot of feedback that the process itself was incredibly innovative and meaningful. So maybe just like a reflection on that. Um, so in terms of, of even how so. So we were. And by we, I mean Rachel and her institution and myself and um, Kelsey Paul Shonz, who's Another editor on the book at our institution. We were, we were engaging around these topics for a while, and we knew there was something to explore in terms of these overlaps, in terms of engaging with this material differently. Um, and so rather than just, you know, the three of us saying, oh, well, this is really cool and interesting and there's something here, and we're going to write a book that. That was not, um, the process. We had the ideas. And then we actually convened over a couple of years a group of people we called our reference group, who are leaders across the world who are focused on different forms of violence, coming from different areas of expertise and also different, um, to Rachel's point, some are policymakers, some are think tankers, some are, um, practitioners of different sorts and really started to engage with these ideas, with them. And so actually through that process is how we arrived at. Let's, let's have this edited volume. Let's explore the problems, let's present the solutions that, that are meaningful, that we can understand, or the harm reduction approaches that we can understand. Um, that's how we even got to the point of saying, okay, an edited volume is, is what I think, oddly, it's been four years, but I think we would even say that this is maybe the first step in some ways of, of really building, um, building. Building space and awareness around these concepts. Um, so we got to the book, um, but then in terms of bringing, Bringing the book to life, we actually convened with the authors and contributors to the book three separate times over the course of their writing process. And, and, and I do not think I'm fairly convinced, and Rachel, you can say if you disagree, but I do not think we would have the book that we do were it not for those moments to build community in the spaces that we did, um, along the process of actually writing. And that's because not only did people get to know one another, um, they got to trust one another. People shared really vulnerable stories of their own experience. People shared how this was really challenging them intellectually to think about the material they'd been focused on for years from a different perspective. You know, somebody who focused on urban violence was like, I've never used identity in this work before. What, how, how do I do this? I'm not disagreeing, but this is challenging my entire approach to thinking about the way this work happens and, and more importantly, the way that we counteract the conditions, the structures, the power structures that reinforce or undermine, you know, certain people having access to peace versus those who don't. Um, so anyways, and there's much more that we could say about that. But I think the point is that this is really much more than a book. Um, we have actually built community around this. We've built a multi sectoral, multi practice, you know, space where conversations are able to occur in a different manner, um, around the, the actual lived reality of violence, um, in a way that, that didn't, that wasn't. We just wouldn't have gotten to this book had we not had those spaces. And so, um, and then I think the main point also is that we were editors, we were stewards of this work. We all wrote in different ways. Rachel also has a chapter in this book. But, um, this was very much, um. Uh, this is, this is a culmination, a collection of work by so many people. I think we have almost 30 people who've contributed to this. And so it's, it's not that it's just, you know, the four of us editors who, who can, can claim um, this work and so just really want to recognize that the people who participated in this process are outstanding, incredible humans. And to the point you were just making, um, while we talk about these really hard issues, um, I left this process with more hope than I've had in a really long time about what is possible and what we can actually do when we do see one another. And this is a point that Rachel raises a lot when talking about this like that in order to really be understood, people really have to be seen and they have to be. Their humanity needs to be present. And so, um, this book I think really honors that, um, which I feel really lucky to be part of and also proud of all of those who are willing to participate. So there's a little process conversation for you. But I do, it's, it's relevant to how we got here.

Speaker B: So, and, and it's. I think it's super relevant because we tend to focus a lot on outputs in the non, um, profit space and in, when we're talking, we're going to talk about fundings and it's just a lot of funders will, will be like, okay, well what have you, what has come out of it? What have you given birth to as a non profit? What is the uh, the outcomes? And sometimes the outcome is actually the process. Uh, I want to bring up two examples of one that uh, I, I do have a client that works with in the democracy space. And we recently hosted a screening, um, around bridging the divide around the huge polarization issues we are facing in both in Canada. But Also in the US and this is organization in the US Called Braver Angels, where their process. I see Rachel nodding like, yes, yes, yes. And I love what they do of bringing together opposite sides of the political spectrum and the whole idea of, like, I even love the process of to attend one of their workshops. You need to come with someone from the opposite political parties. If you're a Republican, you gotta come with a Democrat. And it's to force people to have these tough conversations. But, like, exactly what you said, Jai, of like, making people feel seen of m. We're not all psychopaths here. We tend to see these extremists everywhere. And it's like, that's not what the majority of people are like they're human beings that have values, that they have these beliefs for a reason. And once we understand what those underlying reasons are, then we can be like, oh, okay, now how can we find the solution that together? So I think that your explanation of the process is. Sometimes the process is more important than the book itself. Like, you don't know what, what seeds you've planted that are going to be, you know, resistant to all those pesticides, um, that are going to be able to continue growing and that we're going to be able to actually grow something from it. So that was one point. And number two, the whole point of this podcast that I started doing with season one is around the collaboration and interconnection of causes. We talked about climate change. The impact that that's going to be having on violence, resources that impacts that is not a political thing. Well, it actually. Everything is political at the end of the day. But there are issues that we haven't necessarily made those connections before. Like you mentioned, the dynamics that go on beyond, uh, what most people consider thinking about different perspectives. It gives us a much more holistic perspective about an issue so we understand, um, how different actors have a role to play. And I really believe that if nonprofits start collaborating more and working together to solve issues, we'll have much more efficient solutions. And I'll make one more point before I let you talk more about, like, we can talk about the funding issue and then how that comes into play as well. I just finished writing an article around the intersections of social crises and how I do a lot of work in the environmental animal space. And when we think about, oh, my God, animal shelters are being filled with animals. And then on the other hand, we have domestic violence, we have, um, our intimate partner violence. We have, uh, the housing crisis, we have food security crisis. Both of these are actually often very much interconnected. And there's this one story that I find really interesting of how a lot of individuals dealing with, um, intimate partner violence will either stay in their situation because they have a pet, and their. The fear of retribution on their pet is so real that they stay and they. Or that they can't find someone to take care of their pet. So they stay because they want to make sure to be there for their pet. So when we're talking about abandonment issues, you have to consider both of these topics. So if we can bring these people together, okay, what's the solution to get these people out of those violent situations? We need to have temporary problems for their pets. We can find solutions to a lot of these crises. And this person doesn't want to abandon their pet. Don't take their pet away from them. Give them a solution that gets the pet to stay with the family they love, but also allows this person to flee a situation of violence. And we find a solution when we start talking to organizations and to individuals dealing with separate issues. So I just wanted to bring that up of. I think it's so fascinating and so necessary to have more of these connections to find solutions and to break down those silos between these issues, uh, so that we can actually find solutions that are more efficient, we can learn from each other and we take into consideration much more, uh, aspect. So I just wanted to bring that up as a.

Speaker C: Again, you mentioned housing too. And that's, you know, another core component. If, if those who are fleeing intimate partner violence have a space that will accept their pet, then, um, that's also solution and it, it comes up with. Yeah, so again, I mean, we could rip off of that. You've got lovers across the board here. But, um, yeah, the intersectionality of the issues is key.

Speaker B: And I think that your process really highlights the importance of it and what can come out of it beyond just a report or a book. It's also the connections that are being made by doing that and getting people from different aspects of the work to think maybe about the additional perspectives to take. Um, so I did want to talk slightly about the fundraising issue because the last episode that was published with, uh, it was on USAID and how the cutting of government funding has obviously greatly affected, uh, international funding. Uh, and that is also something that people haven't considered of a lot of this. International development work has a great influence on also reducing violence and the potential of violence outbreaks around the world and reducing conflict. And people don't tend to make that connection between Prevention through international development and then the conflicts that are creating and then what does that do? Well, if there's conflict, if there's war, what do you think that does for refugees? Increases the chances of refugees, of illegal immigration, of uh, all those other issues are often related to conflict. So in the peace and safety and security space, what have you been noticing? And maybe, Rachel, this is maybe more a question for you around the funding. What have you been noticing or what has been some of the limitations or solutions you've been finding to fund this work?

Speaker A: I mean first, I think it's really important to say that already in the year now, since, since USAID was eliminated, millions of people have died as a direct result. And we have studies and documentation and we know that that's true. Um, now the majority have not died as a result of conflict or violence necessarily. Um, but a lot of that is because of health related, um, resources that had previously been provided that were eliminated. So we just have to keep saying the decision to eliminate USAID has cost millions of people, including women, children, babies, their lives. We have to say that. I think it's also really important to say that um, not just usaid, but the uh, global dynamics around uh, NATO and pressure that the US has put on, on European countries in particular, has meant that many European countries are shifting money budget from uh, international development, foreign assistance to defense funding. So it's not just that USAID was eliminated, it's also that the overall kind of global funding envelope, uh, if you will, for foreign assistance and development assistance, humanitarian assistance is contracting. Right. So the biggest contraction was usaid, but certainly not the only contraction. Yeah, um, so, so those two things I think are really important to say up front. We also know that um, Nigeria is a good example of this. So there have, there's been documentation of areas where tension is high for a variety of different reasons, but tension has been able to be mitigated, uh, through things like peace committees or local structures, local mediators, individuals who take on the responsibility of mitigating and mediating tension that can result in violence, um, which is what mediators do around the world. Right, whatever you call them, uh, and because those individuals are no longer receiving assistance, not just to um, support their own well being and livelihoods and that of their families through kind of a paycheck or remuneration, but also literally to travel to the places they need to go to. So even if you said, well, you know, you should do this out of

Speaker B: the goodness, goodness of your heart and

Speaker A: not get paid for it, which like, okay, but then how do I feed myself? Um, how do you, you can't travel to the places you need to travel to. That's not free. You have to pay for that. So um, we have seen an uptick in uh, inter community violence in many places because the, you know, there's this peace isn't something that just happens like even where we think of those, all those peaceful communities, that's because people are making decisions to interact with one another in ways that are not inflammatory or aggressive. They're interacting with one another in a way that is uh, non inflammatory, non aggressive. Right. Every time I leave my house I could choose to get into a fight with my neighbor. My neighbor's dog just got out, I could choose to go out and scream and have that turn into a big situation of violence or not. Right? So it's all about us making decisions. And the decisions that we make rest on things like norms within society. They rest on our own experience of trauma and how that trauma shows up in the, in the way that we move through our day. It shows up in the consequences that we may, that we think may um, um, be felt. If we do choose to get into a fight with the neighbor, right? Like oh, I could get into a fight with the neighbor but then I'm going to go jail and I don't want to go to jail. But if there is no jail, if there is no consequence, um, and if getting to a fight actually almost brings you something, a benefit, is there a benefit? Right? Because then I'm stronger, then I'm more respected in my community. So all these things matter hugely. And when we reduce the ability for there to be um, norms that are stated and articulated, when we reduce the ability for there to be consequence, and by which I mean it doesn't just need to be prison, we shouldn't over rely on jail and prison, but there should be a consequence. And when we reduce the ability for those of us who have um, who have deep seated trauma, when we reduce all of the support, ah, to navigate that, then you're going to see more violence and in fact that is what we're starting to see. So the consequences are massive. Um, there's so many other layers including the kind of global shift towards authoritarian systems of government, the much more aggressive US foreign policy stances that are being taken, whether it's in Venezuela or Iran right now, um, or even Mexico and the pressure on Mexico, right, all of that is going to have consequence. Um, and without the ability for mitigating or mediating ah, resources or actors, the People to do the work to mitigate the consequences of aggression. Um, then I fear that we're not only going to have more violence today, but violence has a long tail. Right. So the, the, uh, trauma that we're going to see from violence is going to be. We're using a lot of agricultural analogies, going to be planted in the ground. And it's, we're going to see. It's, um, the weeds are going to

Speaker B: pop up later on as well.

Speaker A: What's that?

Speaker B: The weeds. Like, we're like planting this, so it's going to pop back up.

Speaker A: And. Yeah, what.

Speaker B: I think this is really interesting. And, uh, so when I was working at felab, we did a lot of research on grant making. What's being funded, what's not being funded. And we tend to be very reactionary. Philanthropy tends to be very reactionary in how they fund. Oh, Notre Dame is on fire, let's extinguish it. But like, how much would it have cost? And to rebuild it, how much would it have cost to do more of like, preventive work or when Australia was burning, what could we have done to mitigate those risks beforehand to avoid the cost? So everything costs money, conflict costs money, peace costs money. You can't just, like what you said, it takes that intentionality of wanting to build the systems that will be fostering peace. Or do you want to invest in systems that will foster conflict and will create violence? So I think, as speaking to funders, if they are listening, like, what do we want to invest our money in? Do we want to invest in a system that fosters more violence and conflict that will still cost money? In dealing with the situation and dealing with the repercussions, we're still going to need to spend money on social needs and social services after those are not going to disappear. Unless you don't care about people and then they don't care. But on the other side, investing in peace and that prevention piece can, can actually have major impacts in avoiding a lot of that investment. So that what you said, the funding is there, the same dollars are there. They're just being shifted towards are we going to go into the word defense or are we going in towards the prevention to foster more of that piece? We will not need to spend that money on defense because we've created systems where we don't need it. So it's definitely very complex issues here. But from a funding perspective, these are the impacts of cutting in a lot of social services that people don't think about. They think about like, oh, There people are just, just taking advantage. There's corruption in every single system that exists. Like, people are like, oh, it's being corrupt. Like, no matter which system you talk about, there's corruption. Like, I have never seen a perfect system. The question is, what do we want to continue investing in? And obviously, um, for me it's where do I want my dollars to go? Right. What would I prefer? What is the cost beyond the dollars? Like the cost from a human perspective? Um, so anyways, that's just my thoughts from a funding perspective on when I

Speaker A: know Jai has a lot of really wonderful insight on this, which um, she will bring in in a second. But just very quickly before she does. One of the examples in this book is the Grenfell Tower, um, fire in London, which to your point about prevention, many people raised alarms about the um, siding, the webbing around the tower and that it was potentially flammable and a hazard and they were not listened to. There was a lot of, uh, there were a lot of individuals, a lot of voices who were saying, this is a risk, we need to prevent it. Those voices were ignored and discarded. A lot of what this book also deals with is whose voice matters and whose voice doesn't matter and how does that influence not just policy, but those risks and those preventive, um, uh, investments that can be made. We will invest in those in wealthy communities and in elite communities, but not in the communities where the voices are uh, ignored or disregarded, usually intentionally so. I just. That is another example that's in this book that I wanted to pull out, but Jai, over to.

Speaker C: Oh no, I think, I mean, Rachel, we could both talk about this for

Speaker B: a really long time, a day long podcast about.

Speaker C: We really could. I mean we could. But I think, you know, one of the, one of the other things about this book, and I think largely with, with Rachel's leadership on this point, is that we intentionally are not trying to over oversimplify this conversation. Um, these are complex issues, solutions are complex. Um, and we just need to hold that truth and we risk doing the wrong things when we oversimplify. And I think to the point about funding globally, it really is not necessarily a binary answer. We, we do want people who are experiencing acute violence to have resources. We do want communities to feel like they can protect themselves. So nobody is sitting here saying that, that, that is not the case. However, what does protection look like? What do responses to acute. What does the research show responses to acute violence? Um, which responses are most effective in helping prevent further cycles of violence from occurring? Um, and so, and we know prevention is cheaper than response. I mean it's been proven a million different times, a million different ways. So we're. So this book also isn't saying this is 100% structural prevention. You shouldn't do anything to respond to violence in the streets. Yeah, um, that's also not something that the Peace in Our Cities network says. But it does say there are evidence based approaches to reacting to violence that have proven to help prevent further episodes of violence. And meanwhile there are structural approaches to preventing further violence that can be implemented and must be implemented by design, um, alongside one another. So Rachel's point earlier about prisons, not

Speaker B: all

Speaker C: prisons aren't necessarily the answer to every offense. Um, they are being overused and abused as a solution, as a one size fits all solution, um, that to, to a real problem. So nobody is contending that there are real problems. Um, however, there are, there are also real reasons why people engage in violent organizations. And so at the same time there can be ways to work with offenders, um, through restorative justice practices, um, through mental health support, through um, ensuring they have access to viable economic alternatives. Um, these are, these are proven solutions. There are also ways to intervene and mediate conflict, to Rachel's point earlier, that that must be invested in, in order to prevent the explosion of violence or the, the escalation is the word I'm looking for of violence. Um, and at the same time, we should be investing in schools. We should be investing in making sure people have access to clean and safe water. We should be investing, investing in ensuring that people, no matter what religion they practice, what skin color they look like, have access to safe housing. And these are all part of what is a comprehensive solution set to making communities feel safer. And that is what this book sets forward. So it's saying there are best practices in response. There are best practices in centering care, um, and there are guiding principles that help guide the process for coming to those solutions within communities. The other thing that has to be acknowledged is the power structure. And so power, power plays a role here. Um, to Rachel's point about growing authoritarianism, that does not mean that every city leader or every city based organization is aligned with that trend. So there is also opportunities for funders and philanthropists to look at spaces where there is promise, where people are asking for help to be able to counteract these global trends that are going to have negative implications now and in the future. So it's complex but we, we just need to sit with that. And we also need to have the confidence That I think this book lays out that, that we can engage in complex solutions and there are answers out there for us to do it it

Speaker B: quick, um, story. And then uh, we're going to wrap it up of where people can find the book, but around this. I really liked your point around the strategies because sometimes we think a strategy is what we need to do. We need to have this extreme response to an extreme situation. But that can actually sometimes make it worse. And I'll make a comparison to a completely other aspect in an animal rights perspective. Faunalytics and I had an episode on this. They did um, um, a study on the impact on people's behaviors of two different strategies. One was educational, where they would read an article or a blog post around animal, uh, cruelty, around reducing harm, around thinking about like what are the moral obligations or the moral aspect of it without imposing a solution, just getting people to think about it. And then they had more of these confrontational approaches of going into, going to uh, a McDonald's or going and like calling people murderers and slaughterhouse and throwing fake blood everywhere. And the impact that it would have on people's actual behavior. Because yeah, you might feel like you're making a difference by having these more out there approaches. But then when they actually looked at people's behaviors, those that had been in confrontation, that been faced with confrontational style, uh, activist activities, actually increase their consumption of meat versus those who had seen more passive, more educational, more um, like, you do what you want, it's your decision had reduced. So sometimes we have to go beyond the ego of what we think is the right solution because we feel like we're doing something in the face of something, uh, that's scary or that we need to have an extreme response to an extreme situation. But in the facts, what is actually working to change the behavior. And sometimes it might be counterintuitive, but I really like that you outlined that, that sometimes we need to just have those examples of, hey, well look, what is actually working versus what we think looks like the right solution in the eyes of the media. So um, I think for everyone listening this book now I'm like, please tell me where to buy it because I actually am looking for my next read and I kind of need that hope, uh, kind of like the humankind book that I was mentioning earlier. So, um, I'd love to hear from you. Where can people find this book? Um, and also where can they learn more about the work you both are doing?

Speaker C: Feel like I've been talking a lot. Rachel, do you want to Share. Okay, well, I'll just go on. Just quickly. So ibmv.org, you can find so much more about the project. You can see many and meet many of the contributors to the process to the book. Um, lots of imagery. Um, we also have a short documentary about the project and about the, uh, what's contained in the book. Um, you can absolutely buy the book. It is also freely available for download and all of that can be accessed, um, through the website. Um, if you want to learn more about the Stanley center, of course we have our own website. Um, that's StanleyCenter.org um, and yeah, I think, Rachel, if you're not going to, I'll let you say the Peace in our Cities context.

Speaker A: Um, well, just to say that also if you want to learn more about Peace in our Cities, you can go to PeaceInOurCities, all1word.org and find out more about the network and the cities that are involved in the work that we do.

Speaker B: Uh, for everyone listening, I think this was just a drop in the bucket of everything that has been covered by both of these amazing, uh, women that are working on this thing. I think the book, uh, is a great first step for anyone who wants to dive in deeper. I think this is very important work that touches on every single other cause out there. Uh, this is the root of it. So for anyone that's interested, all the links will be available in the show notes. And thank you both for being here. It was such a deep conversation that I would love to spend another couple hours talking about but Alaska. But thank you both for your time. I really appreciated all the amazing insights you brought to the table today.

Speaker A: Thank you. Thanks for the conversation.

Speaker C: Thank you. Could easily talk another couple hours too.

Speaker B: I know, right? Uh, thanks for tuning in to the Just because podcast. Are you enjoying the content we're creating? We'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback. Thanks for leaving us your wonderful review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify and hitting that subscribe button to have access to new episodes as soon as they drop. All of our affiliate partners are hand selected to offer you only tried, tested and true tools to give your organization the absolute best signing up to any of them using our code or link directly supports the podcast and it's a great way to say thank you without any extra cost for you. Thanks for being part of the community.