Here’s How to Actually Do Policy Roundtables Right

On a rainy October morning, twenty-two people gathered in a conference room at the Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA) in Portland, Oregon. They came together to discuss how to design the ideal direct cash transfer (DCT) program for unhoused youth, building on lessons learned from an existing pilot in which 120 young people experiencing homelessness, aged 18 to 24 years, were sent cash payments of $1,000 a month for the better part of two years. These young people were affiliated with three different organizations: NAYA, AntFarm, and JbarJ.  

The event, hosted by Next100, was intended to be a policy roundtable remix, taking the prevailing, well-established format—experts sitting around a table to learn from one another and answer policy questions—and upending it. While “roundtable” implies some consideration for equity, in practice, traditional policy roundtables too often fall into the trap of exacerbating policy inequities. They are invitation-only affairs for selected, academically credentialed (read: lots of letters after their names), established experts—meaning, people who have written books, served for many years at high levels of government or in high-profile nonprofits, etc. For this reason, they have historically recreated the same lack of representation that exists across the policy sector, compounding exclusion and narrowing the field of acceptable opinions and perspectives. As a result, this common type of forum finds policy elites listening to each other, but not to the people actually affected by the policy challenges they discuss; and eminent individuals working tirelessly to prove they are the smartest in the room and know the most, rather than genuine engagement, deep listening, and true openness to new ideas and novel perspectives.  

This roundtable in Portland would be different, centering, valuing, and elevating the perspectives of young people with experience in Oregon’s DCT program, alongside (and sometimes above) traditional expert voices and those on the ground implementing the program.

This roundtable in Portland would be different, centering, valuing, and elevating the perspectives of young people with experience in Oregon’s DCT program, alongside (and sometimes above) traditional expert voices and those on the ground implementing the program. Led by Next100 Policy Entrepreneur Sofie Fashana, the roundtable brought together ten lived-experience experts (young people who had been participants in the Oregon DCT program), six case workers, two policy practitioners, one traditional policy expert and researcher, and one senior state legislative staffer, together with Sofie, who bridges many of these identities.

Having navigated the foster care system as well as experiencing housing instability herself, Sofie brought a powerful, relatable perspective to the remix space. Her vulnerability helped her connect with the young people on a deeper level, while her experience working on the Oregon Direct Cash Transfer Program and now as a policy expert at Next100, a public policy think tank that specifically recruits, trains, and supports emerging policy leaders who bring lived experience to the work of policy change, enabled her to build rapport with all the contributors. Sofie’s ability to lead discussions, foster trust, and encourage participants to open up created an environment where everyone felt empowered to share their insights and experiences.

Image caption: Roundtable remix participants in Portland standing in a circle, getting to know each other in a playful icebreaker. Photo by Rudrani Ghosh.

Over four hours, this diverse group discussed how to design an ideal direct cash transfer program, engaging with questions such as how much payments should be, how long the program should last, and how wide the eligibility criteria should be. They discussed what sorts of support services are most critical to youth success, and the nuances of what should be required of recipients—where there should be guidelines, and where young people should have complete autonomy and choice. They grappled with the challenges of how distributing cash can complicate access to other government benefits such as SNAP or TANF, and how to consider these details in designing DCT to benefit youth. And lastly, they envisioned how young people might thrive if we could deliver on the goal of an ideal DCT program for all youth who need it. Their findings will inform Sofie’s work in the months and years to come, and help feed the burgeoning national movement for DCT programs, currently in various stages of progress in California, New York, Minnesota, and beyond.

A future report will thoroughly describe those findings. This report, rather, will highlight some of the lessons learned regarding how best to remix a policy roundtable so that lived experience expert voices are heard, centered, and valued. What does it take to build trusting relationships with individuals in advance? What is the role of partner organizations and individuals? What preparation is needed in advance to help make the conversation a success? And what steps can you take in the room itself to foster open dialogue and genuine engagement? Here are some of those lessons.

Lesson 1: Authentic leadership matters.

The DCT policy roundtable remix was led by Sofie, who, as mentioned above, brought her own lived experience with youth homelessness to the table, as well as having worked on program delivery in Oregon, and now as an expert voice on DCT programs nationwide. She lived in Oregon for most of her formative years and has maintained strong connections with people in the community. She is young enough that if she still lived in Oregon, she could have qualified for the youth DCT pilot. She has also earned the respect of established policy experts in the field through her research, writing, and advocacy in recent years.

Sofie developed the agenda in partnership with others working on DCT in Oregon and beyond, as well as by consulting with lived-experience experts on what felt most important to them.

Sofie developed the agenda in partnership with others working on DCT in Oregon and beyond, as well as by consulting with lived-experience experts on what felt most important to them. She was the final word on the venue, food, format, payment methods, email communication, facilitation, and activities for the four-hour program. In overseeing all of these items, she brought her authentic self to creating a space, agenda, and event that was youth-focused, responsive to participant feedback, and grounded in policy.

In just one demonstration of Sofie’s authentic leadership in action, she opened the roundtable by naming some of the characteristics of past roundtables she had been in, and which she had no intention of replicating here:

I’ve been in focus groups where they ask for your sad story, so you tell them, and then they don’t know what to do with it…and I don’t need their sorry or sympathy—I want a systemic change so no young person goes through the same thing. I’ve also been in policy roundtables with so-called “experts,” where people have been whispering while I presented, doubting my findings because I didn’t show up with data and graphs like they did. In those spaces, it felt like the respect you got was based on the letters behind your name. We want this space to be different. This space is for us. Everyone’s contribution matters.

Lesson 2: Put in the time and effort to get to know participants and build trust.

Here are some key ways in which Sofie accomplished this in the Portland DCT roundtable.

One-on-Ones

Sofie prepped for the roundtable remix by meeting with every single one of the lived-experience experts one-on-one in the weeks prior to the event via Zoom. At these meetings, she began by introducing herself as well as by getting to know the individuals. She explained what the event was and why it was important to her personally. She asked the youth participants what they hoped to get out of the day, checked in on their transportation arrangements, confirmed the details of the financial compensation and reimbursements available, and, importantly, she made sure they knew they could reach out to her anytime with questions, concerns, or for support. After the calls, Sofie stayed in touch with the participants via texts, emails, and phone calls, following up on items raised during the one-on-ones and reconfirming folks’ attendance. When people didn’t make it to their Zoom calls, Sofie followed up with them, talking to one participant who answered from the hospital emergency room (of course, Sofie followed up again soon after, to make sure she was okay).

Partners

Sofie also met with the case workers supporting the young people (and attending with them) weekly for a month leading up to the event, recognizing their key role as accountability buddies and supporters to the young people, as well as being contributors in their own right to the policy roundtable discussion. In several instances, these case workers were also providing transportation for multiple youth participants, so if they failed to show up, we’d have lost several others along with them. The case managers were key partners in making this happen. They worked alongside Sofie to distribute posters inviting people to join the remix, answered questions about preparatory work, and assisted with paperwork. They provided input on the agenda and logistics, and built relationships with Sofie and each other that were brought to life during the event.

Group Zoom Call

Sofie then held a group Zoom meeting with all participants, including those with lived experience and more traditional policy practitioners and experts. On the call, Sofie both clarified important logistical and content parameters for the day, as well as running activities to build familiarity and trust across the group. Participants answered questions anonymously via an online poll and then talked about their answers, co-created a playlist for the in-person event, suggested name ideas for the group, and reviewed and adapted group norms for the in-person discussion, set to take place the following week. It was also an opportunity to bring everyone up to speed on the goals and priorities for the in-person roundtable remix.

No Substitute for Time and Trust

The connections that Sofie built required a lot of time, energy, and commitment, but we believe it was worth it. Next100 has learned over the years that partnering meaningfully with impacted communities requires building trust, and there are no shortcuts to genuine relationships. We have also learned that there are a lot of barriers to participation for directly impacted communities, from transportation, to child care, and more, so flexible support scaffolding is essential and significant-drop off is to be expected. That said, investing the time to build trust does pay off: for this roundtable remix, ten out of the twelve young people registered for the event showed up on the day and stayed for the full four-hour event. In our experience, this is an incredibly high turn-out rate for individuals with other job and time demands (as opposed to folks whose job it is to work in the worlds of policy or research).

Next100 has learned over the years that partnering meaningfully with impacted communities requires building trust, and there are no shortcuts to genuine relationships.

Share Ownership of the Vision

A key success of the roundtable was that both before and during, it fostered a shared sense of ownership among all participants. Young people and policy experts alike were equally invested in expanding the program to other young people experiencing homelessness. By creating a space for open and honest dialogue, organizers cultivated trust and motivated individuals to take action, ensuring that the vision was collectively owned and driven, rather than solely resting on one person.

Lesson 3: Go to where the people are (and pay attention to transportation, and accessibility).

Engaging meaningfully with people impacted by public policy requires meeting people where they are. Initially, Next100 had conceived of this policy roundtable as a New York event, largely because that’s where Next100 is based and work is currently underway on a youth DCT expansion, following pilots in the city in 2021 and 2023. The team was already engaged with partner organizations in the city, but it became clear that the question we most wanted to ask—“How can we build an ideal DCT program for youth?”—would be better answered by young people who have experienced homelessness and are actively participating in a DCT program. To make sure the space was centered on lived expertise alongside traditional policy expertise, we decided to go to Oregon. This is where a youth DCT pilot was coming to a close and was also where Sofie, the event lead, had strong relationships in the field. Next100 redesigned the budget, allocated additional travel funds to make it possible to host the event interstate, and got to work connecting with partners on the ground to see what was possible. 

Image caption: Roundtable remix participants sitting in small groups, using an allocation of nickels to prioritize a hypothetical budget for direct cash transfer program support services. Photo by Rudrani Ghosh.

The roundtable ended up taking place in a meeting room managed by the Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA), one of three major program implementers for the Oregon DCT pilot, and NAYA became an important partner in making the event successful. 

Attendees traveled from the suburbs of Portland, from Bend, Oregon, and surrounding rural areas; from Oakland, California; and New York City. As outlined above in the lesson on building relationships, a key to getting everyone there was paying close attention to people’s transportation needs and being flexible and responsive in providing support. For some participants, we reimbursed gas expenses; for others, we provided Uber vouchers. For the young people traveling over three hours from Bend, we both ensured the case workers could provide transportation and provided hotel stays the night before for all those scheduled to attend the event. We also paid for and booked flights and hotels for all interstate participants. Next100 is housed within established think tank The Century Foundation, which donated considerable time from its events manager and operations team to make sure every detail was taken care of. Having funding and support from everyone allowed the team to be flexible and meet transportation needs and ensured that dietary needs were met, whether it was through vouchers or providing a variety of food options.

An extra note, and an example of the attention to detail necessary to make events like these successful: Next100 has learned through experience that many folks do not have the means to provide a credit card at hotel check-in, so we made sure that this was taken care of in advance by Next100 for everyone staying at the hotel.

Lesson 4: Compensate lived-experience experts thoughtfully.

All lived-experience experts were paid for their time attending the event. We decided on $400 as a flat rate payment, and offered payment options (most elected to receive payment via an electronic funds transfer). We brought the necessary required forms to process payments to the event on the day, as well as emailing the forms to participants in advance. Several people took advantage of staff support with the paperwork on the day. The staff team also produced some additional documentation that our internal finance team needed (such as invoices), closing a gap that could easily have slowed processing times, or created unnecessary barriers to timely payments. And we still had at least one participant who needed extra troubleshooting support after payments had been sent. Again, Sofie guided and supported this young person, and served as a liaison with our finance staff, to ensure they were paid successfully.

In deciding how much and how to pay lived-experience experts, organizations should consider the following:

• How much will be meaningful to participants?
• Do participants have bank accounts, or are alternative methods of payment needed? (Consider options for flexible payment, such as direct deposit, checks, Venmo, Zelle, and cards with preloaded cash).
• How might any payments interact with other sources of income or benefits? What implications might payments have for income taxes?
• What steps can you take to ensure all participants overcome potential barriers to payment?

As noted above, Sofie established close relationships with both participants and their case workers. A number of the questions that filtered up through these communication channels were related to payment questions and logistics. Having someone ready and willing to answer these questions and provide practical support helped ensure participants were indeed properly compensated, and was crucial to earning their trust.

As discussed above, Next100 covered transportation costs and took care of the requirement for a credit card hold on behalf of participants at the hotel. We also provided participants with breakfast and lunch and welcomed folks to take home leftovers, doing our best to ensure that no one would incur additional out-of-pocket costs as a result of attending the event.

A note on child care: For this roundtable, one participant planned to bring her child, aged 4, and was welcome to do so (we planned ahead with activities and materials for her, cleared the child’s attendance with the venue, and prepared the event staff to provide care support). Depending on the cohort, provision of more formal child care may be important to ensuring turn-out. Be attuned to other accessibility requests or needs that may arise during the relationship-building process, such as language access needs, venue accessibility, or other accommodations.

Lesson 5: Get creative in building community, trust, and fun!

From the get-go, we designed all of our spaces and interactions to include elements of joy, fun, and community-building. Here are some examples of those preparations and activities.

Room Setup

While we called it a roundtable remix, we arranged the tables on the outside of a circle of chairs (that’s right, there was no round table). This meant that everyone could see and engage with each other directly. There was no dress code, and Sofie, the event lead, and other facilitators from the Next100 staff team, wore casual clothes, including jeans and sneakers.

Building Community

Building on the work we did together on the group Zoom call, we started the day with fun ice-breakers that facilitated getting to know one another, using only first names and by sharing personal facts about ourselves and finding commonality (e.g., I love cats, I’m wearing Fall colors, I’m socially anxious, I love music). We came together to suggest group names and then voted on a winner (The Visionaries), and then decided on group norms that included serious items (No Devil’s Advocates, Lead with Lived Experience) and funner items that connected to the group’s earlier interactions (Yawning Acceptable 🙂 ). We intentionally used only first names and no titles, so everyone entered the space as equals. Moderators played close attention to whose voices had been heard and whose hadn’t, making sure to find opportunities for everyone to speak, when moved to do so.

First Names Only: An Example of the Impact

Towards the end of the event, one participant asked what would happen next with everything that had been discussed, specifically as it related to the Oregon program, which was scheduled to end soon. It was only then that the group learned that one of the roundtable participants was from a state legislator’s office that was currently working on how to move forward beyond the Oregon pilot. It wasn’t until that third content session that participants learned that the person they knew only as Sarah had been researching DCT for eighteen years, almost as long as some of them had been alive. By sharing these identities later in the program, everyone was able to interact as equals, with no one valued over another due to the implicit values or biases that so often shape the dynamics of traditional policy roundtables.

By sharing these identities later in the program, everyone was able to interact as equals, with no one valued over another due to the implicit values or biases that so often shape the dynamics of traditional policy roundtables.

Interactive Formats

We leaned away from traditional “talk fest” formats. There were no formal PowerPoint presentations, no mini panel discussions involving selected expert participants, or staid discussions sitting at a large and intimidating table. Instead, we ran the day as a series of interactive activities, knowing that different people would feel comfortable in different formats and that we would be more likely to hear from a diverse array of voices if we broke out of traditional modes of discussion. All of these intentional moves also encouraged people to avoid the common occurrence in roundtables of people trying to “sound smart” or use esoteric language or jargon. Some of the activities we tried included the following:

Ice breaker: participants stood in a circle. One person in the middle said their name and one “I” statement about themselves (eg: “My name is Sofie and I don’t like chocolate”). If others in the group shared the same “I”, they moved to a new spot in the circle. The last person to land was stuck in the middle and made the next “I” statement. We went until everyone had spoken up and shared at least once. (Lesson: have icebreakers that help people get to know each other but stay out of traditional markers of status). 

Spectrum: We used a movement exercise to get a sense of the opinion of the room, and individuals in it, along a spectrum, on some of the toughest trade offs in thinking about the future of DCT. 

Individual reflections and sticky notes: We facilitated moments of individual reflection, and then had folks share via sticky notes around the room. These then seeded broader system level discussions about the future of DCT. 

Small group activities: We created small groups and gave each group a bag of nickels, then asked them to use the nickels to allocate a hypothetical ideal budget for support services relating to DCT. Groups then walked around the room, observed each other’s choices and engaged in further group discussion on the takeaways. 

Art and visioning: We invited everyone to draw a picture of a young person who has benefited from an ideal DCT and is thriving and then shared the artworks on a wall for everyone to view and take in over lunch. 

Don’t be afraid to experiment and/or riff off ideas that emerge from the group itself. Several times during the day we sought feedback from the group on how to tackle the next item.

Image caption: Roundtable remix participants step in to grab art supplies and draw as part of a visioning activity. Note colorful sticky notes around the room, and a fidget toy in one participant’s hands. Photo by Rudrani Ghosh.

Lesson 6: Have fun and be yourself!

Policy discussions can be heavy, and talking about youth homelessness with people who’ve experienced it could have been really tough for everyone involved, but especially for the youth themselves. Next100 aimed to create a space where these things could be talked about: as a result, a wide range of related issues and experiences entered the conversation. People shared how DCT helped them start a business, find housing, and care for loved ones, and also spoke to tougher experiences such as poor living conditions, dealing with chronic illness, and escaping domestic violence. But we also found joy together in charting the course forward and envisioning a brighter tomorrow. We brought fidget toys and put them out on tables. We gave silly prizes to people throughout the conversations for great contributions. The group co-created a playlist on the Zoom call that we played during our breaks.

Reflecting on the day in the car driving away from the venue afterwards, Sofie observed, “I felt I was myself today.” And the participants shared, via surveys and in one-on-one conversations, how they felt inspired and grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with the group. Some case managers also shared how thankful they were for the time to get to know the young people more, meet other organizations in-person, and put faces to the names behind the Zoom screens. Traditional policy experts left feeling hopeful and inspired to advocate for changes informed by the conversations. That’s what a policy roundtable remix should be able to achieve: impacted individuals and experts coming together to be themselves and chart a course forward together.

Lesson 7: A roundtable remix is the start of the work, but not the end of it.

In the final hour of the policy roundtable remix, someone raised an important question: What happens after this conversation? How will the discussions actually come to life beyond today?

Sofie had prepared for this question, and we provided an answer that was concrete, multi-faceted, and inclusive:

• Participants were informed that Sofie would convene decisionmakers and advocates on DCT in three months’ time to present the findings from the roundtable, and invited attendees to take part in that next meeting.
• Next100 shared that a report would be published on the findings of the roundtable discussion, in the form of recommendations for an ideal DCT program that could be utilized by Oregon and other states and localities exploring DCT as a solution to youth homelessness.
• Participants were invited to stay in touch with folks in the room who held power and influence over the development and design of DCT programs locally (intentionally removing the gatekeeping so often observed in policy spaces).
• A survey was distributed to participants to gather feedback on the day’s events and accommodations, as well as on additional desired next steps across the group.

Perhaps most importantly, we observed that the impacted people who participated in the roundtable saw themselves differently as a result of this experience. They were no longer just participants in a DCT pilot: they were experts helping to shape future policy, and now were empowered to be advocates and changemakers.

In Sofie’s words: “Bringing our ideas to decision-makers is a process—it takes time, effort, and ongoing relationship-building. We want to make sure that the vision we’re advocating for is truly collective, with multiple voices at the center. It’s important that we don’t forget the people who have lived experience, and truly know best, when we take those recommendations forward to the people who can make decisions.”

And that is the power of a policy roundtable remixed: the potential for better, more inclusive, and more responsive policymaking that puts those closest to the pain closer to the power.