Representation and Inclusion - California Climate and Energy Collaborative

Barrier 1: Representation & Inclusion

Barrier Statement

Systemic inequities and power dynamics—such as privileging academic credentials over lived experience, relying on the same few individuals, or pursuing symbolic rather than genuine participation—undermine authentic, diverse, and trusted community involvement in decision-making.

Filterable Database

How communities are experiencing this barrier

View the details on what communities have shared with SLECC from across the state.

Key challenge discussed in - Los Angeles, Inland Deserts

Despite broad recognition of the need for inclusive climate action, marginalized communities, tribes, and smaller local governments remain underrepresented in planning and decision-making. Engagement efforts often stop at one-way consultations rather than fostering sustained, co-created partnerships—limiting trust, cultural relevance, and the effectiveness of state-led programs. Participants noted that certain ethnic groups remain “horribly underrepresented” in key meetings, with the same few individuals repeatedly invited, leading to fatigue and perpetuating inequities in representation and influence.

Key challenge discussed in - Los Angeles

Unintended exclusion: Well-meaning efforts (like aiming for “indigenous-led” processes) often fail if there are no authentic relationships, treating diverse groups as a monolith and reinforcing mistrust

Key challenge discussed in - Los Angeles

Cronyism and tokenism: Decision-making can be tightly controlled by entrenched interests (“cronyism”), allowing only symbolic or one-way participation. “Check-the-box” representation (e.g., one Indigenous participant framed as representing all tribes) was cited as harmful

Key challenge discussed in - Los Angeles

Gatekeeping of expertise: Community knowledge is often dismissed because it lacks academic or professional credentials. Agencies privilege voices with “letters behind their names,” leading to distrust and discouragement among grassroots experts

Key challenge discussed in - San Diego

Lack of imagination in disinvested communities: Communities with a history of disinvestment often lack exposure to examples of successful local climate/energy projects, which makes it harder for residents to envision transformative change. This gap reduces participation in planning because people can’t see themselves in proposed solutions.

Local Solution Opportunities

SLECC stakeholders have brainstormed the following solution opportunities that can be taken by local leaders. Existing examples of progress or pathways to make further progress are highlighted if known.

Local Solution

Build long-term relationships with communities outside of grant cycles; not just transactional engagement

Existing Examples of Progress:

Community advisory boards can be used as a structure to allow continuous engagement outside of grant cycles

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Los Angeles, San Diego

Local Solution

Ensure planning processes don’t treat diverse groups (e.g., tribes) as monolithic; establish multiple relationship pathways

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Los Angeles

Local Solution

Support multilingual outreach and culturally grounded facilitation, not just translation

Existing Examples of Progress:

Spanish-language organizing as leverage: In one case, a community organizer intentionally spoke in Spanish at a board meeting to force board members to struggle with translation, highlighting neglect of a 1,000-member Spanish-speaking church. This action mobilized 200 residents to show up at a Saturday meeting and submit 115 letters of support, shifting the agency’s stance

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Los Angeles

State Solution Opportunities

SLECC stakeholders have brainstormed the following solution opportunities that can be taken by state leaders. Existing examples of progress or pathways to make further progress are highlighted if known.

State Solution

Fund and invest in long-term, community-centered partnerships—beyond one-time events or grant cycles—to strengthen trust and collaboration between agencies, local governments, and community-based organizations (CBOs). Sustained relationship-building should include dedicated resources for translation, stipends, and culturally appropriate engagement, ensuring that partnerships remain continuous, equitable, and grounded in local priorities.

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Los Angeles, Inland Deserts

State Solution

Support regional anchor organizations through state funding to hold relationships and ensure continuity across grant cycles

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Los Angeles

State Solution

Require agencies to treat community expertise as equivalent to technical expertise in state-level planning

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Los Angeles

Solution Spotlight

No results found.

Help us strengthen our knowledge base!

Help us to expand our database. Either share new ideas, best practices or general feedback via this form, or click on a particular item to share additional feedback, information, examples of progress on that particular item.

Feedback Form

Additional Resources

Please share any additional resources you would like to include by emailing eecoordinator@civicwell.org.