Subject
title
JEDI Strategic Plan Update
end
Department
City Manager's Office (CMO)
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Mayor and Council receive the JEDI Strategic Plan update and provide feedback on the following questions.
1. Do you support the proposed additional outreach?
2. Are there specific groups you would like prioritized in the outreach?
Discussion
Following the March 2, 2026, work session <https://rockvillemd.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7925268&GUID=B1ABE3BC-FECD-495D-9785-429CC6B22777&Options=&Search=> with Mayor and Council, The Executive Learning Lab launched a comprehensive assessment, collaborative engagement, utilizing structured facilitation with city staff, nonprofit partners and community members.
The comprehensive assessment is designed to include the following:
• Policy Audit and Foundational Review
o Policy Review
o Best Practices Research
• Collaborative Engagement
o Internal Employee Survey
o Internal Employee Focus Groups
o Community Listening Sessions
• Data Driven Analysis
o Quantitative Analysis
o Qualitative Analysis
Plan-Do-Check-Act Model
The strategic planning process includes the Plan-Do-Check-Act continuous improvement model. The DO phase began in March with comprehensive data collection from employees and community partners as well as policy and best practice review.
The policy audit and foundational review encompassed two complementary components: a structured review of existing City policies and programs, and a review of national best practices in municipal equity work.
Policy Review
The Office of JEDI conducted a comprehensive inventory of City programs and policies across all departments to identify those with parameters or eligibility requirements connected to JEDI initiatives, specifically those with ethnicity, identity, or income thresholds. The inventory spans programs administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (including the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit programs, Single-Family Rehabilitation Program, Home Energy Assistance Program, and youth development programs), Finance (including the Homeowners Tax Credit Program and Budget Equity Toolkit), Recreation and Parks (financial assistance and swim scholarship programs), Public Works (Climate Action Plan equity provisions), Procurement (Minority, Female, Disabled, or Veteran-Owned Business Outreach Program), Human Resources (discrimination, harassment, and disability accommodation policies), and the Rockville City Police Department (impartial policing, mental illness response, and disability interaction policies, as well as mandated trainings in cultural diversity, anti-discrimination, hate crimes, and implicit bias). The inventory is intended to provide a foundational baseline rather than an exhaustive catalog, and relevant eligibility requirements may also be embedded in grant conditions and comprehensive plan documents and could require modification of policy to ensure compliance.
Best Practices Review
The assessment drew on two primary sources. The first is the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) and its racial equity analysis framework. GARE supports local governments in implementing six core strategies: using a racial equity framework; building organizational capacity; implementing racial equity tools; using data to drive decision-making; partnering with other institutions and governments; and operating with accountability and urgency. Critically, GARE's framework requires that jurisdictions use a racial equity lens that clearly names the history of government in creating and maintaining racial inequities, envisions and operationalizes a new role for government, and utilizes clear and easily understood definitions of racial equity and inequity. While GARE provides a rigorous foundation, the City's approach recognizes that equity work must extend beyond race alone to encompass the full range of identity, ability, and socioeconomic dimensions reflected in the JEDI framework.
The second source is a national survey of municipal equity offices conducted by Tony Favro, Senior Fellow at City Mayors Research, which analyzed the mission, scope, and activities of 32 city equity offices across the United States. That research identified the most common functions performed by local government equity offices, including receiving and investigating discrimination and harassment complaints to ensure equal employment opportunity; training staff on racial issues, bias, and other forms of inequity; advancing equity in government procurement policies and practices; and collecting data on equity and disparity.
Research also found that the most effective organizations leading this work, link budget allocation decisions to equity outcomes, build shared language and understanding across departments, and partner with both national organizations and local community leaders to advance their work. These findings informed the structure of Rockville's JEDI strategic planning process.
Internal Stakeholders
On March 11, 2026, the Equity Champions met and reviewed and finalized the survey structure and internal communication plan. The organization-wide survey launched on March 16, 2026, and the close date was extended to April 21, 2026. Participation across each department exceeded 30%. The survey was completed by 210 City employees across all 13 departments, representing an overall response rate of 38.3%. Median completion time was 10.7 minutes per respondent.
Employee Survey assessed four thematic areas:
1. JEDI Office Perception: Organizational perception of the effectiveness and impact of office efforts, and overall communication effectiveness
2. Inclusion: Organizational value and respect of all employees, effectiveness of supports, opportunities for and barriers to success, presence of bias and/or microaggressions
3. Leadership Readiness: Individual preparedness for advancement of equity and inclusion priorities and barriers to achievement of goals
4. Employee Belonging: Sense of authenticity, voice, and equitable access across the organization
Key Survey Findings
The survey revealed several meaningful areas of strength in the City's workplace culture:
1. Hiring & Workforce Diversity (75%): The City's most visible JEDI achievement, rated highest of all six program areas. The Police Department meets or exceeds the citywide average on all 8 measures; Recreation & Parks does so on 7 of 8.
2. Dedicated JEDI Office & Leadership Visibility: The existence and accessibility of the JEDI director was the most frequently cited strength in open-ended responses. Staff interpret that presence as a signal that JEDI is a genuine organizational priority.
3. Equity Impact Statements: Staff widely recognized the embedding of equity impact statements into budget and policy review as a concrete structural mechanism, the kind of institutionalized practice the Strategic Plan can build upon.
4. Leader Confidence in Core Competencies: Among leaders (n=91), confidence is highest for creating inclusive team environments (98%), followed by applying a JEDI lens to decision-making (85%) and equitably allocating resources across diverse communities and staff (84%); a solid values foundation.
5. Internal Communication (62%): Internal JEDI communication outpaces external communication (46%), indicating measurable progress in keeping staff informed, a baseline to build from.
6. Leadership Support (82%): 82% of leaders feel supported by City leadership in advancing JEDI priorities; an organizational asset that creates favorable conditions for Strategic Plan implementation and sustained accountability.
7. Interpersonal Respect (81%): 81% of employees feel valued and respected by colleagues regardless of identity; the strongest inclusion finding and a foundation for deeper structural equity work.
To assess departmental performance, the survey asked employees whether their department is making efforts across eight JEDI program areas.
o Internal JEDI Communication
o External JEDI Communication
o Hiring & Retaining Diverse Staff
o Language & Translation Services
o Disability Accommodations
o Engaging with Diverse Communities
o Using Data to Identify Disparities
o Training on JEDI Topics
Critical gaps were revealed in program areas and in strategic direction indicating a need for action. These gaps focus on training gaps, bias exposure, and communication consistency.
1. JEDI Training: Employees across all levels called for mandatory, in-person, role-relevant training in open-ended responses. Women, Employees 45-54, and Other Race/Ethnicity employees rate this area significantly lower than other subgroups.
2. Data Use to Identify Disparities: Most staff don't know whether or how their department uses equity data. This is a foundational gap for an evidence-based Strategic Plan.
3. External Communication & Resident Awareness: Only 38% believe residents are aware of JEDI efforts. Staff point to insufficient multilingual outreach and limited proactive community engagement.
4. Accountability: Both supervisors and managers score lower than senior leaders here, meaning the gap sits at the levels closest to frontline implementation. Nearly 1 in 3 leaders (31%) rarely or never discuss JEDI with their teams.
5. Strategic Clarity: Respondents are unclear what the City's JEDI priorities are, what success looks like, or how to embed JEDI into their roles. The Strategic Plan will be the direct answer to this gap.
6. Organizational Leadership Barriers: Among staff in leadership roles, the top barriers to advancing JEDI are unclear expectations from executive leadership (51%), competing priorities (49%), and insufficient data to identify disparities (40%).
7. Department-Level Inconsistency: JEDI implementation varies widely across departments. Without centralized guidance and practical tools, equity in service delivery will remain uneven.
8. Accommodation Request Process: Focus groups revealed that accommodation requests are routed through supervisors rather than HR, creating inconsistency. Invisible disabilities are underreported due to fear of identification.
9. Language Access Systems: The internal language bank is slow and places burden on bilingual staff without additional compensation. The language line exists but is difficult to use and not well publicized. Staff default to personal phones and Google Translate to assist residents in crisis situations.
Responses assessed by intersectional identities reveal unique employee experiences and impacts. Significant disparities in JEDI program awareness, inclusion, and workplace equity are not equally distributed across the workforce. Citywide, 25% of employees report personally experiencing or witnessing discrimination, bias, or harassment in the past year, and 36% report microaggressions - rates that are significantly higher among women, Black/AA, and Hispanic employees.
|
GROUP |
KEY FINDING |
EQUITY PRIORITY |
|
Frontline Staff |
Higher discrimination rates vs. managers |
Equitable access to JEDI programs & information |
|
Women |
Microaggression rate nearly 2x that of men; lower voice & feeling valued |
Workplace safety, reporting culture, & inclusion |
|
Black/African American |
Lower authentic self & voice ratings; higher discrimination & microaggression rates |
Psychological safety & representation |
|
Hispanic/Latino |
Highest discrimination & microaggression rates; gap on equal access to advancement |
Equitable advancement pathways |
|
Newer Employees (<1 yr) |
Significantly lower ratings on hiring, language access, accommodations & community engagement |
JEDI onboarding & early integration |
Survey results reflect a workforce that broadly supports the City's JEDI mission and recognizes real progress, particularly in workforce diversity, community programming, and leadership visibility. It also reveals where the work must go next: toward a structured plan with defined goals, meaningful training, strengthened accountability, and a community-facing presence that matches the quality of internal programming.
Employee Focus Groups were designed and facilitated by TELL. This participatory process ensures that all perspectives have meaningful opportunities to contribute to long-term vision development. Strategic group configuration allowed participants to build community with others engaged in similar work and included 7 groups labeled operations, programming, RCPD, internal and administrative staff, supervisors and leads, deputies and senior leadership, and executive leadership. Discussions centered on core questions on the impact of JEDI programming on day-to-day work within the organization at all levels, workplace climate and culture, accessibility and inclusion, training and resources, and communication and transparency. All findings were reported in aggregate to protect participant confidentiality.
Key Focus Group Findings
Four themes were identified from feedback gathered in focus groups.
Theme 1: Need for a Shared Organizational Definition of JEDI
The most significant cross-cutting finding is that there is no shared organizational definition of JEDI. Most frontline operational staff had never heard the acronym before the focus groups. Once defined, different groups understood it differently, some equated it with fair treatment, others with customer service, others saw it as a leadership initiative with little relevance to their day-to-day work. There is no common language and no operationalized model telling a parks maintenance worker, a police officer, an administrative assistant, or a department head what JEDI looks like in their specific role. This foundational gap means that without shared understanding, no other intervention will create cohesion.
Theme 2: Equitable Workplace Culture Is Localized, Not Organizational
Staff experience of workplace climate is almost entirely determined by their immediate supervisor and department. Where a supervisor models inclusive practices, staff feel valued and psychologically safe. Where they don't, staff hesitate to raise concerns and feel issues may go unaddressed. This results in a patchwork of micro-cultures rather than a unified organizational identity. Some staff praised open-door policies while others had never experienced them, a significant equity issue, since an employee's experience should not depend on the luck of supervisor assignment.
Theme 3: Training Exists But Is Not Effective
The message was consistent across all seven groups: training is available but not useful. Online modules are too long, too general, and not followed up with discussion or accountability. Only 34-35% of staff report participating in any JEDI-related training. The overwhelming preference across every group was for shorter, in-person, scenario-based, role-specific content that answers the question: 'What do I actually do when this happens?' Current formats create barriers for field staff and part-time workers without regular computer access, and there is no accountability or follow-through after module completion.
Theme 4: Leadership Intent Does Not Match Operational Reality
Leaders genuinely believe JEDI efforts are underway. Staff experience those efforts as sporadic, unclear, and not actionable. This reflects a structural failure to translate intent into behavior, policy, and accountability. Leaders themselves lack the tools, scripts, and clear expectations needed to implement JEDI consistently. 51% of leaders cited unclear expectations from senior leadership as their top barrier. Supervisors reported being asked to implement JEDI without guidance, authority, or resources.
Additional Cross-Cutting Themes
1. Psychological Safety Varies by Department: Operational groups showed initial reluctance to speak openly; must be addressed department by department, not through blanket interventions.
2. JEDI Seen as Compliance, Not Culture: Described in terms of trainings and external mandates, not understood as integrated into hiring, performance, and supervision. Must embed in core operating systems.
3. Federal Climate Creating Uncertainty: Grant applications are avoiding DEI terminology. Immigration enforcement is causing documented community members to disengage from City services. Leadership needs legal and communications guidance for navigating compliance versus mission integrity.
External Stakeholders
External Listening Sessions were designed to gather community perspectives to assess how the city can better serve all residents and create a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable Rockville. Questions explored resident experiences with City services, programs, and engagement opportunities. Outreach was conducted through public flyers at all City facilities, Engage Rockville, targeted email outreach to public partners, and through staff liaisons to all Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces. Personal contacts were made to over 250 organizations and/or individuals. Seven sessions were conducted in April 2026.
|
Session |
Status |
|
Mayor & Council Interviews |
Underway |
|
Housing & Economic Development |
Additional recruitment needed |
|
Faith-Based & Community Service Organizations |
Additional recruitment needed |
|
Education & Youth |
Converted to individual interview |
|
Seniors / Special Populations |
✓ Sufficient for analysis |
|
Business & Civic Organizations |
Additional recruitment needed |
|
Small Business & Targeted Businesses |
Additional recruitment needed |
Note: Findings from italicized groups reflect the perspectives of the individuals present and are presented transparently with this limitation noted. Group 11 (Seniors/Special Populations) achieved sufficient attendance for substantive thematic analysis and is treated as a full session. Additional recruitment rounds are recommended before finalizing strategic recommendations from this data.
Key Preliminary Listening Session Findings
Mayor and Council Interviews
To date, three individual 30-minute interviews have been conducted (April 14-16, 2026) with elected officials. Common themes across all three interviews:
1. Geographic Equity: The east-west divide was named explicitly as a persistent equity concern. East-side neighborhoods, including Twinbrook, described as less seen, less heard, and less resourced. Engagement and budget processes noted as skewing toward more affluent communities.
2. Language & Communication Access: Near-unanimous call for materials, meetings, and surveys in multiple languages. Current outreach (email, website, newsletters) reaches only those already engaged. Meeting residents where they are, grocery stores, faith communities, laundromats, is essential.
3. Training for Elected Officials and Boards: All three participants noted training gaps extend to elected officials and City boards and commissions, not just staff. Implicit bias and microaggression training recommended at all levels of leadership.
4. Accountability & Measurement: Strong consensus that JEDI goals need clear, measurable KPIs, outcome metrics, not just process metrics. City Manager should be accountable for implementation; a JEDI lens should apply to every budget decision.
5. Federal Climate: Immigration enforcement causing Latino and immigrant community members to disengage from City services. City asked to proactively make services visible and accessible through trusted intermediaries.
Housing and Economic Development
Two participants. Key themes: navigation complexity is itself a JEDI issue, residents don't know what services exist, and eligibility is difficult to determine. Approximately 40% of Rockville residents speak a language other than English at home; most lack awareness of available City services. Renters, transient residents, and seniors aging in isolation are hardest to reach through current outreach channels. One participant suggested that 'whole person community' framing may broaden reach in some contexts.
Faith-Based and Community Service Organizations
Two participants, both leaders of safety-net organizations. Key themes: populations most in need, Latino immigrants, transient families, seniors, are largely invisible to City engagement infrastructure. Immigration enforcement climate has heightened fear of police; clients are disengaging from City services. Faith communities (mosques, temples, churches) identified as underutilized but essential trusted access points. Translation alone is insufficient, cultural relevance and trusted messengers are equally important.
Education and Youth (Individual Interview)
One participant; converted from group format. Key themes: significant resource disparities between after-school programs in majority-Latino/low-income areas versus wealthier areas. Immigration enforcement causing families to stay indoors and children to miss school. Older and less tech-connected residents rely on print communications; multi-channel outreach is needed. Greater ethnic and cultural representation needed on City commissions, boards, and in public events.
Seniors and Special Populations (Full Session)
Seven participants representing disability rights, aging, and immigrant community perspectives. This was the most substantively attended external session. Key themes:
o Digital Accessibility: City emails are not properly ARIA-tagged or screen-reader compatible. Images on the City website and social media lack audio descriptions and alternative text. Quarterly screen reader audits recommended.
o Physical Accessibility: Equipment at community centers requires staff assistance, exclusionary for people with disabilities. Twinbrook Community Center specifically named as having sidewalk and transit access barriers.
o Transportation: FlexRide has insufficient geographic coverage and limited evening hours. Bus routes in Twinbrook don't safely cross Rockville Pike at night. Expansion of virtual (Zoom) access recommended as a partial accommodation.
o AAPI & Immigrant Community Barriers: AAPI communities are internally diverse, Chinese and Taiwanese residents do not share media. First-generation residents face confidence barriers navigating government agencies. Ethnic grocery stores are primary information sources for some residents.
o Jurisdictional Confusion: Residents cannot easily distinguish City vs. County services. A clear service map with direct contacts was recommended as a high-impact, low-cost improvement.
o What's Working: The Autism Acceptance Proclamation was described as profoundly moving. The emergency housing program was praised as far more accessible than County equivalents. Library, City Hall accessibility, and Town Center cultural events were all cited positively.
Business and Civic Organizations / Small Business (Separate sessions)
Two to four participants across both sessions, primarily civic insiders with existing City relationships. From that vantage point, Rockville is seen as 'genuinely trying.' Key concerns: Twinbrook and low-income apartment residents feel left behind in City decisions; award programs and advisory boards skew toward white residents; renter and apartment communities are systematically excluded from outreach designed around homeowner associations; notification failures on zoning and land-use changes prevent civic participation.
Cross-Cutting Themes Across All Sessions
o The People Most in Need Are the Hardest to Reach: Structural gaps in outreach design, reliance on digital channels, English-only communications, evening scheduling, and self-selection, exclude those whose experiences most urgently need to inform the JEDI strategy.
o Language Access Is a System, Not a Translation: Translation alone is insufficient. Cultural relevance, trusted messengers, face-to-face engagement, and multi-channel outreach are equally important. Dedicated bilingual liaisons and engagement at places where residents already gather are needed.
o Geographic Equity Is Rockville's Most Visible Gap: The east-west divide was raised explicitly by Mayor and Council and echoed by community participants. Twinbrook was named specifically and repeatedly. A geographic equity framework with specific east-side investments is essential.
o The City's Best Is Genuinely Good, But Unevenly Distributed: Exceptional examples exist. The challenge is replicating them across departments and communities.
o Measurement and Accountability Are Non-Negotiable: Participants want clear commitments, measurable outcomes, and visible accountability, not more planning. The strategic plan must answer: 'How will we know if it's working, and who is responsible?'
Next Steps
Staff anticipates doing additional outreach and engagement with the external stakeholders and the internal program staff. Following these sessions, the team will complete data collection, integrate survey data, focus group outcomes and community input and begin drafting the strategic plan with a roadmap for the first year.