The document summarizes the evolution of the field infrastructure that supports boys and men of color (BMOC) over three eras from 2006 to the present: 1) Pre-MBK Era (2006-2013): Emergence of targeted foundation investments in BMOC and increased data sources. National institutions and communities of practice were established. 2) MBK Era (2014-2016): Infrastructure groups focused on BMOC emerged alongside specialized support organizations. Local case studies informed the field. Public discourse on inequities faced by BMOC was elevated. 3) Post-MBK Era (2017-2022): Opportunities and additional infrastructure needed to sustain local institutions and achieve population-level

1. BMOC Landscape Analysis
The Evolution of the Field Infrastructure
Ò

2. Objectives -
Level-Setting: Brief perusal of the arc of how the field of
work and actors have evolved over the last 10 years;
Application: An applied look at how the evolution of the
field infrastrucure can inform a collective discussion and
assessment of the future opportunities and needs of the
BMOC infrastructure (what’s there and what’s not)
Ò

3. Evolution of the Field
Infrastructure

4. Contemporary =
Beginning in 2006
(previous iterations of
the ‘field’ 1995-2005)
Ò

5. 3 Eras
Pre-MBK (2006-2013)
MBK (2014-2017)
Post MBK (2017-2022)
Ò

6. Purpose
The Evolution of the
work is intended to
provide a shared frame
to view the arc of the
work, not an attempt to
assess or apply
population-level
outcomes

7. Era Characteristics
and
Resulting Infrastructure

8. Characteristics
of Pre-MBK Era
2006 - 2013
• Vast majority of philanthropic
initiatives targeted black men
and boys
• Entrepreneurial program
officers drove the uptake in
investments in black men and
boys
• Emergence of Targeted and
Explicit Foundation Portfolios
& Investments in BMOC (due
to the efforts of those POs)
• Increase in consistent, multi-
year and in some cases
longitudinal data sources
Ò

9. 9
The evolution from one-off
reports or studies to more
consistent, in-depth and
accessible bodies of
knowledge and data to
help practitioners,
policymakers and/or
funders to inform their
work to expand
opportunities for Black
men and boys. (i.e. Schott
Report, CBMA-supported
Foundation Center, BMA
Funders website)
Increased Data Sources
Philanthropic champions
(Ford, OSF) marshaled
Black men & boys as a
population the funders
can invest in, ushering
the work from the margins
to mainstream in the
philanthropic sector
A Seat at the
Philanthropy Table
Organizations like CBMA and
BMe took the leap to move
beyond ‘program’ or
‘initiative’, to becoming
institutions that both ‘build the
field’ AND ‘serve the target
populations’
Mission-Focused
National Institutions
2025 Campaign, Black Male
Reimagined, A Gathering of
Leaders are examples of
convening and network
building efforts that built
community (online and offline)
for practitioners to learn,
connect, and strengthen their
practice in part due to national
infrastructure efforts to
support accessible
communities of practice.
Communities
of Practice
3 42
Resulting Infrastructure
P r e - M B K E r a
1 2 3 4

10. Resulting Infrastructure
Pre-MBK Era
Mission-
Focused
National
Institutions
Communities
of Practices
Data Sources
A Seat at the
Philanthropy
Table
Ò

11. Characteristics
of MBK Era
2014 - 2016
• Heightened public discourse and
confrontation of systemic
inequities in this country
• Surge in the philanthropic sectors
wrestling with its role and
commitment to investment
strategies that explicitly seek to
address inequities
• Back room
conversations/initiatives/investmen
ts become front room
conversations/initiatives/investmen
ts
• Increased interrogation and
critique of the BMOC Field of
Work
Ò

12. 12
Infrastructure
Support Entities
with Specialized
Skills
Field Infrastructure Groups
have formed partnerships
with an array of
organizations whose
mission’s are not explicitly
or exclusively targeting
BMOC, but rather they
offer, specialized skills and
analyses that are resources
to the field, and the field
infrastructure groups.
Inquiries
Embedded in
Systems &
Organizations,
Funding entities in both
the public and private
sectors have integrated
an explicit set of
inquiries into their work,
that amplifies explicit
opportunities to support
development and
opportunity outcomes
for boys and men of
color(i.e. SIF & Aspen’s
OYIF.
3
4
2
Resulting Infrastructure
M B K E r a
1 2 3 4Mission-focused
BMOC Field
Infrastructure Groups
Infrastructure is a composition of
entities that occupy critical
space that is foundational for an
effective and thriving field of
work. While some organization’s
beginnings were in the Pre-MBK
era, it is during the MBK era that
entities have emerged from
ideas to initiatives to institutions
to component parts of ‘field
infrastructure’
Case Studies of
Place-Focused &
Industry-Focused
Efforts
Stories of success and failure
are plentiful in each example.
A recent history are resource-
rich and necessary inputs in
conceptualizing and employing
more sustainable efforts that
effectively accelerate positive
life outcomes for BMOC. (i.e.
BMDC, YMI, CA Alliance)
5
Elevated Public Discourse - This era has produced a widely shared analysis of how the narratives and perceptions of young men of color
are drivers of perpetuating policies and practices that seek to limit opportunities of BMOC. Narrative change as a key lever has been integrated into
organizational analyses and objectives, targeting improving life outcomes of BMOC. Although the conceptualization of ‘how’ to change narratives is work
that is still in its earlier stages, the elevation of narrative change as a non-negotiable imperative for this work is in itself infrastructure that has been built
during this era.

13. Resulting Infrastructure
MBK Era
Field
Infrastructure
Groups
Infrastructure
Support
Organizations
Local Case
Studies w/
Rich Lessons
Inquiries
Embedded in
Systems
Ò
Elevated
Public
Discourse

14. Understanding the
Landscape
• Field Infrastructure
• Infrastructure Support

15. Criteria for Field
Infrastructure Groups
Ò

16. MISSIONAL &
EXPLICIT FOCUS
ON BMOC (or a
sub-group)
Ò

17. NATIONAL ENTITY THAT
BRIDGES TO LOCAL
• Local relevance
• Local impact
Ò

18. FIELD ORIENTATION TO THEIR WORK:
Their work includes serving, influencing and/or
building the field.
Ò

19. INFRASTRUCTURE
of the
BMOC FIELD
Executives’
Alliance to
Expand
Opportunities for
Boys and Men of
Color
Campaign for
Black Male
Achievement
Black Male
Engagement
National
Compadres
Network
National Youth
Alliance for Boys
and Men of Color
RISE for Boys
and Men of Color
My Brother’s
Keeper
My Brother’s
Keeper Alliance
Coalition of
Schools
Educating Boys
of Color
Cities United

20. INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT
ORGANIZATIONS
…provide specialized skills and competencies
that are integral to the foundation that the
Infrastructure Organizations are providing for the
BMOC field.
Ò

21. EXAMPLES of BMOC
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT ORGS
PolicyLink
Foundation
Center
Aspen Institute
BloombergForward Change
Frontline
Solutions
Ò
CLASPUrban Institute

22. Developing a Basic Understanding
of Infrastructure Groups
• What each organization does
• Where the organization’s are – bridge to local impact
• Segment of the BMOC population targeted (age,
ethnicity(s)
• Approach to (and definition of) Technical Assistance

23. Methods and Results
Brief interviews with each Infrastructure Group
Results were straight forward, yet clarifying (reference handout)
Findings are a combination of direct feedback and researcher
analysis
Ò

24. In asking Infrastructure
Organizations if they
provide TA, and if yes,
what EXACTLY is it
comprised of; we found
that although many of
these organizations are
providing TA, those
offerings are for the most
part not the same nor
redundant, as they are
targeting different sector
stakeholders, different
places and providing
different capacity supports.
Ò
Technical
assistance has
been oft-cited, and
rarely defined with
specificity

25. Ò
The notion of
redundancy in the
BMOC infrastructure is
a myth, however, the
lack of
COORDINATION
substantial
Most of the Field Infrastructure
groups articulated the need for
deeper coordination and the
implications of its lacking. There is
a collective analysis pertaining
to the need for coordination, but
there is not consensus on who
can and should do it and what it
requires. Some referenced the
ongoing efforts of the OY BMOC
Working Group. Other efforts to
coordinate the infrastructure
have been limited in scope by
the needs and/or brand-focus of
the convener.

26. Ò
Half of the Field
Infrastructure Organizations
have evolved from
initiative/portfolio/organizati
on to institution whose core
work includes ‘field-
building’; while half of the
orgs were founded, in part,
to build, sustain and
support the BMOC field
Part of these organization have
been core to the evolution of the
field, while half are the
beneficiaries and evidence of the
evolution of the field and its
infrastructure. Several of these
organizations have been
perpetually shifting as the
environment has shifted and
created demand for them to
function as ‘field-builders’, while
others are basically start-up
enterprises. Only one of the groups
is more than 12 years old, which is
in part why the Infrastructure
Support organizations are so
critical.

27. Ò
Field Infrastructure &
Support Orgs are
Inclusive (in their values),
yet Have Not Developed
Deep Capacities &
Relationships to be
Representative in
Investments & Supports
to API & Native MOC (in
particular)
Some of the Infrastructure
Organizations that support
Boys and Men of Color have
been inclusive in their
language and interest in
serving the needs of API and
Native young men. However,
the infrastructure organizations
that exist are thin in their
capacities, relationships and
strategies to to engage and
support API and Native males
in particular.

28. Post-MBK Era
2017 - 2022
What will be characteristics of this era?
What opportunities must the field leverage during this
next era?
What is the additional infrastructure needed to support
local institutions to sustain themselves and to see
population-level outcomes?

29. Respondents
Questions & Answers
Discussion
Ò