Communication That Respects Capacity, Labor, & Historical Context
Visibility, Invisibility, and the Systems That Shape Our Work
We work with Black-led, Indigenous-led, and equity-centered organizations in human rights, public health, education, and community well-being — teams navigating constrained resources, political pressure, and disproportionate scrutiny.
And we partner with organizations ready to examine how power operates within their communication systems: who holds authority, whose voices shape decisions, and how labor is recognized and valued.
We operate on four core principles that inform our frameworks, workshops, and advisory partnerships, ensuring that communication systems align with organizational capacity and labor conditions.
1
Honesty Over Performative Impact
We prioritize communication that reflects real conditions, limitations, and outcomes. This guides how narratives are framed, what claims are made, and how impact is communicated with integrity.
2
Protecting Labor & Capacity
We design communication systems that align with the real capacity of the people responsible for maintaining them. This shapes scope, pacing, role clarity, and workload so communication work remains sustainable.
3
Narrative Responsibility & Voice
We approach narrative work with responsibility to context, identity, and lived experience, while recognizing that communication infrastructure determines whose voice is heard as legitimate and authoritative.
4
Balancing Erasure & Exposure
We recognize that visibility is not inherently empowering, and invisibility is not simply a failure to 'tell a better story.' This principle addresses how both hyper-visibility and erasure shape risk, agency, and organizational health
Applied Social Sciences, Embedded in Practice
Our methodology is grounded in the applied social sciences. Rather than asking how to communicate better, we ask different questions:
What conditions are shaping what people can say?
Where is communication compensating for gaps in structure or authority?
Which behaviors are adaptive responses to strain, not individual failures?