Abby Leibman: So I realized when I was thinking about how to plan for this conversation, that there are all these questions that I have about your tenure, your commitment, your work with MAZON, that we just never have the time to sit down and really talk about. And despite the fact that I’ve known you for years, including 14 years in the MAZON context. I don’t think we’ve ever taken this opportunity, so I’m actually eager to hear your answers, and to hear how your vision has changed over time. And with the input of the changes that MAZON has gone through.I mean, you are the longest serving employee in MAZON’s 40 Year History.
It’s always been evident to me that you have in whatever role you’ve served here, which has changed over time. So you have gone through transitions here as well as the organization has, and you’ve always had a deep, an abiding commitment to the concerns of people who are food insecure
I want to start with what your observation was of the issues of food insecurity. When you first began your work with MAZON.
Mia Hubbard: Well, thank you. Thanks for the lovely words. Yeah. I think you know, when I joined MAZON in 1993 we as a nation, I guess I would say we’re we were coming off of a period of really disinvesting in our government programs right through the eighties and the Reagan era and you know, as a country we’ve kind of gone back and forth, alternating between cycles of disinvestment and investment. And that’s something we talk about in our museum. Right? Yeah. So we were. So when I came on in the early nineties having come off of a period where the government was really pulling back from its commitment to hunger during the eighties, and we saw in response to that, a real growth and proliferation of charitable programs. I think it’s something like half of the nation’s emergency food programs. Yeah, food pantries. And you know, soup kitchens, all of those kinds of on the ground programsmany of them more than half were founded during the eighties and into the early nineties, largely in response to that retrenchment. So when I came on, I think my zone really understood that quickly identified that we needed to really engage those community programs in this work? And to get them to understand their role as advocates right? And to understand that addressing the symptoms of the problem wasn’t enough, and that they really needed to engage in advocacy. So for those first few years that I was at my zone, that was a big part of our work. And we really used our grant making to prompt the hunger relief programs in this country to begin to see advocacy as an important part of how they achieve their mission, and that it wasn’t enough to just distribute food.
And you know, we invested millions of dollars in those early years in that work. So that was kind of the ground level of what we did, you know, and how to engage kind of those community based on the ground on the front lines of hunger, relief. How do we engage them in advocacy?
And then the other big piece of our work during those early years that I was at my zone was building that next level the State level advocacy organizations, and we are known for our investment in those organizations for helping them, many of them to be established. Many of the, you know, preeminent, successful, well-known statewide organizations that are part of this nation’s network of anti-hunger advocacy organizations, you know, in states like Vermont and Colorado and California, Pennsylvania, Maine. My zone helped to start so. So I think we can proudly take credit for engaging the grassroots of the Hunger relief world. All of the pantries and soup kitchens and Food Bank, the Food Bank network to see their role as advocates to understand that they have an obligation to use their voice and the knowledge that they have from being on the ground serving food, insecure people to bring that knowledge to the public policy arena and then to really invest in building a powerful network of state level, anti-hunger advocacy organizations that can do that work in in sync with them, and that was the work that that Mazon did, and that I was a part of in those early early years.
Abby Leibman: Do you think that part of that work was also helping people to recognize that the word advocacy isn’t scary? It’s not the. It’s not a poison, it’s not, and it’s not all. One thing.
Mia Hubbard: Yes, yes, I think some people think I mean, I know in the early years it was like it was almost like a pejorative like, and that people thought lobbying was kind of this icky thing right? Right? And that is one part of advocacy. But there’s many like you say there’s many other things that and activities that are a part of what advocacy is, you know, educating the community educating policymakers. It’s not always just about us, you know, pushing a specific policy change or law.
Research is part of advocacy. So yeah, I think that yes, educating the community about all of the different facets of how we can make broader change on this issue definitely was a big part of that, and that was part of the work that we did with the Jewish community to bring them along in that work, and to engage them as a voice, as a faith-based voice alongside these other players.
Abby Leibman: My experience has always been that people do distance themselves from the idea of lobbying. That organizations try to distance themselves from that, too, and then, ironically, you know, begin to engage in all of those actions that certainly now at MAZON we thought we think about as part of our advocacy. Portfolio many that you’ve just identified as some of those strategies. And I would say in a time when we are all feeling the need to be as well versed broadly and deeply in what it means to be a part of a democracy. The resonance here is. This is what democracy is set up to do. It is, it’s not forbidden. It’s not an extreme thing to do. It is, in fact, what our system was set up, that people. The people have this option and this opportunity to engage with their policymakers. I understand the reluctance. But I’m wondering if this was true back in the nineties, that there’s a really important aspect of making certain that people who are a part of whatever social justice work you’re doing are deeply affected by it. Are they themselves are a part of articulating solutions and needs. Articulating their needs, but to never put the onus of being responsible for that solely on them.And I mean many of the partners that you were instrumental in identifying for the organization and making commitments to were places where there were people with lived experience who were part of boards and staff but they had clearly reached a point in their experience where working in a an organization was a viable option for them, or one hopes that they’re being supported well enough. They didn’t really need food stamps, but also that together, voices have more impact.
Abby Leibman: Can you even remember, like the first sort of big advocacy effort that you personally engaged in?
Mia Hubbard: The big one would have been welfare reform, certainly, for my zone. You know, that was in 1996 and it was I think it was a turning point, not only for my zone, because we really began to think differently about our role, I think, as a grantmaker and even as an advocacy organization, we started to see ourselves more in that vein, I think. But yeah, I mean, I think welfare reform was the big one, and it really transformed the landscape of advocacy for our issue, because it really meant that we had to start working on these programs at the state level in a different way, because it had it. It unleashed all of these different ways that States could be involved in shaping how their food stamp program at the time Snap worked, and it literally meant that we had to do advocacy at 50 different in 50 different states, right? Like broccoli, and there were 50 different versions of it, or even more. I mean, there’s some states there are, you know, county flexibility. And so it could even look differently at a county at the county level. I think welfare reform really transformed the field. It transformed the landscape for advocacy in our work, and it forced my zone to start thinking about how we could be more sophisticated frankly in how we addressed it, and it wasn’t just enough to get food banks and pantries to be advocates. It wasn’t even just enough to support anti-hunger advocacy organizations. We really needed to broaden our work because it was going to be much more. We were going to be required to do much more sophisticated advocacy at the state level. So that was when we began to partner more and invest more in legal legal advocacy. And even in other types of advocacy, you know, child advocacy organizations bring them into our work. So it really transformed. I think the way we thought about how to know what, who needs to be engaged in this work, and where. So I think that that to me is, I will always remember that time, and and we’re still dealing with the after effects.
Abby Leibman: Right? Right? I was thinking the same thing.
Well, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. There are all these fond references to this change that most of us who are engaged in the justice field do not see as positives. I mean the time you were doing this work at MAZON I was leading the California Women’s law center. So for us this, this welfare reform which…
Mia Hubbard: Indian welfare as we know it. Yeah.
Abby Leibman: Right. I can never do that without the air quotes.
Abby Leibman It felt like a massive betrayal of women in this country, because, remember, the welfare in this country really was Afdc aid to families with dependent children. And it was like 99% women heads of households. And it is where we were really working to try to eliminate the feminization of poverty which welfare reform the tan, the shift to TANF temporary assistance to needy families actually exacerbated. And so I’m running an organization that is focused at what happens in California, which, if people forget that time, there was a viable part of the policy world here that was very opposed. Government support of those who are struggling, and our State did not do what I know happened in other States, which is that they took the block. Grant money that came from Tannip, and they spent it on things that had nothing to do with supporting individuals who are struggling.I, listening to you. Talk about? Why, from a zone. This is such a a pivot point of of making certain that you’re really investing in the support of advocates in the State level to get these States to not simply invest money, but to not misspend the money that they are getting from the Federal Government, you know, sending out flyers, telling women that they should get married was not. Behind the Federal money that gets appropriated to poor families, and these are, you know, there’s such a I’m not surprising that you would articulate something that is so much a part of the root of what is going on currently in our country. Right?
The attitudes towards this, the philosophies behind it, that I think that those persist.
Mia Hubbard: Absolutely. I mean, I think, just like about in the Welfare reform context. For example, you know, all sorts of categories of legal immigrants were cut from means tested programs, including SNAP. And these are legal immigrants.
Abby Leibman: I heard that.
Mia Hubbard: Yes, and so I think you know for me it really and like, I said, these are conversations we’ll still having about who’s deserving and undeserving, and who should be able to be served by these programs and not and yeah, and so I really feel like that fight was really, I guess, a watershed for the kinds of fights that we continue to have about, who should or should not be receiving assistance. Federal assistance for food, insecurity for poverty, for housing. I mean you name it, but that it was a watershed moment, for sure.
Abby Leibman: Can see that there’s these programs that were supposed to all be means tested have turned into mean programs. Right, exactly in the idea, again, of what you articulated about, who’s deserving and not deserving. And I think about the Jewish values that inform what MAZON does and how that is anathema to what Jewish teaching tells us we should be doing for those who are struggling. We’re not the people to judge other people, that that’s the job of the divine, not ours and it strikes me that those values it cannot be articulated often enough that they have to inform what they do. And I think about how so many of the organizations that we fund do not have a religious affiliation at all, and I wonder what it was like to approach a very secular food bank and you know this, this Jewish organization wants to give you money.
Mia Hubbard: Yeah, I mean, I can think of many instances where we were funding organizations for whom Mazoom was their only source of certainly Jewish. Support but maybe even faith-based support given. You know, we’re we’re, you know, statewide anti-hunger advocacy organizations. We’re mostly getting money from foundations, and maybe Federal funding, or something like that government funding. So it was not unusual for us to be their sole, let’s say Jewish funder for sure and there was a lot of pride actually on both sides. Frankly. Certainly for us, I think we, you know, certainly saw our grant making, and we see our advocacy as an expression of those Jewish values, right and doing that work in the world. And I think for many of our grantee partners, for whom it’s you know, Mazoom was their only source of Jewish communal support. I think it was a badge of honor. You know that they were in some instances had relationships with their Jewish communities, and it was, you know,iIt gave them credibility frankly, in those communities, and in some instances it helped them to build relationships with their local Jewish communities to have had our support. So yeah, I think it was It’s something we should be very proud of, and I think even to this day, I think, if we were to look at many of our current grantees, I think we are probably the only source of Jewish institutional support that they have. They may be connected to their local community Jewish communities, but I think in terms of Jewish institutional communal support we probably are, are still would be their only only source of support like that. So it’s actually a really unique story to tell frankly that a Jewish organization has supported so many secular anti-hunger or advocacy organizations for decades. And have channeled Jewish community resources to help sustain those organizations and their advocacy work on behalf of all people who are hungry.
Abby Leibman: I think the you know, for me when my initial experiences here, when I 1st became the CEO know that, you know, talking to our grantee partners, and how rthey saw what we were doing as a validation of their approach to many things, but including the idea that they do not discriminate, that their approach to their work is that who’s all who are hungry? Come and eat that. That’s how they do this, and I think that the support we get from the Jewish community, some institutional Jewish organizations as well as individuals iis such a remarkable statement of the commitment of the community at large to making Tikhun olam. To living that kind of value in what they’re doing, that they are saying, this is our priority, that it’s about healing the whole world.
And you know I was drawn to this organization in lots of ways, because of that commitment to values and values that probably strike most people as pretty universal, but that are not ever articulated enough in these contexts. I think certainly not by the Jewish community, and it’s, I think, over time become more and more of an imperative to suggest that this is what the American people, of which the Jewish community is a very small part, but nevertheless, the American people really see as their obligation to each other. Certainly things have evolved over time. I mean that we’ve already discussed the idea that the really pivotal moments in both what drove food, insecurity, and the mazone’s response to it are, you know, come at certain moments that are, you know, decades ago, but clearly you must have seen things evolve from that. Those are mid nineties to where we are now.
Mia Hubbard: Yes, I think probably the biggest thing that has evolved since I 1st came on at the organization and into this field is I think the fact that hunger has become a very partisan issue. And I think you know the days of you know Dole and Mcgovern are gone and you know I mean, I think it is hard not to see that Democrats, I think by and large support our increasing and bolstering our Government safety net and I think you know certainly in this day the majority of House Republicans, maybe even many Senate Republicans, I think, are not as committed to supporting our government safety net, and that includes our our food safety net. Andit’s become a very partisan issue. It’s become frankly as partisan as abortion and gun control. I would say, and that has made it very difficult. And it’s made our work challenging, and I think you know it’s interesting. I know.I think in our heart I think we all believe that it should be a nonpartisan issue. Nobody. I don’t think anyone stands up and says, we want people to go hungry. And yet we have very different ideas about how to address the issue. And it’s a continuing conversation in this country about the role of government right? And we have different differing philosophies, I think. And that’s how it’s become much more of a partisan issue in that regard.
Abby Leibman: But changed Amazon’s response, or the way in which we respond. Our actions, our strategies.
Mia Hubbard: I mean, I think we’ve always strived to work across, you know, party lines.
You know it does make the calculus of our work different in terms of who we can go to to move the kinds of policies that we want to move, who will have an open ear to kind of our perspective on how to address issues.
I think you know, with some of our some of our populations, we’ve been able over time right to build better relationships with folks who we may not agree with on a kind of a larger scale about how to address the issue. But when we’re talking about veterans or military families, perhaps we can get a more sympathetic ear. So I think I think we’ve had to be.
You know, we’ve had to sharpen. I guess our kind of political acumen and our thinking and our strategy, and the way we talk about issues, and but I think at the end of the day we have always been an organization that feels the need to speak truth to power, and so that that has not changed, and.
We do what we have to do, I think, to advocate on behalf of food, insecure people in this country, and for folks who want to be a part of this work with us. We are here to partner with them, and if they are in opposition of what we’re pushing. Then that’s the reality, I guess. Yeah. So I mean, I just think I think we are. I think we’re pretty savvy about it. Frankly, I really do and it, but it is getting harder and harder.
That’s just the reality of it. It’s getting harder and harder.
Abby Leibman: It’s the moments when you have to compromise, and where you have to compromise, that have really shifted. Certainly during my tenure here, where you know, people just said we’re not touching it. Don’t worry about it, and you know we could move on or try to push for something extraordinary, and those days are gone.
You know, certainly in terms of our approach to our work as changed during my tenure. I mean the idea of identifying our strategic advocacy priorities was something that I brought to the Board and worked with the Board to establish here as an important way for us to approach our work and you’ve been really instrumental in realizing that vision, and particularly around the work we did. And we’re doing around tribal nations. And I am struck by the fact that it’s hard for me to imagine anyone else doing that and having the kind of impact that you have iis, I think there’s just a way in which you approached that work that is unique.
So I’m curious about what you sort of either, consciously or unconsciously, can reflect on that characterize the way you approach that I mean, it came to you as a here’s a place where the board wants us to be active and how should we do that.
Mia Hubbard: think it’s been a real privilege for me, for my zone to work in that space. It’s required a lot of learning which I’m always happy to do, and I guess it’s really I’ve really been struck by how little I’ve I knew really about what was going on in Indian country, and why the history of it even you know we are. We don’t always. We don’t learn all of what we need to learn in school.
Abby Leibman: No, we don’t.
Mia Hubbard: And so I think you know part of what has been our approach as an organization is to listen and learn, and to really be, sit at the knee of some really amazing partners, right that we have in Indian country, and to hear about why, they are struggling with food, insecurity, the history of that, what our government, how our Government has contributed to that and I guess you know see how we can be an ally. That is helpful. We take that seriously. We, you know. I think you’ve heard me a million times. Say, you know, I don’t want us to get too out front of our partners, you know. I think we follow, and we need to follow. We lead when we can. And I think that has served us well in that work and in those relationships and and along the way we’ve done some really great stuff. And it’s really been a privilege, frankly, and I think it’s an area where my zone again has been unique. You know, in how we approach things and who we’re working with, what we’re doing, how we do it. So yeah, I, yeah, it’s been a real honor frankly, to to lead that work and to and to continue like I said, to learn. And you know we’re learning every day. I mean, there’s new threats on the horizon for tribal nations now.
And you know we are busy figuring it out, you know, and seeing what our partners are thinking, what they want to do, what they don’t want to. Do. You know, it was interesting. I was talking to someone about. Obviously all the legal challenges that are going on with regard to all of what’s happening in 2025. And I was talking to one of our Indian country partners, and she was saying, you know we weighed very cautiously into the legal world, because we know that : it can really bite us, and we’re not always sure that there’s a Supreme Court that will uphold tribal sovereignty or honor trust and treaty obligations. And so we have to be very careful, and it was just interesting. Because I you know, I think you know, when you see something that’s unlawful, or you think something is unfair, you know you often want to. That’s a place you want to go to to get an immediate solution. And you know that’s not always the best for those communities. So it was just. It was just a reminder that you have to listen. And you have to learn. And you have to really be in work, in concert with your partners.
Abby Leibman: Right. I also think it’s important to recognize the unique challenges and concerns of the different populations.
I mean. Certainly, you know, in in the nineties, you know, we, you know, running a legal. <eant that I also had to pay attention to what was happening in the courts, and which courts, and you know it was that if you you could see an injustice, and you would think, Okay, we’re just gonna go into court and do it. And you would think, well, if we lose.
We’ve now made bad law for only this part of the population. But if we appeal, then we lose. Now we’ve laid bad law here, and if you get to the Supreme Court, then it’s nationwide. So that calculus is, I think, always a part of the thinking of vulnerable communities that understand that they have the underpinnings of all kinds of historical bias which we often call systemic bias. But it’s also just that there’s an awareness of an entire system that was both created and historically dominated by people who have not had this experience and maybe don’t take the time to learn you did, and the way you’ve led all of us to learn and I’m hearing what you’ve said about the ways in which you approach this and how we do this with other pieces of our work.
So what is what’s on the horizon? What do you see in MAZON’s future?
Mia Hubbard: Well, gosh! I think Horizon, that’s an interesting word that implies that we can kind of see in the distance, and like it’s, you know is hopeful Yes, it’s very hopeful, I guess that’s a good way of putting it. Yes, Abby, and it’s hard that it’s frankly it’s hard to pretend that we’re not in a very challenging moment, where seeing a horizon of hope is you know, that’s a big leap. Yeah, particularly for folks who care about vulnerable people in this country.
We are definitely in a major fight for the foreseeable future, and I think I would hope that as an organization. We’ll continue to be, you know, brave and persistent and creative in our in our work, in what is largely going to be defensive work. You know, as advocates, we’re accustomed to doing defense right? I mean, we know that any improvements that we make, whether it’s a new program, or a new law or policy, or something.
Always requires constant vigilance to make sure it’s protected or not chipped away at, or that’s implemented properly, or whatever. So we’re used to playing that role. And that’s something that you know. It’s kind of the bread and butter of advocacy work. So we’re used to being in these kinds of places where we need to defend.
Mia Hubbard: But I guess I’ll I do hope that MAZON will do what we’ve really done under your leadership. Frankly, which is to take calculated risk, you know, and maybe I don’t know. Take some bigger swings frankly. I mean, I know it’s hard right now, but when there are political and policy openings and opportunities. I hope we will not just settle for kind of incremental change and kind of nibbling on the edges. That we will, you know. Push for that larger vision that that that we’ve been talking about, and I think you know my zone is not. We’re not dependent on Federal funds. We are in a position to take some of those calculated risks, and to to be more bold.
And you know, as anti-hunger advocates, we believe that people should have access to food, regardless of their background, regardless of their circumstance, regardless of what state they live in, what parties in power. And you know you were talking about our Jewish values and kind of the kind of safety net that we want as a country you know we want to. We want a safety net that recognizes people’s inherent dignity and that isn’t conditioned by things that don’t have anything to do with need, and that works for everyone, and that helps people thrive and succeed, and, like you said, reflects the best of who we are as a nation. So that’s what I think our vision is as an organization, and you know I’m going to be here for another 40 years if I have to to get there.
Abby Leibman: Wow! Hoping it doesn’t.
Mia Hubbard: Maybe not just maybe not here, but.
Abby Leibman: I love that as a view forward for us. Especially with the approach to advocacy that you and I have discussed. That I feel is so fundamental to what this organization is that it is our job to take risks, that’s what advocates. Do you stick your neck out? And I think it’s becoming more and more dangerous for vulnerable people to assert their rights, let alone their desires. And that’s our job. And I think that, having the support of the Jewish community behind. That is a really powerful impetus to keep that vision in our minds, to keep that commitment to others, front and center for all we do.
And having leaders like you in this field, with the kind of history that you have, the deep and abiding respect you have for all of those working toward a better future is the way in which we can actualize both that vision and that commitment. And I think that there are positive and hopeful signs that all of that signals so that I feel optimistic about the future.
Mia Hubbard: Well, I’m eager to continue to push forward. And I think you know, we’re gonna get there. It’s gonna be a lot. There’s gonna be a lot of work ahead, and there’ll be some dark days.
But you know, I think you’re right, and you know I feel strongly that our values are the Jewish values that guide this organization and provide that kind of a North Star. So I agree with you totally. And you know, our belief in justice and dignity and equity and universal access to the kinds of programs that we advocate for when people need them. So we’re gonna get there.