|
CHAPTER I: COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AS PRACTICED
IN THE UNITED STATES – A DESCRIPTION
I.
Historical Roots and Uniqueness
Community
organizing as practiced in the United States has as its roots the work of
Saul Alinsky (1909 -1972). Alinsky’s work, begun in Chicago and then
moved to other American cities, can most simply be described as the
transferring of concepts and strategies used in the American labor movement
for greater worker justice, to poor and ethnically diverse large urban
neighborhoods in order to improve city services and the quality of life in
these residential neighborhoods. Near the end of his life, Alinsky’s
associates sought to institutionalize this work in the form of systematic
trainings for community organization leaders and staff, and by creating an
institutional structure that would help sustain and spread these efforts.
The legacy of Alinsky’s work can now be found in hundreds of American
cities, towns, and rural areas through the work of individual
membership-based organizations, as well as, organizations of organizations
where religious congregations, labor unions, and others band together.
Community organizing differs significantly from the work of social service
providers, single-issue social movements, and political parties. While
social service providers deliver needed services to persons in need, and who
are often the victims of unjust social policies, community organizing works
to empower people to change and hold accountable those institutions which
often create the victims in the first place. Unlike single-issue
social movements often lead by charismatic leaders, community organizing is
multi-issue oriented with a broad collective of leaders. Community
organizing is political work in the very broad sense of this term, meaning
that it engages people in the civic and political affairs of their
communities. Community organizations, however, are never affiliated
with any political party, nor do they campaign for persons running for
office. Rather, they seek to hold accountable these and other civic
leaders to the needs and visions of the entire community, especially its low
and moderate-income residents.
II.
Basic Values, Concepts, Strategies, and Characteristics of Community
Organizing
Two basic
values govern and guide the work of community organizing. The first is
that of democratic participating and broad inclusively. All people
have the right to actively participate in the civic decisions, which govern
their individual and collective lives. Community organizing embodies
the value of democratic participation both internally, within the
organization itself, and by engaging the organization with the broader
community and decision-making processes. The organization’s members
are systematically listened to and actively engaged in the selection,
research, and solving of community problems. The organization's
leadership is democratically elected and its governing structures and
decisions are held accountable by the membership to insure the will of the
people is being followed. The organization then engages in the broader
community and democratic procedures. It negotiates with and for people
who are often excluded from the political mainstream due to their lack of
power on the basis of income level, or racial and ethnic composition.
The second governing value of community organizing is justice and
compassion. Community organizing works to see that all people and
areas of the city are treated with dignity and respect, and that a degree of
fairness is being lived out in a community’s distribution of goods and
services.
Power is needed to see that values of fairness and compassion are
implemented in the community. In this regard, community organizing
makes an important distinction between private and public relationships.
In our private relationships of family, friendships, and small voluntary
associations, the individual can often exert the needed power and influence
to see one’s needs are met and that one is treated fairly. If not, the
individual has a good deal of freedom to leave these relationships and
select new ones. In the public arena of involuntary relationships
(i.e. with large institutional structures such as city hall, the police,
banks, school system, and the like) the individual is more often than not
powerless to negotiate one’s needs and interests.
Community organizing points out that power and influence are manifested in
society in two major forms: organized money and organized people.
When the millionaire developer wants something from city hall, they often
get their way due to their organized money. When individuals of modest
income and wealth want change, however, they must band together to see that
their interests are met. In community organizing, power and influence
are exercised in large public assemblies where elected officials and other
civic leaders see that the threat of public embarrassment or the loss of
prestige or votes in the next election are worse than responding positively
to the needs and demands of the organization.
Community organizing follows three primary steps to achieve its purposes of
citizen empowerment and community improvements. The first step is to
systematically listen to the needs and visions of the people involved, and
to democratically prioritize them. One example of this “listening
process” will be subsequently described. The second step is to conduct
research to see what solutions can address these needs and visions, and what
public or private institutions and leaders have the power and resources to
carry out the needed solutions. Third, a large public gathering is
held to which the media and key civic leaders are invited. The
community problems are graphically described, the solutions are presented,
and the agreement of civic leaders is sought in the form of specific steps
they will take to address these problems. Smaller negotiating meetings
of the organization’s leadership with civic leaders take place before and
after such public assemblies where the details of solutions can be fully
developed.
1.
Why People Participate
When people
acknowledge that the power they need to positively change their communities
comes in the form of organized people, the challenge arises how to best
mobilize them. Community organizing works from the premise that people
become involved in activities for one of two primary reasons.
First, people engage because they have a direct self-interest in something.
Human self-interest can revolve around many factors, ranging from
self-survival to self-esteem. One can witness in community organizing
people’s involvement based upon the direct impact a community problem has on
a person’s life and family (the most common), the offense to one’s values a
community problem has (for example, a person may say, “I am not homeless,
but I become involved because I believe that there should not be the
conditions of homelessness in our city.”), or the satisfaction one gains
from working closely with a diverse group of committed people.
The power of self-interest is captured well in the following quote from
former American politician Mario Cuomo.
You cannot
have been in politics as long as I have and be blind to the fact that for
most of us, most of the time, self-interest is a powerful motivator –
perhaps the most powerful one. If we hope to reestablish our strength,
confidence, and balance as a nation, we need to help one another see that
our self-interest is not identical with our selfish interests, that
self-interest is inextricably linked to the common good. We need to
understand that apart from the morality of recognizing an obligation to our
brothers and sisters, common sense by itself should teach us that we are all
in this thing together, interconnected and interdependent. -
Mario Cuomo,
Reason To Believe, 1995
It is very
important to point out, as Mr. Cuomo does, that self-interest is different
than selfishness. Wanting the best for one’s life, family, and
community only becomes selfish when these desires are sought at the
exclusion of others. When they are sought in relationship and
cooperation with others, when overlapping and common self-interests are
recognized and affirmed, the nature of power to achieve them is transformed
from an oppressive “power over” others to a liberating “power with” others.
The second primary reason people engage has to do with relationship of trust
and goodwill one has with a person who invites them. When asked, “Why
did you attend this meeting?” or “How did you become involved in this
group?”, it is very common to hear the response, “Because a friend invited
me.” Long-term involvement ultimately comes back to self-interest.
Relationships, however, often determine initial involvement.
One final note can be made regarding participation, especially regarding
involvement in public and civic affairs. Often people blame apathy for
the lack of people’s civic involvement. The word “apathy”, or
“a-pathos”, implies a lack of passion and concern. Very few people
truly lack in passion or concern for themselves, their family, or their
community; but they often do feel powerless to make a difference.
Community organizing awakens a realistic hope that things can change through
one’s involvement with others.
2.
One-On-One/Face-To-Face Visits
One of the
most effective strategies used in American community organizing is the
one-on-one or face-to-face visit. Its purpose is to discover a
person’s self-interests and to initiate a relationship of trust and respect.
While it is very rare during a first visit that the person visited will be
invited to participate or become involved in something, a foundation is laid
to do so in the future.
A one-on-one visit is an intentional conversation, always arranged ahead of
time, and lasts for approximately 30 to 45 minutes. It begins with the
person doing the visit establishing the reason for visiting. The
following example is typical within the context of a faith-based community
organization where one lay person is visiting another from their own
congregation.
Thank you for taking the time and allowing me to visit. As I mentioned
when I called to arrange this visit, I am part of a team of twenty persons
from our church who are each visiting five to ten other members as a way of
strengthening the fellowship of the church and understanding our members
concerns for the church, our neighborhood, and our city. Before we
talk about visions and concerns, however, I would enjoy getting to know you
better. Please tell me more about yourself.
Visitors
ask about the background, family, work, hobbies, and future aspirations of
the person they are visiting. Questions such as, “How did you choose
your job and what do your really like about it?”, and “Were there any key
people or events in the past that really helped shape who you are today?”
lead the conversation to a deeper level. Eventually the visitor will
ask about the community and church with such questions as, “If there was one
or two things that would make our church a better place than it already is,
what would that be?”, and “What makes you angry and what would you like to
see changed in your neighborhood or our city?” The visit ends with the
visitor saying something like this.
Thank you
for taking the time to visit and share. Next month our church team
will report back to the full congregation what we have found. Then we
will invite the membership to take part in developing strategies to address
the visions and concerns we have heard. I will call you when this
occurs.
Persons conducting such one-on-one visits consistently report how rewarding
they are, how it expands the number of people they know, and amazement at
how much people are willing to share about themselves during an initial
conversation. Upon reflection, this final conclusion should not be
surprising. It is a wonderful experience when someone truly listens to
and takes a genuine interest in us, all the more so in our increasingly busy
and impersonal culture.
As alluded to in the one-on-one example just cited, these visits often occur
in the context of a “listening process”, an eight week period when a trained
group of people will each visit five to ten others. After the
visits are completed, the visitors will share with each other what they have
heard, look for a pattern of repeated concerns and visions, and then report
back to the membership their findings and preliminary recommendations for
next steps. Within a faith-based community organizations of thirty
congregations working together, it is not uncommon for 2,000 people to be
visited and listened to during this eight week period. Each parish
listening team, in addition to reporting back to their own membership, will
also share the community concerns they heard at a meeting with listening
teams from other congregations and parishes. Such a joint listening
process generates great energy, excitement, and hope that community problems
will be effectively addressed. What helps guarantee success,
however, is that the listening teams can now invite the 2,000 people they
visited to participate in the organization based upon the self-interests
they have discovered and the relationships they have begun to establish.
3.
From Unmanageable Problem to Solvable Issue
In addition
to being able to mobilize large numbers of people as a means of exerting
power on behalf of the values of fairness and compassion, community
organizing helps people translate vast community problems into specific and
winnable issues. The quality of education, crime in neighborhoods, or
the poor delivery of city services are vague and vast community problems.
Working to see that Lincoln High School implement an after-school reading
tutorial program for 100 struggling readers by the start of the new school
year is a specific and winnable issue. Demanding that the police
add extra patrols for three months to eliminate drug dealing in ten
identified drug houses is concrete. Requesting that the city fix the
potholes on twenty named streets, transforms a vast community problem into
something the organization can take to their public leaders. Community
organizing trains citizens to demand from civic leaders precisely what they
want and by when.
Such demands allow for concrete negotiations and specific accountability.
At large public meetings, civic leaders are asked questions such as, “Will
you implement a tutorial program for one hundred struggling readers,
beginning October 1st?” Such questions require a
“yes” or “no” answer from the public official. Details of the final
solution and needed modifications of the original request can be further
developed in subsequent negotiations. The specific nature of the
request, however, will keep the negotiations on track and prevent civic
leaders from diverting attention from peoples’ true concerns and visions.
Three
additional characteristics of community organizing help distinguish it from
other forms of community and social work: the nature of its financial
income, leadership, and staff. Community organizations need money for
staff, leadership training, and basic office expenses. This money
comes from a variety of sources and, as much as possible from the
membership. Membership-raised money is important for two reasons.
First, people feel greater ownership over that which they personally pay for
and invest in. Second, membership raised money equals independence.
It is difficult to hold city hall accountable if a large portion of an
organization’s budget comes from government sources.
The
membership and leadership of community organizations are its most valuable
asset. Leaders in community organizations come with different styles
and characteristics, but they hold in common that they are people with an
identifiable following, and they are able to mobilize this following when
the organization needs to exert its power. Community organizations
place great emphasis on training leaders with the skills they need to become
effective players in the democratic public arena. Formal leadership
trainings include teaching specific skills on how to conduct one-on-one
visits and productive meetings, how to research and tackle community issues,
fundraising, and effective negotiating. They also teach theoretical
skills like how to understand power, the key differences between public and
private relationships, and the importance of clearly understanding our own
and other’s self-interests. The real training of leaders, however,
occurs “in the field” when these skills are put to use.
Finally,
the staff of community organizations are paid professionals who play
multiple roles. Community organizers spend the majority of their time,
especially in the beginning stages of building an organization, conducting
hundreds and hundreds of one-on-one visits, drawing people together through
the common self-interests he or she has heard from the people themselves.
The community organizer serves as leadership trainer in the context of
formal trainings, meetings, and all aspects of the organization. A
final prominent role of the community organizer is that of agitator.
Often the organizer is an outsider who comes into a community asking, “Why
do things need to be this way?” He challenges people to act upon their
stated beliefs and values. As an outsider and in the role of
facilitator, the organizer plays a behind the scenes role, never doing for
others what they can do for themselves. So it is the organization’s
leadership, not staff, that run meetings, hold accountable and negotiate
with civic leaders. The organizer, however, helps prepare and reflect
with the leadership how these actions can be most effective.
III.
American Churches as Active Participants in
Community Organizing
A recent
study by “The Interfaith Funders” found that there are over 3,500 religious
congregations in the United States that participate in community organizing.
These congregations contribute money in the form of membership dues, church
space for meetings, and their pastors and members as the active participants
of the organizations. In addition, regional and national religious
bodies have contributed millions of dollars of financial support to
community organizing efforts.
There are three primary reasons for this extensive church participation and
support for community organizing. One reason is that community
organizing fits the values of justice and compassion found in the
Judeo-Christian tradition and scriptures. Second, community organizing
offers churches an effective mission strategy to powerfully address
community concerns directly impacting their membership, neighborhoods, and
city; a strategy that goes beyond more traditional church charity or social
service approaches.
Finally, community organizing serves the institutional self-interests of
pastors and their congregations. One-on-one listening processes help
foster fellowship within the church and is often used to reach out to
inactive or potential new members. Listening processes are also often
used by congregations and parishes to clarify their own internal programming
and ministries. Pastors and lay leaders also learn valuable skills
that help their own church run more effectively. For example, church
leaders often learn in the context of community organizing how to run
effective and efficient meetings, and then bring these strategies back to
church committee and ministry meetings.
Preface
Thus far, we have spoken of the basic concepts and strategies of community
organizing. We turn now to some concrete examples in order to paint a
fuller picture of community organizing in practice. While many
examples could be selected, I will draw from my own experiences since they
are ones with which I am most familiar. Examples will be given of the
process used in building a new faith-based organization of organizations;
work done in selecting, researching, and solving two community problems; and
the day-to-day work of a community organizer. I begin, however, with a
brief self-description.
Since there are no schools that formally train community organizers, the
question is often asked, “How does one become involved in this profession?”
The personal stories I have heard which answer this question are as varied
as the number of community organizers I have met. In my own case, it
was a combination of influences that lead me into organizing. Born and
raised in Cleveland, Ohio during the times of the civil rights and
anti-Vietnam war movements, I was made aware of the power of citizen
activism in shaping public policy. My upbringing in the church helped
connect these struggles for justice to the values of the Christian faith.
I remember at the age of fifteen feeling a call into the ministry or
politics as a way of contributing to these efforts for greater societal
fairness and compassion, but feeling unsure how to connect them. It
was during my university studies that I was introduced to people doing a
range of organizing activities.
My first professional experience as an organizer began in 1979 with the
Southern Woodcutters Assistance Project, working with predominately
African-American pulpwood cutters in rural Mississippi. Our work
combined a self-help, social service approach with organizing. The
woodcutters formed local chapters of a buyers’ cooperative (allowing them to
purchase saw and truck parts at a wholesale price) and credit union (helping
to break the credit trap many of them were in with the those who purchased
their wood). These services also formed the backbone of the
organization. Attention was then turned to organizing for a state law
establishing a fair process for measuring their wood when sold to buyers and
getting a higher price for their labor.
After completing my Seminary studies and being ordained a minister in the
United Church of Christ, I worked for an individual membership based
organization in Duluth, Minnesota that focussed on neighborhood improvements
and fair lending practices of area banks. My work evolved in Duluth to
that of building an organization of organizations consisting of churches,
labor unions, and an assortment of women’s, senior citizen’s, and tenant
organizations. Seven years in Minnesota was followed by four in St.
Petersburg building a faith-based organization before serving as the Head
Organizer of the Interchurch for Coalition for Action, Reconciliation, and
Reconciliation (ICARE) in Jacksonville, Florida. The following
concrete examples will be drawn from my nine years with ICARE; an
organization of 35 churches dedicated to powerfully addressing the needs of
low and moderate-income residents.
A.
Sponsoring Committee 1993 – 1995
Prior to my
work in Jacksonville, an organizer from the Direct Action and Research
Training Center (DART) spent one to two days a month for two years building
a Sponsoring Committee. DART is a twenty year old network of twenty
five community organizations in Florida, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and
Virginia. They have three full- time staff persons, provide leadership
trainings twice a year, organize an annual three-day meeting of pastors, and
provide monthly consultant visits to each organization that is part of the
DART network. During the past three years they have systematically
recruited recent university and seminary graduates for a twelve-week
organizing internship, and the twelve DART-affiliated organizations in
Florida have worked together and won common issues at a statewide level.
The Sponsoring Committee in Jacksonville, built between 1993 and 1995, had
fifteen church leaders (Bishops, District Superintendents, etc.)
representing seven different faith traditions. During these two years
they learned about community organizing, raised seed money, and then hired a
full-time community organizer.
B.
Head Organizer’s First Nine Months in Jacksonville 9/1995 - 5/1996
I began my
work as the Head Organizer in Jacksonville in September, 1995. For the
first six months my primary task was to visit with area pastors, mostly in
one-on-one meetings. During these visits I was building relationships,
listening to the pastors’ visions and concerns for their congregations and
the broader community, and explaining the purpose and strategies of
community organizing. In February and March of 1996, 35 of the 120
pastors I had visited met together for three meetings and made plans and
commitments to build a faith-based organization with their congregations.
The also began to introduce me to lay leaders in their churches. I met
with these church members individually and in small groups. Then on a
Friday night and Saturday morning in late May, 1996 we held a joint
training. 125 persons from 25 churches came and learned what
faith-based organizations had accomplished in other communities, potential
strategies that would build an organization in Jacksonville, and became
acquainted with one-on-one visits. They were then asked to spend the
next month recruiting other members of their church to a training on how to
do one-on-one visits.
C.
One-On-One Listening Process 6/1996 - 9/1996
In late
June, 1996 ICARE held a three-hour training for 200 lay people from 20
churches on
how to do effective one-on-one visits and to plan a visiting process in
their congregations. During July and August these 200 persons
conducted 1,300 visits and returned to a meeting in September, which we
called an “Issues Assembly.” Each church reported how many visits they
had completed and what three community problems their members most wanted
ICARE to work on. Ten community problems were identified, but a vote
by the persons at the Issues Assembly selected public education, drug and
crime problems, and infrastructure improvements as the three priorities
ICARE would address during the coming two years.
D.
Issues Research 10/1996 - 12/1996
Three weeks
after the Issues Assembly ICARE held an Issues Training attended by 95
persons. We discussed how these three priority community problems
could be researched and approached, and asked these 95 persons to volunteer
to be part of one of the three Issue Committees. Between October and
December, 1996 these Issue Committees conducted research and developed
potential solutions and recommendations. Also during this time the
Sponsoring Committee developed organizational by-laws and a list of nominees
to serve on the newly created Board of Directors.
E.
Convention 1/1997
250 people
attended the Founding Convention of ICARE in January, 1998. They voted
to approve the new by-laws, they elected a new Board, and they received the
reports and recommendations of the three Issue Committees. They also
approved plans to hold ICARE’s first Public Meeting one month later, and
made commitments to bring others from their churches to this Public Meeting.
F.
Public Meeting 2/1997
On February
6, 1997 ICARE held its first Public Meeting. Nearly 1,000 people and
the media attended. ICARE pastors and leaders from each Issue
Committee explained the three community problems and then asked key public
officials if they would work with ICARE to solve these problems. The
School Superintendent and Police Chief both attended the meeting and
responded, “Yes, I will work with you to solve these problems.” The
Mayor, however, did not attend but instead sent a representative who could
not speak on his behalf. The next morning the Mayor called ICARE
pastors and apologized for not coming. He also told TV and newspaper
reporters that it was a big mistake that he did not attend. Three
weeks later the Mayor came to a meeting of 125 ICARE members. He
brought his 18 top government leaders and said he would work with the
organization.
G.
Negotiating Solutions 3/1997 - 5/1998
Between
March and May, 1997 ICARE leaders met with the Mayor, Police Chief, and
Superintendent of Schools. The Mayor committed to make 125
infrastructure improvements presented to him by ICARE including street and
sewer repairs, the tearing down of abandoned buildings, cleaning up of
neglected parks, and installing new street lights in areas where crime was
occurring at night. The Sheriff ordered new police patrols in areas of
high crime and arrested known drug dealers. The School Superintendent
agreed to set up a new “In-School Suspension Program” for misbehaving
students that would keep them in school rather than send them home to
unsupervised environments, and would help them with their homework so they
would not fall behind in their school work. The pledges of all three
leaders were fulfilled.
H.
The Work of ICARE Continues 6/1998 – Present
During the two or three years ICARE was beginning, some of the pastors and
lay leaders asked why we were taking so much time before we began to work on
community problems. Later they saw that this work was necessary.
Without this initial groundwork, ICARE would not have been able to bring a
thousand people together, and it was this large Public Meeting that made the
political leaders positively respond to the community problems. The
preparation work also allowed the pastors and members of the different and
diverse churches to understand, respect, and trust one another.
Finally, the preparation work allowed us to build a multi-issue and
long-term organization that would not die after the first or second issue
was solved.
ICARE has a Convention every two years. Before this Convention, ICARE
member churches conduct the “community issue listening process” during which
they have listened to between 1,300 to 2,300 persons on each occasion.
Issue priorities and the twenty-five member Board of Directors are selected
and elected at the Convention. The Board meets monthly to direct and
coordinate the work of ICARE. New Issue Committees are formed after
each Convention to address the three or four issues selected at the
Convention. During the past nine years these issues have included
education, drugs and crime, infrastructure improvements, youth activities,
health care, public transportation, affordable housing, and health care.
At least one time a year, ICARE holds a large Public Meeting with important
government and other community leaders in order to solve community problems.
II. Solving
Community Issues
As was
stated earlier in this report, community organizing follows three basic
steps in solving community problems: democratically selecting the
community problems to be addressed, research, and negotiating with public
officials. During ICARE’s second “community issues listening process”
conducted in the Fall of 1998 many of its members complained that public
transportation for low-income workers was inadequate. A typical bus
ride took as long as three hours from Jacksonville’s Northside residential
areas (where unemployment was the highest in the city) to the Southside
industrial and commercial parks (where job growth was most prominent).
ICARE leaders learned that efforts in other parts of the country had
successfully addressed this issue through a variety of strategies.
ICARE invited staff from the national Center for Community Change to
Jacksonville to conduct a 50 person training to see which of these
strategies might work. The approach used elsewhere that seemed most
appropriate for Jacksonville was the creation of a bus hub in the Northside
that would gather bus riders at one central location and then transfer them
to an express bus line to the Southside. ICARE leaders had learned
from conducting local research visits with area business and governmental
leaders, as well as with residents, that the ideal location for such a
hub would be the Gateway Mall. Gateway had been built as Jacksonville’s
first suburban shopping mall in the 1950’s but had fallen on hard times as
the neighborhood transitioned from middle to low-income residents. A
bus hub at this location would bring potential customers back into this area
and assist in its economic revitalization.
ICARE leaders and staff prepared a seven-page report of its research
findings and recommendations. 25 ICARE leaders met with officials of
the Jacksonville Transit Authority (JTA) to present the report and begin a
dialogue. Two weeks later, ICARE held a meeting of 600 of its members,
explaining the findings of its report, presenting testimonials of bus riders
who wanted solutions, and asking the JTA President to act upon ICARE’s
recommendations. The JTA President agreed to all of the
recommendations. Within two months the bus hub was established at the
Gateway Mall, direct bus lines were established to the Southside, and
transit time was reduced from three hours to fifty minutes. Within a
year, the Gateway Mall began attracting new businesses and has now become a
flourishing shopping and service center in Jacksonville’s Northside.
ICARE’s work on this issue continued in two primary ways during subsequent
years. ICARE continued its relationship with the JTA, providing
citizen input for future transit reforms, and helping JTA receive three
separate one million-dollar grants from the Federal government to establish
additional bus lines for low-income workers in other parts of the city.
Ridership on all of these new lines has been successful enough to allow the
JTA to profitably continue them beyond the initial seed funding provided by
the Federal government. ICARE leaders also became active in the
Transportation Equity Network, a special project of the national Center for
Community Change that gathers leaders from community organizations from
around the United States in order to share strategies and help shape Federal
government policies and spending on transportation issues.
If ICARE’s
work on public transportation serves as an example of a truly cooperative
partnership between grassroots citizens and public officials, ICARE’s work
on early literacy education in the public schools illustrates its efforts
with an entrenched bureaucracy, resistant to change.
The
history of public education in Jacksonville, Florida is one of low quality
and numerous struggles. During the 1960’s Jacksonville’s public school
system was dis-accredited due to its poor quality. During the 1970’s
many white students left for private schools as the public schools were
forced by court order to integrate African-Americans. Twenty years of
struggle over integration still left many low-income and African-American
students in substandard classrooms and receiving a poor-quality education.
ICARE’s membership continued to select the quality of public education as
its highest priority issue during the organization’s successive biennial
listening processes. The education issue most important to ICARE’s
membership was the quality of literacy education. ICARE’s members knew
from their own experiences what research has continually found to be true –
that the key to a student’s ongoing academic success begins with their
learning to read fluently during their first three years of school.
Research and years of poor test scores have also shown that low-income
children are far less likely to become successful readers. The
challenge for educators is that low-income children often have less literacy
training in their homes than their middle and upper-income peers.
Whether it is that their parents have less time to read to their children,
or that their parents themselves are illiterate, many low-income children
are in need of more foundational reading and communication skills at the
beginning of their formal schooling. Public education, however, too
often uses the same teaching strategies and curriculum materials with these
low-income children as they do with middle and upper-income children who
often begin school already knowing how to read.
A typical “social service” approach to this issue of early literacy
education, and one used by a number of ICARE member congregations, is that
of setting up after-school tutorial programs for struggling students.
The limitations of this approach, however, are numerous. In
particular, an ambitious tutorial program may assist fifteen to thirty
students, whereas in the city of a million people like Jacksonville,
thousands of children fall behind every year.
ICARE learned through its initial research that there were teaching
strategies and curriculums that took into account these significant
differences in the literacy backgrounds of children. In April of 1997,
eighteen ICARE leaders traveled to a low-income, inner-city school in
Columbus, Ohio that was using these alternative teaching strategies and were
amazed with what they saw. Low-income and African-American children
were reading fluently and with great self-confidence by the end of first
grade. The vast majority of students at all grade levels were
outperforming their middle and upper-income peers in other parts of the
city. The curriculum used by this school started with foundational
literacy skills in the early years, like phonemic awareness and lots of
repetition, before then moving the students into more complex critical
thinking skills. For ICARE members who had seen their own and so many
other children in their neighborhoods struggle academically, seeing with
their own eyes children like their own succeeding at such high levels was a
revelation. They became determined to bring these strategies back to
Jacksonville.
ICARE asked the Jacksonville School Superintendent to send principals from
the city’s low-income schools to Columbus, Ohio. He agreed to send
five, and ICARE paid for seven other principals with whom the organization
has begun to build relationships through research visits. Twelve of
the thirteen principals who traveled to this school reported back to the
Superintendent that if they were given permission and support from the
School District, they would begin using these teaching strategies
immediately. Two months after this visit, ICARE held a 700-person
meeting and a series of workshops involving 150 community leaders.
Four outside educators were invited to speak about their alternative
teaching strategies. At the 700-person assembly, the Associate
Superintendent agreed to begin developing a play to implement these
strategies. Three months later, in February of 1998, ICARE members
packed the Jacksonville School Board room to witness final approval of a
three year pilot program involving twelve schools, the creation of a
District trainer, and allocation of $ 1.5 million in order to hire an
outside consulting firm to provide teacher training and to buy curriculum
materials.
Little did ICARE realize at the time that this initial victory was to be
only the beginning of a long battle to maintain these efforts. One
month (August, 1998) before the 12 schools began implementing the new
reading strategy, the School District hired a new Superintendent who was
determined to implement new reforms that left no room for anything he did
not see as a priority. ICARE and an outside evaluator hired by the
District both gathered test scores and conducted stakeholder satisfaction
surveys from educators, parents, and students. Despite test scores
improving dramatically and overwhelming satisfaction from all persons
directly involved, the Superintendent and high level administrators used
numerous behind the scene and public tactics to undercut these reform
efforts. Speculation regarding this administrative resistance ranged
from the controlling ego of the Superintendent, to the resistance of the
education bureaucracy in general to change suggested from the outside.
ICARE continued its support of these reforms in numerous ways. ICARE
raised money to pay for over 100 teachers, parents, and community leaders to
visits model schools that were successfully utilizing these alternative
strategies. ICARE held numerous large public meetings, press
conferences, and wrote two major reports documenting successes.
ICARE’s
efforts, like the debate over and attempts to reform American public
education, are not over. The organization and its members, however,
have taken deep satisfaction over the thousands of children who have thus
far benefited from its efforts.
III. The Role of
the Community Organizer
A.
Building Relationships
Community organizers
perform many tasks, but first and foremost they are relationship builders.
Especially in the early stages of an organization, the majority of an
organizer’s time is spent visiting
one-on-one with potential members and leaders of the organization. It
is not uncommon for an
organizer
to conduct twenty to thirty one-on-one visits a week. Through these
visits an organizer is becoming familiar with the community’s passions,
concerns, and visions, as well as, looking for persons willing to act on
these concerns and the talents they can bring to the organization’s efforts.
The
organizer then brings these people together, assisting them in creating an
agenda and leading a meeting, which will allow common concerns to be shared,
and for new relationships to be formed. Preparing for a meeting of
thirty people, for example, requires that the organizer revisits key
persons individually, a small group planning meeting, issuing invitations,
and doing reminder calls a day or two in advance of the meeting. A
well-run meeting will conclude with clear follow-up steps and an
understanding of who will do what in order to move the organization and work
forward. Building relationships with face-to-face visits is an ongoing
task of the organizer if the organization is to continue to grow and be
vital.
B.
Training Leaders
Community
organizers are constantly training leaders and members of the organization
in skills required to make the organization effective. One key area is
in training organization members in doing one-on-one visits so that it is
not simply staff creating the network of relationships vital to the
organization, but many others doing the same. Organization members get
their first “training” in one-on-one visits through the visit the organizer
has done with them. Formal trainings then occur in workshops where
members learn new skills and practice with each other. Then, like all
skills one learns, members practice and get better by doing.
Through formal trainings and the process of doing and evaluating, organizers
train members in many other practical skills. Members learn to lead
meetings that start and end on time, have a clear sense of purpose, and
accomplish intended tasks with carefully planned agendas and effective group
facilitating skills. Members learn how to take large community
problems and translate them into manageable and winnable issues. They
learn research skills and then how to negotiate with public officials.
For many persons, being able to speak confidently with public officials and
other powerful people is a passage to a new and transforming self-esteem.
Witnessing this empowerment process is one of the most rewarding aspects of
being a community organizer. Members also learn how to raise money.
In doing so they learn to speak effectively about the organization and how
to ask for funds with confidence. Fundraising by members not only
accomplishes the obvious goal of bringing in money, it also provides leaders
with new self-esteem and a feeling of ownership over “their” organization.
The community organizer also helps train members in new ways of thinking
that reinforces the practical skills they are learning. Reflecting
with members upon how political power operates, and how our behavior in the
public arena needs to differ from our behavior in the private arena in order
to be effective, gives leaders new understandings of themselves and their
communities. In faith-based organizing, trainings often devote time to
a scriptural and theological foundation for doing justice, which allows
members to see their actions in the context of their heartfelt beliefs and
values.
The organizer plays the role of trainer in formal workshops, during
meetings, and through reflecting with individual members. The
organizer insists that every meeting and action taken by the organization is
evaluated. Not only does evaluation help us reflect upon and learn
from what we have just done, it also allows the organization’s members to
plan what needs to be done next.
C.
Two Other Primary Tasks
Community
organizers assist the leadership of the organization in doing strategic
planning. This planning may be long-term in nature. ICARE, for
example, conducts Summer leadership retreats proceeded by one or two monthly
Board Meetings where overall goals and an organizational timeline for the
coming year are discussed and ratified. This provides an overall
context within which particular meetings and activities are seen as part of
a larger plan, as well as, allowing for the coordination of different issue
work and other functions of the organization. Again as with all other
aspects of the organization’s work, the organizer carefully listens to and
discusses strategic options with individuals and small groups of primary
leaders before larger groups discuss and decide upon key strategic
directions. Strategic planning is also necessary for every meeting and
action along the way, seeking to answer questions such as, “What do we hope
to accomplish with this meeting or action? Who needs to do what?
What will be the necessary follow-up steps?”
Every organization requires raising money and conducting administrative
tasks like preparing mailings, maintaining databases, and paying bills.
Most grant writing is done by organizational staff, but all other
fundraising involves significant member participation. In ICARE this
takes the form of members seeing that their congregation pay their annual
dues, and conducting visits during an annual fundraiser, seeking the
financial support of individuals and business leaders. A Finance
Committee of the Board, with the help of the organizer, develops and
monitors the organization’s budget. For all other administrative
tasks, the organizer seeks volunteers or part-time staff to carry out these
functions so that the organizer can keep focussed on the primary job of
organizing.
D.
Qualities of an Organizer
A community
organizer must have a talent for relating to and fundamentally
respecting a wide-range of people from diverse backgrounds. An
organizer must have a passion for fairness and democratic processes, and
willingness to work hard to undo the injustices of a community. He or
she must be a good listener, carefully discovering the visions and passions
of the people. An organizer needs a strong ego, capable of suggesting
strong direction but without needing to be front-and-center. An
organizer must be willing to take calculated risks, as well as, be able to
give and receive criticism. An organizer must be curious about people,
institutions, and the political process. Finally, an organizer needs a
sense of humor and ability to laugh at oneself.
|
foco
- forum community organizing e.V.
