Classroom to Capitol

Kickstart your community organizing!

February 8, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Following a link from one of the blogs I follow regularly brought me to Kickstarter. It’s a pretty awesome site–a “funding platform for artists, designers, filmmakers, musicians, journalists, inventors, explorers…” Basically, people with cool ideas (check out the vertical vegetable gardens in city windows–I wish I’d thought of that!) write up their ideas and submit a budget, and then people can contribute towards making those things happen (in any amount). The creator can put a deadline on the project, and the site organizes them by genre, popularity, and overall appeal (in the “recommended” section). The site also tracks how much has been contributed so, if you really wanted your donation to go towards making a project actually happen, you could choose one close to its goal. Projects that reach their goals then charge all contributors’ credit cards for the amount pledged; projects that don’t reach their goals cancel all pledges. The payments are processed through Amazon, and creators retain all ownership–it’s not ‘investing’, but donor funding.

So, while there’s a lot to like on the site already, including some awesome-looking film projects that highlight social justice issues, here’s my idea:

We need a Kickstarter.com for community organizing!

Imagine it: a community organizer (maybe you!) could write up a project that your constituency is planning, how much money you need to pull it off, and your deadline. Obviously, there would be times when some secrecy would be required, since sometimes surprise is an essential part of a direct action strategy. But that wouldn’t be too hard to pull off. And then potential donors could search by geographic area, type of campaign (so, if you wanted to fund a rally, or a training, or a press event, or whatever, you could choose something that fit that criteria), or by issue (living wages, immigration reform, sexual violence, reproductive rights).

Often, community organizing efforts need access to relatively small sums of money, quickly, with few strings attached. And while something like Kickstarter wouldn’t address the parallel need for investment in organizational capacity and staff salaries, it could infuse needed dollars into shorter-term campaigns, as well as potentially attract new interest and new allies, and demonstrate to grassroots leaders that their plans have real appeal and support, a powerful lift.

If anyone has ever seen anything like what I’m describing, please let me know; I searched and couldn’t find it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there somewhere. If not, what would it take to get something started? Do you think it’s a good idea? If you’re an organizer, what kinds of projects would you want to submit? What would you be willing to fund?

→ Leave a CommentCategories: My New Favorite Thing
Tagged: ,

Trending in Action: “Ideas for Change in America”

February 5, 2010 · Leave a Comment

According to the folks at Change.org, “Ideas for Change in America is a crowd-sourcing competition that empowers citizens to identify and build momentum around the most innovative ideas for addressing challenges our country faces. The 10 most popular ideas will be presented at an event in Washington, DC to relevant members of the Obama Administration, and Change.org will subsequently mobilize its full community to support a series of grassroots campaigns to turn each idea into reality.”

Here’s a list of the ideas submitted so far for 2010. The 2009 list, unfortunately, hasn’t really been touched, but we know that building movements take awhile, right? And I guess there’s something valuable to be gained by bringing new campaigns on while still laboring on those other priorities? Or maybe the political landscape has shifted such that some of those other issues (health care, immigration, civil liberties) don’t seem as ripe today as they did in the honeymoon phase of the Obama Administration?

Some thoughts:

  • Crowdsourcing suggests that a crowd will come up with the best possible ideas only when that crowd displays considerable diversity, so that you’re actually bringing ideas from across a spectrum, not from an amalgamation of a relatively homogenous group. Unfortunately, the people who spend time at Change.org (and the organizations that are the partners for the contest), while I tend to agree with most of their orientation (!), are mainly fairly tech-savvy, younger, left-leaning people (hence the idea to “end the oligarchy”), which may ultimately mean that some good ideas that could be drawn from other parts of society are lost.
  • There is a certain ‘trendiness’ here: for example, one of the ideas that was originally sent to me was to require television of Supreme Court cases. I, for one, would really like to watch the Supreme Court, and it would be a cool teaching tool, but there are also some concerns about how such publicity might change the tenor of deliberation. What’s more interesting to me, really, than the pro and con of this issue is what it reflects: our current emphasis on transparency.
  • Finally, I’ve been watching with interest the whole mobilization process that organizations are using to elevate their suggestions. In the end, the ideas that emerge victorious may be not necessarily those that resonate most with some amorphous public but those surrounded by constituencies that know how to use these media to rally people to their cause. In that sense, it’s not unlike the fundraising challenges that have used social media recently, and not immune to the controversies surrounding them.

    But what I’d really like to know is what ideas YOU have to make this a better country. What kinds of policy changes? What kinds of structural reforms? You can submit your ideas here. And can an effort like this play a role in the process of building momentum around these issues? If you think so, then go vote!

  • → Leave a CommentCategories: Events and Calls to Action
    Tagged: , ,

    Review: Here Comes Everybody!

    February 4, 2010 · Leave a Comment

    I officially cannot imagine my life without social networking. I use Facebook as a kind of mini-journal to weave my lives as a mom and an advocate together, and also to stay connected with work colleagues past and present, former students, and the few totally personal friends that I have managed to maintain as part of my life. I share links on Twitter and follow experts in the fields of nonprofit management, various social justice causes, and social media–it’s a fantastic way to survey what’s important and to prioritize my own reading and thinking.

    And, of course, I use this blog to share my thoughts about organizing and advocacy and nonprofits and technology and fundraising and the other things I love to think about. I get a huge kick out of students’ comments both here and on the Facebook feed of the blog, and it has cut down on my Post-it note usage, since I no longer have to try to remember all of the little things that pop into my head, demanding more attention. It has kept me disciplined in my reading and thinking these past 9 months, and I believe that it will be part of my practice perpetually.

    But, still…I have found myself wondering lately if social media are really such a revolution after all, or rather different ways of doing the same kinds of communicating that we’ve always done. I mean, email is certainly faster and cheaper than earlier methods of person-to-person communication, but emailing my mom rather than calling or writing to her isn’t exactly revolutionary. Using email to collect contact information from millions of supporters and target them with specific messages designed to elicit action, like the Obama for America team did…well, that can obviously change the world. But it’s certainly not a foregone conclusion that the technology will have much of an impact.

    I read Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody largely to explore these questions more: are these new social technologies inherently revolutionary? How can they be applied in ways that are more likely to add significant value to our work? What do we need to understand about human nature, and the nature of organizations, to figure out how social media can further our mission?

    It’s a supremely readable book, full of interesting case studies, and I like the fact that it doesn’t gush or glorify any of the social media applications, but, rather, takes a rather skeptical view that ultimately concludes that they have huge promise for good, considerable potential for harm, and significant inertia towards the mundane and trivial. Which, when I look at data for how many people are taking action or making donations on Facebook compared to how many are taking quizzes about which Hogwarts instructor they are most like, makes a lot of sense–we’re still the same people, after all, in these new applications (until organizing and consciousness-raising change our lives!).

    One of the promising aspects of social media, and really any postmodern technology, is in the ability to reduce transaction costs so that we can do what we would already be doing (organizing folks, raising money, mobilizing supporters) more easily–not revolutionary, at all, but a better hammer, so to speak–an improved tool for accomplishing the work that comprises the core of any social action. If we think about Facebook and Twitter and Flickr like that–tools at our disposal–rather than as gods to be served or fads to be followed, then I think we’ll find tremendous value.

    The most important piece of this book for nonprofit folks, I think, is Shirky’s insistence that we recognize that our messages are already uncontrollable, that the very nature of these technologies is to resist centralization in favor of diffusion, and that what we’ll get is not the same content distributed in a different way but fundamentally different types of information–that which stems authentically from the diverse experiences of the many (hence the title) rather than uniformly from the annointed.

    For pro-democracy types, this should be good news (Shirky includes examples from Belarus and Spain and the Thai military coup that are inspirational), but, more commonly, it’s a gut check for social justice advocates who also happen to work within hierarchical institutions. For all we talk about ‘power to the people’, we still get nervous sometimes when everyone’s not ‘on the same page’, and we have to recognize that loss of control over message is the price we pay for people taking authentic ownership of our cause. Unfortunately, many nonprofits and social justice causes try to use these new communication venues in the same old way–1:many–when they’re made for many:many. What you get, then, are people who feel ignored and shouted at, rather than engaged and respected.

    Some of the facets of social media I distilled into some advice for nonprofits and social justice causes:

  • Be careful not to solicit more interaction than you can keep up with, because you don’t want to burn your supporters
  • Remember that the Power Law means that the gap between those few superstars of social media and the rest of our organizations (with relatively few connections) will grow, not diminish
  • Invest in the technologies that are most widely adopted now (websites, email, mobile phones)
  • Focus on behavioral change, not the latest shiny toy
  • Counter-organize: remember that the falling transaction costs apply not just to those groups of which we approve but also those that we find dangerous and offensive
  • Use new technology to reduce the cost of failure, so that your nonprofit organization no longer has to paralyze itself trying to avoid the inevitability of failure
  • Remember that everyone else KNOWS that the transaction cost has been reduced, so that may mean that you need more transactions (or different kinds) to have the same effect–he uses the example of emails to Congress to illustrate this (man after my own heart!).

    Finally, Shirky uses the phrase ‘ridiculously easy group forming’ to describe what social media makes possible. And that made me think: since groups are so easy to form now, will we see a corresponding ’shallowing out’ of these group connections (when the cost of joining is so low, joining may not mean much to me)? I think from my own experience that this is true. Even a rather hard-core activist like me finds myself sometimes joining Facebook groups just because someone asked me to, even if I don’t intend to really contribute much of anything. Would I do the same thing if the ‘cost’ of joining was higher? Probably not. So, then, what that means for organizers is that we have to find ways to deepen the connections that people form through these modalities, to create different layers of participation and leadership, and to strengthen the human relationships that transform nominal membership into transformational belonging. If we can do that, we’ll have both breadth and depth…and then we’ll be unstoppable.

  • → Leave a CommentCategories: Analysis and Commentary
    Tagged: , ,

    Promoting from within? Hiring your leaders

    February 2, 2010 · Leave a Comment

    As we all know, there are sometimes significant differences between what sounds like a great idea in theory and what really works in practice. Even more disturbing are the times when there are big gaps between what we really want to do (and how we want it to work) and what ends up happening.

    A dilemma that, for me, unfortunately falls in this category is the question of whether or not to hire your grassroots leaders to work for your organization. All entities that do community organizing have this struggle, really, but I think that social service types that also do organizing have even more challenges, both because they are often somewhat less sophisticated in their leadership development structure and because they often have more staff openings that present this quandry.

    To me, the problem is this: if we don’t hire our grassroots leaders when we have openings that would be good fits for their skills and interests, then we’re betraying our intentions to do authentic grassroots leadership, sending them a message that they don’t belong as paid staff, and creating a double standard wherein some people get paid to do the mission work that they love and others have to do it (often with comparable sacrifice) for free. BUT, if we hire a grassroots leader for a staff position, that can often create hard feelings among other leaders, who may see the hiring as either a siphoning off of their best leadership or a direct slight to their own abilities, or both. There can also be difficulties on the part of existing staff, in terms of adjusting to the leader’s new staff role, but those are more technical challenges (albeit considerable ones!) than real moral dilemmas.

    These dilemmas are real. I’ve seen grassroots efforts nearly derailed by animosity over the selective hiring of a previously dynamic leader, and I’ve seen people turn on each other, and the organization, when someone was hired from the outside rather than from ‘one of their own’. I’ve seen grassroots leaders, hired as staff, flounder in those roles but not held accountable because the supervisors didn’t understand how to relate to them in the new role. And those situations were all, uniformly, total messes.

    Have you ever faced this dilemma? If so, how did you handle it? Did you recruit from within your leaders first? Or look to external candidates? Did it ever occur to you to invest in hiring your own leadership? Did you try it? And, if so, how did it work? How did other leaders react to the hiring? What lessons did you learn? What should guide us as we make these decisions? Admittedly, these struggles may not be quite as common now, since we’re just not hiring as much as we once were, but THOSE DAYS SHALL COME AGAIN, and we need to be thinking now about how we’ll handle them, and how what we decide to do reflects on our organizing ideology.

    → Leave a CommentCategories: Analysis and Commentary
    Tagged: ,

    21st Century press release: creating your own content

    January 29, 2010 · Leave a Comment

    microphones

    Nonprofits and their need for media attention have been on my mind lately. I reviewed a new version of a textbook on advocacy and organizing that I have used in class before, and I noticed that the section on writing press releases and holding press conferences is virtually unchanged from previous versions. A few days later, I was talking with a nonprofit organization that is planning a press event in the state capitol and helping them think through how to manage their information dissemination for maximum impact. Later that night, I was going through my RSS feed, checking out updates. And, then, as these things often happen, all of those encounters mixed together in my brain at some point (probably while in the shower; I do my best planning then!), and got me wondering whether nonprofit organizations really need traditional media outlets to tell their stories in the same way, and to the same extent that we used to.

    In the age of blogs and social media, how can we modify our press strategies to not only get our message out but, more importantly, start a conversation with those most likely to support our work? How can we use new media technologies to change the context around our work and influence the kind of traditional coverage we get? How can we use that traditional media to drive traffic to the more interactional sites where real relationship building can happen?

    Do we still need press releases? Should we still have press conferences? Do we need a blog?

    I think, ultimately, that the answer to all of those questions is ‘yes’. That doesn’t mean more and more work for nonprofit communications folks, though (read: the people who wear a ‘communications’ hat in addition to dozens of other things that they’re doing). Here are my thoughts on how to bring these goals together with today’s technology, and in today’s media environment, along with some fantastic links to nonprofits that are using an official blog to great effect.

  • We still need traditional media to reach those who use it as a primary media source, but we need to be smart about that audience and about the limitations of the venue. I have written before about some of the challenges facing newspapers and other traditional media outlets, and about the importance of recognizing those in preparing our content–helping with stories, understanding their deadlines, submitting things that appeal to the demographic slice where your target audience overlaps with their reader/viewership.
  • This also means thinking about how traditional media are using new media like blogs, online content, and social networking themselves–how can you connect to media in those contexts in ways that will generate coverage for your organization? Are you ‘friends’ with your local reporters on Facebook? Following local media on Twitter? Do you read blogs by reporters that cover your areas of work?
  • All of your traditional media should funnel folks back to your own, organization-generated content. That was part of the discussion I had in advance of this Topeka event–all press releases should have your organization’s website, Facebook page, Twitter feed link, and blog (as applicable). You should also think about ways to get media coverage for your new tactics. This does NOT mean sending out a press release because you started a Facebook fan page (yes, I have seen it done). But it does mean that raising a significant amount on money through social networking may, in fact, be newsworthy, just as a fundraising event would be. Think about what that success says, not just about your organization, but about the changing face of nonprofit media engagement. Pitch it to the newspapers, radio stations, and/or television stations in a way that doesn’t denigrate what they do as news providers. And direct people to connect with you through those sources, too.
  • Perhaps most importantly, prepare different kinds of content for the different venues. Think about your traditional media work primarily as reaching out to those with whom you don’t currently have a relationship and setting the general tone of conversation about your issues/work. And then create your own content, where you have more control over the outgoing message AND can invite meaningful exchange–in your social networking and blogging platforms.
  • Frame these ‘new’ media activities as MEDIA, to get organizational buy-in for them. Most nonprofit CEOs and Boards of Directors understand the importance of media coverage, but many are more skeptical about social networking’s real impact or about the tremendous time commitment of a blog. Helping leaders at your organization see how the two can feed each other can help to overcome some of this initial hesitation and build a better strategy across the board.
  • Finally, there are times when you may want to skip the whole “write a press release, work the phones, try to get coverage” thing. When the people with whom you mainly want to communicate are those with whom you already have some sort of relationship, or when you hope to really generate conversation, more than anything, a well-written, well-connected agency blog can do this more effectively and efficiently than traditional media. There are some good resources available for nonprofit organizations interested in starting a blog, so I’m not going to reiterate those points. And here are some
    great examples of nonprofit organization blogs; if you’re interested in those written about nonprofit work, I’d be happy to share my RSS reader with anyone!

    Citizens’ League of Minnesota–website features two different blogs related to their efforts to engage people in Minnesota in discussions about progressive policy work.

    Oceana–a conservation group using a blog to invite conversation about people’s experiences with ocean wildlife.

    Oxfam News blog–this is my personal favorite of this list; I love the first-person accounts of Oxfam’s work around the world and the call-to-action in nearly every post

    First Book–this is an organization that gives books to programs that serve low-income kids; what I like about the blog is that it appeals to people not just as donors or volunteers, but also as parents and readers, with reviews and news on child literacy. I’d check this site out even if it wasn’t for a nonprofit organization.

    One thing that you’ll notice about many nonprofit blogs is that some of the best ones are for more advocacy-oriented nonprofits. Not that that’s a bad thing, obviously, but there’s also tremendous possibility for direct service nonprofits to use blogs. The links above give great suggestions for how to set up your blog (technology to use for hosting, how to encourage sharing and linking, how to think of topics, etc…). I’ll just end with a few ideas for social service nonprofits, in particular:

  • Highlight a volunteer per week–a photo, an interview, and, of course, a call to potential volunteers!
  • Profile client success stories, ideally in the clients’ own words
  • Highlight public policies that impact your programs, and include information to help readers take action
  • Discuss issues facing your nonprofit, using your blog to ‘crowdsource’ ideas from other nonprofits and from leaders in the community

    What about you? What are your favorite nonprofit blogs? How is your organization using a blog? Or how might you? What help do you need to get started? How is your traditional media work informing your social/new media, and how it it being transformed by the multiple and evolving connections you have to your various ‘publics’? How might you modify your press work to reflect this new environment?

  • → Leave a CommentCategories: Tips and How-Tos
    Tagged: ,

    An Advocacy Agenda for the End of the Recession

    January 28, 2010 · Leave a Comment

    Recession Lane by ZenTraveler, via Flickr Creative Commons

    I’m no investment guru. OK, that’s a major understatement. I’m not even responsible for balancing my own checkbook.

    But, I read. And, so, I know that the smartest investors and business leaders are planning NOW for the end of the recession, positioning themselves now to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise when the economic conditions improve. The advice, essentially, is that waiting until things get better to make your move will be too late, that we have to step out of our retrenchment, reactive mode and start thinking about what it is that we want and need to get out of the immediate post-recession period, and, much more importantly, how we’re going to get there.

    So that has me thinking: what would a post-recession policy agenda look like for the social services? And what should we be doing today to position ourselves to make it a reality?

    Becuase we get it. The economy is really bad now. State budgets are horrible. We have a terrible federal deficit and stimulus funds that will run out soon, and our local governments are absolutely in dire need of funds. Not-for-profit organizations are, in many cases, even worse off, because private donations have dropped as well. It’s all bad.

    Until it’s not, anymore.

    And, then, what are we going to do about it?

    Unfortunately, history suggests that the answer may be, “not that much.” Too often, we have failed to demand what it is we know we deserve during the good times, and then we almost completely go away, or at least just fade to defense, during the bad times. I mean, think about it, when was the last time that a state legislature or U.S. Congress ever approached the social work profession and asked, “You know, we have some extra funds right now. What can we do for you?”

    They don’t. Which is why we’ve got to be ready. Here, in no particular order, are my 5 things we should demand when this recession ends, and the 5 things we should be doing now to position ourselves to win them. No, 5 is not a magic number here; it was going to be 10, but, you know, I have 3 kids to raise!

    Our advocacy agenda for the end of the recession:</strong>

  • Full restoration of cuts in social service and community development programs, and an index for inflation: In the past few months, several people have asked me what I view as the chances that programs will be restored to their full, pre-slash levels. My answer? Almost none, unless we demand it. Yet we cannot let ourselves forget that, even before this most recent round of assaults, services were woefully, and sometimes even dangerously, inadequate. We can’t allow that to happen again. Means-tested benefit levels should be automatically indexed for inflation, both at the individual level and for overall program growth, which will require:
  • Progressive tax policy: We will make a huge mistake if we head into a post-recession period ONLY talking about spending. The truth is that this recession would not have been nearly so painful if not for the widespread and often deep tax cuts at the state and federal levels in the late 1990s and early part of this decade. We need to restore vigor and progressivity to the tax structure, close tax loopholes, and build a strong foundation for the future, in times of feast and famine. And, yes, this means that nonprofits need to get on board with the Obama Administration’s proposed changes to deductible contributions for very high earners.
  • Full restoration of outreach and optional items within entitlement programs: States and localities, in particular, have been quite creative in how they have cut costs in this recession, and we must be vigilant in our post-crisis advocacy. One of the main ways that programs have been cut without being “cut” has been through reductions in outreach and some optional items, because, after all, if no one is applying for a given program, then we don’t have to spend any money on it, right? Only close connection to those most affected by these programs and their reductions can inform our advocacy priorities along these lines.
  • Increases in state institutional aid and federal financial aid for higher education: Of course we social workers are primarily concerned with social services funding–it’s what we do, what pays our bills, and what our clients need, every day. But we also need to be concerned about the future of our profession, and that requires attention to the dramatic rise in college tuition around the country. We can’t build the kind of social work profession we and our clients need if we don’t increase access to higher education.
  • A shift towards instititutional social welfare, starting with universal preschool programs: Enough of the safety net. Why are so many people falling in the first place? We need a transformation in favor of universal supports, and a good place to start is with universal preschool, especially given the increasing recognition of the importance of early childhood education. It’s only a small start–we need universal health care (STILL WAITING, folks), greater investments in housing, maternity and paternity policies, etc…but preschool kids are a good place to start.

    And the 5 things we need to be doing today to get there:

  • Relationships, relationships, relationships: I’m sure that my students are tired of hearing me say this, but it’s really true: relationships are pretty much everything when it comes to lobbying. We can’t afford to sit out this legislative session, or 2011, just because there may not be money to accomplish our ‘wish lists’. We need to be there, making our case, presenting data, organizing constituents, demonstrating that we will never, ever, ever go away.
  • Messaging of economic investment arguments: I firmly believe that we shouldn’t go overboard on the money-saving arguments–some of the things that we need to do are important despite their costs, quite honestly, and we also potentially weaken the moral strength of our arguments–but where we can make the claim, as I believe we often can, that investing in our nation’s human capital will make us better positioned for the next economic downturn, we need to be ready to make that claim, effectively.
  • Voter registration, naturalization, youth voter engagement: Numbers don’t equal power. Anyway you calculate them. BUT, organized numbers are the best way to guarantee a seat at the table and, many times, the substantive policy changes we want and deserve. Check out this map and tell me how happy you are. And now let’s go out and do something to shape the nature of the electorate not only in 2010, but in 2012 and 2014 and 2016, too.
  • Coalition building–we need a ‘big tent’: We need coordinated campaigns that make the case for broad investments in our social infrastructure, not ad hoc and sometimes oppositional appeals for special dispensation here and there. This will take a lot of organizing and may result in some uncomfortable alliances, but we know that it works. I mean, the Joint Chiefs of Staff go in with one united voice, right, and they get what they want. Well maybe we need a Joint Chiefs of the Social Economy, or something, and we need to speak with a big, powerful voice.
  • Organizational capacity for social change, even if that means nonprofit consolidation: I don’t believe that the growth in the number of nonprofits is necessarily a cause for any concern–where there are unmet needs and people with great capacity to meet them, we absolutely need an organizational response to facilitate that. But a post I read recently about the idea of requiring nonprofit peer review before charter got me thinking about the role that mergers and acquisitions play in the corporate world during economic hardship, and the generally-held belief that such processes play a role in the emergence of stronger, healthier corporations post-recession. And that got me thinking about the fact that, while we may not have too many nonprofits in the abstract, we all know of some that just aren’t really doing much, or not doing all that they should, or not doing things as well as they should, or not doing what they could if they were complemented by another organization, or…you get the idea. And, so, I’ll be so bold as to suggest that, in our pursuit of organizational strength and capacity for advocacy, which absolutely has to be a priority as we gear up for the end, we need to be willing to consider consolidation of organizations as a tool in that process.

    All of this said, I recognize that the recession is far from over. The human cost is real and huge. And social workers will absolutely play a key role in stopping the bleeding during the months to come.

    But, to really do justice for those whose lives have been ripped apart by the economic turmoil of the past few years, we have to be ready to act decisively and victoriously when the tide turns. There must be some honor from their suffering.

  • → Leave a CommentCategories: Analysis and Commentary
    Tagged: , , ,

    Let’s talk about…race

    January 27, 2010 · Leave a Comment

    segregationbus

    I guess that I spend more time thinking about race and racism than most white people. Almost every time I see someone pulled over by a police officer, I hope that it’s not someone being harassed for his/her skin color. In class, I find myself thinking a lot about how I’m including the perspectives of people of color in my social commentary. I try to choose authors and blogs with an eye towards ample representation of voices of color, so that I’m not getting only ‘whitewashed’ news. And I talk about race a fair amount, with students and friends and colleagues and mentors like Lenny.

    I would bet, though, that even people who don’t usually think about race much have had a hard time ignoring it over this past year. Slightly more than a year ago, an African-American man was inaugurated as our nation’s President, and people were tripping over themselves declaring that “racism is dead” or some other such clever-sounding, idealistic, and thoroughly nonsensical thing (what, “post-racist” is the new black? Or Black?”). Before the stage was even disassembled, the racist invectives, white nationalist zeal, and thinly-veiled mainstream prejudice seemed to permeate every aspect of our political institutions. It became painfully obvious that, while perhaps slightly wounded in some parts of the country and among some parts of the electorate, racism is anything but dead.

    And, so, as I often do, when I am somewhat obsessed about something (my husband is probably glad I’m out of my whole Czarist Russia craze!), I started reading about race. A lot. I read about slave-owning families and the Civil War and slave labor under the Belgian colony and about Reconstruction and Marian Anderson and debt peonage in the post-Civil War South and Dixiecrats and Barry Goldwater and about racial divides in Chicago neighborhoods and the 1964 Freedom Rides and W.E.B. DuBois. I read about Obama himself, the rise of white nationalism, school segregation, anti-racist organizing, unsung heroes of the civil rights movement, and about the connection between race and immigration.

    Of course none of that reading held any firm answers to the difficult questions that surround the uniquely pathological relationship that the United States has with race and racism. But I remain convinced that we all need to be a little bit obsessed with racism and its vicious and insidious nature, a little bit overwhelmed by its persistence and wickedness, a little bit maddened by its permutations and sneakiness.

    And, so, in an attempt to infect others with the bug by which I was bitten after reading a white nationalist group’s email rejoicing at Obama’s election (because now it would become obvious to all of the apathetic would-be ‘racial patriots’ that Blacks have ’stepped out of bounds’ and that a full-on ‘racial holy war’ is the only answer) and realizing that they probably WOULD see an uptick in recruitment after the inauguration, here are some of the thoughts that I have been mulling over for the past several months.

    If anyone wants additional texts from the informal reading list that I pulled together for myself, just email me or leave a comment. And I’m always looking for new suggested titles, too!

    It’s obvious that we can’t legislate love–meaning, in this context, that we can use social policy to regulate people’s behavior but not their attitudes. In the racial justice arena, this means that, for many, when the gains of the civil rights movement meant that African Americans and other people of color had legal claims to the same rights, whites trying to protect their privilege sought other means of social distance through which to insulate it. So, as William Julius Wilson illustrates in There Goes the Neighborhood, when schools were integrated, white families moved to other neighborhoods to keep their children from going to integrated schools. Community development initiatives become little more than dressed-up gentrification, aimed at keeping undesirable (Black) households out. As an obvious believer in the power of social policy, this is particularly vexing. How can those of us not patient enough to wait for slow ’soul changing’ work win more secure gains in the status of people of color, as long as these techniques for avoidance thrive?

    Pervasive throughout much of what I read is a kind of ‘leave it to the children’ approach, a belief that somehow racism is the exclusive purview of previous generations that will slowly die out as those cohorts do. It’s a sad and unfortunately untrue mischaracterization of the motivations for yesterday’s racism and the likelihood of improvement tomorrow. I don’t mean to suggest that we haven’t progressed as a nation within the past few decades. It is undeniable that we have. But I believe that most of that progress is attributable to the courageous and visionary agitation of people of color and their allies, not from some inexorable transcendance of racism. Far from it. At the park one day last fall, as the high school was letting out, my three-year-old asked why all of the Black kids were sitting at one table. Indeed.

    Something else that has been thrashing around in my mind a lot is the nexus between class and race. Wilson quotes several Chicagolanders talking about how people of color in their own neighborhoods are ‘fine’ (read: of the same social class), but that their concerns lay with those they deemed deviant. There has been a lot of talk about how we need to learn from the lessons of the New Deal in dealing with today’s recession. And that makes me think about the rampant racial exclusions and accepted double standards that were part of the foundation of our modern social contract. How can race and class ever be untangled?

    One of the best points in Wilson’s work, in my opinion, is his analysis of the ways in which the rapid demographic changes in some neighborhoods combined with the decline in traditional collective organizations as the primary mechanism through which people interact with each other. Taken together, they suggest a further decline in interracial contact–think, for example, about your Facebook friends. How often, in that realm, do you have meaningful encounters with those of other races (working together towards common goals, dealing with conflict)? Compare that to the workings of a multiracial labor union, a neighborhood group in a multiracial area, a Parent-Teacher Association in an integrated school. Will more advanced technologies give us better tools with which to excise race and racial difference from our lives?

    Perhaps the most stunning sentence from my months of reading on race is this, from Slavery by Another Name: “the prolonged economic inferiority and social subjugation of African Americans that was to be ubiquitous in much of the next century was not a conclusion preordained by the traditions of antebellum slavery” (p. 85). Really, immediately post-Emancipation, there was a tremendous political and practical opportunity to reap significant gains for Blacks in the South. Tremendous. There is, perhaps, no more compelling or more tragic example of the importance of policy implementation than this–that we had a real chance to atone for the deep sin of slavery with a true reconstruction that would create equal opportunities and correct, through policy, for at least much of the harm that had been wrought. Instead, malicious exploitation and malignant neglect combined to destroy those intentions and trap people of color in law and practice that enshrined white nationalism as the operating principle of our social policy.

    That same book also reaffirmed my belief in the need for a strong federal government. In today’s context of new federalism and continual denigration of ‘big government’, we can use reminders of the federal government’s decisive triumphs, particularly when it attempted vigorously to defeat racism and racists. It took World War II and the fear of having Jim Crow laws used against it by the fascists to get the U.S. government to move more aggressively to dismantle the many layers of codified discrimination that the mantra of ’states’ rights’ had preserved.

    And, finally, all of this has made me think a lot about “unpacking”–unpacking the stories that we tell ourselves to feel better (that people of color have had since slavery to get ‘caught up’), unpacking our collective responsibility for the oppression of people of color (when it’s clear it was/is systematic, widespread, and intentional, not accidental or incidental), unpacking the ways in which racism continues to injure all of us. And in this case, it’s only in unpacking that we can get somewhere.

    → Leave a CommentCategories: Analysis and Commentary
    Tagged: , ,

    The Sunflower State Needs Reseeding!

    January 26, 2010 · 6 Comments

    Kansans, we’ve got problems. And it’s not just that the budget is tough. We’ve known that for a long time.

    Our biggest problems are the failure of many Kansans, including many of those elected officials charged with representing us, to recognize precisely how bad it is, and what that means about the options that are and are not really viable at this point; and a lack of political will and strategic vision to make the hard choices that must be made.

    This certainly isn’t unique to this year or to our state. Moral courage, is, in general, in short supply throughout public life–NOT just among members of the state legislature. We’d all like to get as much as we can with as little pain as possible and, writ large, that can lead to some pretty appalling public policy decisions.

    But, still, as I head to Topeka this week to work with a few dozen bright, aspiring student journalists as they challenge our elected officials to think of the future, I’m hopeful.

    Because history shows that sometimes the most amazing things happen when our backs are against the wall, when everyone knows that the only avenues left are pretty bad, and when there’s a collective sense that we’re in this together, as much as we wish that we were somewhere (anywhere!) else.

    Here’s how bad it is. At a legislative forum I attended two weeks ago (so, yes, this is tardy–ear infections in young children are evil!), I had this exchange with a senior senator closely involved in budget negotiations:

  • Kansas, as currently laid out, has a $5.3 billion budget in state general funds (which excludes those special-use funds, as my advanced policy students remember) for this year. That’s AFTER a cut of approximately $1 billion last year. With a “b”.
  • Despite those cuts from last year, to just keep everything going this year (with absolutely no program growth), we’ll still run $250-350 million short this fiscal year.
  • Okay, so that sounds like, “we need to make some cuts, but not as much as the year before, so…you know, we knew it was going to be a tough year, but everyone needs to tighten our belts and…”
  • Wait. That ~$300 million needs to get cut out of the ~15% of the budget that’s really in play. Here’s the deal. We can’t cut K-12 education anymore without having to give back the stimulus dollars that are tied to our commitment to keep school funding at at least the 2006 levels, which is where we are now. We can’t afford to give that stimulus money back, so we can’t cut K-12 education any more. And Medicaid costs are essentially out of our hands; Kansas is doing very little optional with Medicaid right now anyway, and the federal government determines eligibility and the level of state responsibility.
  • So, then, we’re left with a reality of needing to cut that $250-350 million out of approximately $800 million. And WE CANNOT. We’d have to close courts, release violent offenders, dismantle remaining safety net programs, leave dangerous roads unrepaired, lay off thousands of state workers…you can’t pretend to still have a state if you eliminate almost 40% of what the state does, especially when that’s on top of 17% cuts just the year before.

    And all of this brings us back to this question of vision and will and courage.

    Because we desperately need a restoration of our tax base. No one wants a tax increase. I know.

    But I don’t see another way out, that doesn’t include the decimation of the public infrastructure that, really, makes us a civilized society. Taxes are the price we pay for that, and we forgot that all too easily, and too often, in the boom years of the late 1990s…it’s time to rebuild.

    And you know what? My hopefulness is warranted, I really think. In the last two weeks, I’ve had conversations with 7 members of the legislature, from both political parties, who have admitted that many of the past tax cuts were mistakes, called for a revision of exemptions, and offered some specific ideas for possible tax increases. Several have even referenced that this session feels a bit different, because of the desperation, and that, by April, we could start to see a deal emerge.

    But, as that senior senator pointed out, those of us whose work depends on a strong tax base need to get working. Not one of the nonprofit legislative agendas I’ve seen has included a call for increased revenues, even though that’s undoubtedly the most important policy position the legislature could take this session.

    We need to talk with our grassroots base about the need for more revenues, and the need for tax justice. We have to build pressure to undo the excesses of the past decade. And we have to be in the process, stressing that all tax increases are NOT created equal, and articulating a vision of what tax fairness looks like.

    Things will get better (first, they’ll get worse, because we won’t have that stimulus money in FY2012!). But they won’t get as much better as they should if we don’t take advantage of this political opportunity to get the impossible done.

    Ad astra per aspera, right?

    Let’s go.

  • → 6 CommentsCategories: Events and Calls to Action
    Tagged: , , ,

    Social work ethics and social media

    January 25, 2010 · 5 Comments

    As has I’m sure become obvious, I am quite enthusiastic about the advocacy opportunities of social media for nonprofit organizations–blogs, photo and file sharing, social networking. In my own practice, I’m more connected with my students and better able to share content, solicit feedback, and develop deep relationships thanks to my use of social media. I think the possibilities for nonprofits are immense, in terms of bringing in new donors, connecting in new ways with clients, and raising the profile of their advocacy issues.

    BUT, and it’s a significant but, I remain concerned about how social workers will navigate these new technologies without compromising our ethical standards. It’s certainly not the first time that we’ve had to adapt our ethical strictures to new sets of challenges: the advent of videorecording and cellular phones and laptop computers all raised issues about informed consent and confidentiality in slightly different ways than in the past. I am confident that we can find ways to work within these emerging technologies while remaining faithful to our profession’s ethical code, but what concerns me most is that I don’t see much discussion of the real dilemmas here–and we know that, in ethics, what we don’t consciously debate often gets us into trouble.

    As with all ethical dilemmas, there are no easy answers (if there were, we wouldn’t have dilemmas, just crises of moral courage!), but here are some of the questions I’ve been asking myself. I’d love to start a dialogue about this with social workers and social media types–how do we strike the right balance? A former student and I had this discussion about a week ago, and she raised some ideas that I hadn’t considered. Social workers out there using social media, how are you staying true to our ethics?

  • Every social media expert advises that success requires an infusion of ‘personality’ in order to connect with one’s followers. I get this–I see that I receive much more response to tweets or Facebook updates, for example, that include some personal tidbit–but it makes me wonder, when does this raise the risk of dual relationships? How much disclosure is too much disclosure? How do we engage with our targets without blurring those boundaries in potentially harmful ways? Should you ever ‘friend’ a client? Now that the opportunity exists, is it harmful to the professional relationship to decline?
  • What about confidentiality? While any ethical social worker would refrain from including personal details about clients in social media interactions, is it ethical to, for example, include some of the outline of a client interaction on a personal blog? Assuming that all identifying information is changed, does that make it okay? What about if the blog receives ad revenue that goes directly to the social worker?
  • Should social workers be allowed to blog or post or tweet about their organizational life, including frustrations with their practice setting? You see employees do this all the time, from “TGIF” Facebook updates on a Friday afternoon to generic “so sick of my boss” comments on different sites, but, given social workers’ obligation to our employers, are we forbidden from engaging in this kind of catharsis?
  • Where do we draw the line between ‘work’ social media use and ‘personal’? If you’re at work updating the agency’s Facebook page and you see that a real-life friend of yours, who’s also a fan of your agency, has posted something about her life that you feel deserves a response, can you respond on ‘company’ time in your official capacity representing the organization, or is that a ‘friend’ activity that needs to happen on your own time?
  • Given the viral and unpredictable nature of social media use, how can we really ever receive informed consent from our clients for their participation? For example, a client gives permission for a photo to be posted on the agency’s blog, but then the blog gets tracked back by several other blogs, and someone tweets the post…and this is exactly what your organization wants, in terms of the response from the community, but now many more people have seen it, and in different contexts, and probably with adding their own commentary…and that’s not what you told the client when you asked permission.

    Those are the dilemmas I have wrestled with so far. What do you think? What am I missing? What guidance can we expect from our Code of Ethics in these areas of continual evolution? What should be our guide when the Code is inadequate?

  • → 5 CommentsCategories: Analysis and Commentary
    Tagged: ,

    New (?) Thinking: Megacommunities

    January 22, 2010 · Leave a Comment

    Megacommunities

    I was pretty excited to get this book at the library; I heard about it on the awesome Rosetta Thurman’s blog as a recommended book for an elite group of nonprofit folks and leading thinkers about the future of leadership to address social problems. It took me awhile to track it down in the library system, and then I dove in.

    And, really, while there are some pieces in here that I found quite useful, I had a little of the Emperor’s new clothes feeling the whole time…um, aren’t they really just talking about really good coalition building? And what about that is really new?

    Megacommunities is written from a pretty corporate perspective (when they called the World Social Forum anti-globalization, that was a hint). Some of that was actually helpful; for example, they argue that having multisector career experience aids in building relationships and building the ability to understand multiple perspectives, which made me think that, in my own work, I could probably really benefit from working within the government, so that I can best understand how to influence it (if I could stomach it, noncomformist that I am).

    The basic thesis of the book is that we need to be building ‘megacommunities’ to address our most difficult social problems–defined, rather loosely, as coming together of corporate, nonprofit, government, and community interests to address common concerns with a mentality that surpasses a ‘winner takes all’ approach. This collaboration must be based on self-interest, not altruism; must reflect empathy for other sectors’ constraints; and must optimize, not maximize, benefits for each interest. This is where they really started to lose me, because, again, doesn’t that sound like putting together a really strong coalition?

    They make the case that there are latent megacommunities all around, just waiting to be activated, and I can’t really take exception with that–they give examples of fair trade coffee and health care in Rhode Island, and those are pretty good cases. But, at the end, I just can’t buy either the idea that this is really groundbreaking (include opponents as stakeholders, overcome hubris and defeatism to build authentic connections, take advantage of weak ties to present a more effective advocacy position, learn to see conflict as an opportunity for your communication…this is basically what I teach aspiring coalition leaders) or, perhaps more importantly, that somehow bringing these folks together is the key to all of our problems. Bill Clinton (a leader of a ‘megacommunity’, apparently) is quoted in the book stating that, with alliances in other sectors, civil society can make up for the erosion of the public sector. I fundamentally, wholeheartedly do not agree that that’s either a wise nor a truly achievable goal, and if building megacommunities makes an excuse for more attacks on our safety net, then we’re headed in the wrong direction.

    I took away some value from the book–they have a great diagram on weak ties within a network that is helpful for thinking about why diversity of sector/experience/position works in advocacy, and they talk about the importance of identifying hubs with the resources to serve a pivotal role in the (my words) coalition building. And, towards the end of the book, they make the claim that we are nearing the end of planning, that things are changing so quickly that long-term plans, and the process of long-term planning, is really becoming obsolete. That’s the kind of statement of which I’m generally quite skeptical, but they presented it somewhat compellingly, and I’m still thinking it over.

    On the whole, though, I’m a little concerned. Not, really, by the book. I’m sure that the authors are nice, bright people, and probably readers with less coalition background could take away some valuable insights. Nothing they say is really harmful in any way. No, what concerns me is that this, in particular, was seen as required reading for those tasked with figuring out how the nonprofit sector is going to confront the greatest challenges of our times.

    I’ve been part of a lot of coalitions. I’ve organized several coalitions. I believe in the power of coalition work, even as I cringe at some of the baggage that comes with it. But I do not labor under the belief that a coalition, no matter how multisectorial or well-funded or visionary, can change the world. And that’s the kind of new thinking we really need.

    → Leave a CommentCategories: Analysis and Commentary
    Tagged: ,