Building Bridges Building Power

Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing

www.interfaithfunders.org www.interfaithfunders.org

Table of Contents BuildingBuilding Bridges,Bridges, BuildingBuilding Power:Power: DevelopmentsDevelopments inin Institution-BasedInstitution-Based CommunityCommunity OrganizingOrganizing

Executive Summary...... State of the Field Report...... 1

CONTEXT AND KEY FINDINGS RESEARCH DESIGN OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD: The State of the Field in 1999 and 2011 Governing and Leading IBCOs: Board members, leaders, organizers, and directors Organizing Money

What is Community Organizing?...... 3 ORGANIZING AND RELIGION...... 9 Religious Composition of the Field Religious Diversity among IBCOs The Effects of Religious Diversity on Organizing Activities Religious Practices of IBCOs and Their Directors

ORGANIZING AND RACE...... 13 Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Field Racial/Ethnic Diversity among IBCOs Measuring Diversity The Effects of Racial/Ethnic Diversity on Organizing Activities

ORGANIZING ACTIVITY AND OUTCOMES...... 17 Levels of Involvement Geographic Scope Collaborative Work: Coalitions and Networks Communicating with Constituents Issue Work Outcomes Achieved: On healthcare reform, banking reform, foreclosure reform, employment and public transportation, immigration reform, electoral influence Engaging Political Officials

Projecting Power in Public Life ...... 24

CONCLUSION...... 25

Appendices...... 26 Research Opportunities; Publications; Partial List of Specific Issues Addressed and Gains Made

Acknowledgements...... 30 Who Are Interfaith Funders?...... 31 Bios...... 33

Executive Summary BuildingBuilding Bridges,Bridges, BuildingBuilding Power:Power: DevelopmentsDevelopments inin Institution-BasedInstitution-Based CommunityCommunity OrganizingOrganizing

Richard L. Wood (University of New Mexico), Brad Fulton (Duke University), and Kathryn Partridge (Interfaith Funders)

Community organizing in Building a Bigger and Wider Bridge: America is alive and well and being vigorously practiced in Dynamic Expansion in Scope, Scale, and Collaboration the version we call “institution- based community organizing.” The dynamic expansion of network or via collaborations) to This national study shows that institution-based community orga- directly influence state and national in the last decade institution- nizing (IBCO) over the last decade policy-making. Taken together, based community organizing has taken place in three ways. First, these three forms of expansion has significantly increased its the field has made impressive gains create a new power within the field power base as it continues to in sheer geographic reach: The that, at its best, links vigorous local number of local IBCO organizations community organizing to a strong bridge divides that deeply be- has grown by 42% since 1999, today presence in higher-level political devil American politics–-divides reaching into 40 states. Second, arenas in ways that strengthen both. of racial and ethnic identity, many IBCO organizations have religion, socio-economic status, Reaching More People: The Impact expanded beyond core urban areas of Critical Organizational Capacity geography, and immigrant-na- and now organize entire metropoli- tive background. This executive tan and regional areas. Third, many Two results of this dynamic summary details the dynamic IBCOs are partnering with other or- expansion are especially powerful. expansion of the field over the ganizations (either within their own last decade, outlines the impressive “bridging social capital” it IBCO Organizations: National Presence generates, discusses ways it has overcome the strategic limitations that previously undermined the field, and identifies some of the ongoing challenges that remain. We argue throughout that institution-based community organizing is poised to be an important strategic partner in the democratic renewal of America. ibco map 2011 fulton

www.interfaithfunders.org

I “Democracy is not something that happens to us, like the weather. It’s something that we create. We create the opportunity for democracy to happen. ” - Doran Schrantz, ISAIAH

First, the institutions that form separate people and undermine ef- staff and board members (together the base of the IBCO field (ap- forts to confront our challenges. the crucial decision-makers in these proximately 3,500 congregations and organizations) are non-white. 1,000 public schools, labor unions, Institution-based community neighborhood associations, faith- organizing has historically brought These organizations also incor- based organizations, and others) people of different races together porate significant numbers of pre- collectively represent over 5 mil- to pursue their shared interest in dominantly white institutions. This lion Americans. Rarely in American building better communities. But matters for political efficacy because history have voluntary associations questions by critics regarding how substantial economic resources, incorporated such a high proportion consistently the field has cultivated political power, and cultural influ- of citizens; those that have done so cross-racial social capital deserve to ence reside in this sector, which still have profoundly shaped American be tested rigorously, and the State of constitutes two-thirds of the Ameri- society in challenging times. Sec- the Field project has done this both can population. To be viable, any ond, historically the most successful nationally and at the local level. Our national political movement needs associations have been built on a results show that the IBCO field is alliances with such institutions. “federated structure” of local orga- actively engaging a broad represen- Their involvement has actually risen nizations nested within state and tation of America. Predominantly in the last decade, apparently a result national organizations. The IBCO Hispanic institutions (13%) are repre- of the strategic choice to expand into field today has begun to build such sented at about Hispanics’ percent- suburban areas nationwide and into 1 a federated structure–-only partially age of the total U.S. population, and secondary cities of the upper Mid- and unevenly, but nonetheless sub- predominantly African American west and Northeast. stantially. As a result, institution- institutions (30%) are represented Expanding into these predomi- based community organizing has the at more than twice their percentage nantly white settings reduces the organizational capacity to make a of the U.S. population. In addition, field’s overall racial/ethnic diversity, powerful impact on democratic life, “other” non-white or mixed institu- but also likely increases its strategic especially if best practices spread tions make up over 10% of IBCO capacity: By creating more fully across the field. members. At the individual level, more than 50% of IBCO organizing multiracial/multiethnic organiza- Bridging the Divides of American 1. Hispanic participation may in fact be higher. tions that bridge urban and subur- Society: Race, Class and Religion It is difficult to reliably measure the racial/ethnic ban boundaries and represent new identities of individuals participating in IBCO, geographic areas, the field expands and the State of the Field study did not attempt For America to undertake the to do so. However, such a measure would likely its own base and external alliances in joint action required to confront our show larger Hispanic involvement than the figure useful ways. Simultaneously, much cited above: in many IBCOs, large Hispanic challenges, we must bridge the social congregations produce a disproportionate share of of the field has gained a more reflec fissures that divide us as a nation. turnout at public actions. But a ten-year relative Among these are the divides of race decrease in the proportion of Hispanic-led member institutions deserves attention; it might reflect and ethnicity, socio-economic status, immigrant insecurity regarding public engagement religion, and immigration status that as a result of recent anti-immigrant discourse and legislation. II “We want to change the political terrain of the country in a way that creates opportunity and advances racial and economic justice. What do we need to do to do that?” - George Goehl, National People’s Action

tive and critical understanding of the organizing ethos a decade ago and the IBCO world: IBCO directors the role of race in American society. thus represents an important shift in tend to be more religious than the As a result, the IBCO field is better the culture of organizing. By culti- overall American population (i.e., positioned to play a central strategic vating strong cross-racial ties and by they pray, read sacred texts, and role in the public arena of our multi- explicitly discussing racial/ethnic dif- attend religious services more often racial nation. Finally, we note that, ferences, institution-based organiz- than the average U.S. adult) and on average, IBCO boards of directors ing is now able to address questions a large majority of IBCOs report are dramatically more diverse than of inequality in American life more that they often incorporate prayer, boards in the corporate and non- authentically and effectively than in religious teachings, and discussions profit sectors. the past. about faith into their organizing activities. The IBCO field not only incor- These organizations generate porates impressive racial/ethnic social capital by bridging other social Institution-based community diversity on a national level, but divides in America as well. For ex- organizing also bridges the divide more importantly at the local level ample, instead of allowing faith to be between socio-economic groups, as well: IBCOs are actually getting a divisive factor, IBCOs draw on the incorporating a significant propor- people to collaborate across racial unifying components of faith to span tion of low-income people within its and ethnic lines. To estimate cross- a diverse array of religious congrega- top leadership structures. Nearly racial interaction within IBCOs, we tions. While mainline Protestant, one quarter of IBCO board mem- used a diversity index to measure the Catholic, and Black Protestant bers have a household income of probability that two members of the churches continue to make up the less than $25,000 per year, and 58% same IBCO would be of a different core of the field, Jewish, Unitarian- have a household income of less than race/ethnicity. This analysis shows Universalist, and Evangelical/Pen- $50,000 per year (about the same as that the average “diversity score” for tecostal congregations have each the U.S. population as a whole--but IBCOs (0.49) is substantially higher doubled their representation from a rare for a board of directors). About than the average diversity score for decade ago, and 20% of IBCOs have 37% have household incomes be- congregations (0.12), counties (0.28), at least one Muslim congregation. tween $50,000 and $100,000 per year, and even public schools (0.33). In addition, secular institutions and less than 5% have household (mostly public schools, unions, and incomes over $100,000 per year (com- The census study and our inter- neighborhood associations) represent pared to the U.S. figure of over ten views with strategic leaders show approximately one-fifth of all mem- percent). Thus, the IBCO field also that most local IBCOs actively ber institutions. IBCO boards and bridges economic class structures to a engage in discussions about racial staff organizers also reflect these high significant degree. and ethnic identity, racial inequity in levels of religious diversity. Finally, America, and the impact of race on spiritual practices remain salient in organizing itself. This was not part of

www.interfaithfunders.org

III Designing the State of the Field Study

Finally, the IBCO field reaches The State of the Field study customized spreadsheets that collect- across the chasm that too often provides an up-to-date picture of the ed demographic information about lies between immigrants and the field of institution-based community each organization’s member institu- native-born, while building power organizing and draws on data from tions, board members, and paid staff. to change immigration policy at Interfaith Funders’ 1999 study to The survey achieved a response rate the national level. Fourteen per- show how the field has changed over of 94%, gathering data on 178 IBCOs cent of all IBCO member institu- the last decade. Interfaith Funders and demographic information on tions are predominantly made up coordinated and funded the study, approximately 4,100 member institu- of immigrants. Over two-thirds of which was conducted primarily by tions, plus 2,900 board members those institutions (mostly congre- lead researcher Brad Fulton (Duke and 600 paid staff involved in the gations, but also secular organiza- University) and overseen by research IBCO field. tions) are predominantly His- director Richard L. Wood (Univer- panic, while smaller proportions sity of New Mexico) and Interfaith Strengths of the State of the Field of immigrant member institutions Funders members and director project: The study’s extraordinarily are Black, Asian, or other/multira- Kathy Partridge. The study drew on high response rate allows us to char- cial. Furthermore, more than half insight from local organizers, national acterize the field of institution-based of IBCOs are addressing immi- organizing staff, foundation program community organizing with great gration issues, and, among those, officers, denominational funders, and confidence.The structure of the study two-thirds are addressing them at scholars of the field. enables the data to be analyzed at two the national level. levels-–the field level, to demonstrate The core of the study is a national patterns in the field as a whole, and Overall, institution-based com- census of every local organization the organization level, to assess simi- munity organizations are today practicing institution-based commu- larities and differences among individ- generating valuable social capital nity organizing (IBCO), supplement- ual IBCOs. In addition, because we by bridging some of the major ed by a dozen in-depth interviews replicated items from the 1999 study divides in American communities. with key strategic thought leaders in and included the IBCOs surveyed This bridging social capital offers the national networks, independent in 1999, we can assess changes in the a vital resource in the ongoing IBCOs, and foundations that fund field (and in individual IBCOs) over struggle to deepen democracy in this work. For the census, a total the last decade. This offers a more America and confront our shared universe of 189 active local IBCOs dynamic view than is possible with challenges–-a resource for both the was identified. During the second only a one-time snapshot. Together, IBCO field and its partners, and half of 2011, a two-part survey was these strengths make the State of the for American society as a whole. distributed electronically to the direc- Field project the most comprehensive tor of each. Part one was an online and rigorous assessment of the field as survey that gathered extensive data a whole. on each IBCO’s history, constituents, collaborators, activities, finances, and issue work. Part two consisted of

IV Moving Beyond Limitations, Finding New Strengths: Strategic Capacity for Democratic Renewal

Over the last decade, several institu- in state-level collaborations, whereas Interviewees noted that much of this tion-based community organizations, a decade ago only a fifth did so. Ten innovation has occurred because they and, to a large extent, the field as a years ago, virtually no IBCO work came to realize that traditional prac- whole have made significant progress focused on the national political tices and isolated efforts were not in overcoming critical challenges that arena, where many decisions are producing real democratic influence had previously limited the field’s made that shape the quality of life of on big policy decisions. In response, democratic impact. all Americans. Today, a quarter of all they envisioned new coordinating structures and gradually developed First IBCOs are engaged in national-level , the organizing field now in- work. The issues most commonly ad- both greater vertical integration corporates women and people of dressed at the state or national level within existing networks and greater color in top leadership positions. are immigration, health care, bank- strategic coordination across differ- Whereas professional staff organizing/foreclosures, public finances, ent kinds of associations. ers (especially at the higher levels) employment/wages, poverty, racism, Finally, the field’s most adept practi- once tended to be white and male, and public transportation. today they are substantially more tioners have developed a wider array diverse than the U.S. population. In Fourth, the active dialogues around of tactics for IBCOs to exert influ- one decade, the gender composition race, ethnicity, and racial inequity ence. IBCOs continue to organize has shifted, with 55% of organizers create new strategic possibilities. large public actions to exert organi- now being women. The percentage Whereas an earlier generation of zational power via direct democratic of African American and Hispanic or- organizers built IBCOs that linked pressure. Indeed, the field’s capacity ganizers is each 50% higher than their people across racial categories, they in this regard has grown, with direc- representation in the general U.S. largely avoided discussing race due to tors reporting over 200,000 people population.1 a fear that this could prove divisive. attending at least one event in the last year. To complement this “hard Second These days, issues of race, ethnicity, , many IBCOs now widely and racial inequity-–including racial power” approach, many IBCOs have and routinely collaborate, rather tensions–-are now “on the table.” begun to make sophisticated use of than work in the relative isolation of Where those discussions are handled “soft power” tactics: negotiating with the past. Two-thirds of IBCOs now well, they generate new internal representatives of political and eco- engage in a variety of new forms of trust and give IBCOs greater strate- nomic elites; shifting public opinion collaboration at the local, regional, gic capacity and a new willingness to via the mass media; simultaneously state, or national levels, and among address the “new Jim Crow” era of educating local, state, and national these IBCOs, 95% coordinate their ef- structural racism. representatives regarding the same forts with organizations outside their issue; and intentionally cultivating formal organizing networks. Fifth, there has been a substantial strategic relationships with political Third shift in the culture of organizing officials, institutional leaders, and , IBCOs are projecting power toward innovation and strategic policy experts. Linking these hard into higher-level political arenas coordination. New thinking, oppor- and soft forms of power appears to while staying rooted in local organiz- tunities, and leadership have driven have bolstered IBCOs’ public influ- ing. Today, half of all IBCOs engage parts of the field to pursue new col- ence as they now turn out people for 1. In 2011, 21% of professional IBCO organizers laborative ventures, experiment with more events, coordinate organizing were African American (vs. 13% of the U.S. popula- different organizing practices, and efforts at several levels simultane- tion in 2010), and 24% of organizers were Hispanic (vs. 16% of U.S. population). The percentage of leverage social media and other com- ously, and cultivate strategic rela- African American organizers had fallen somewhat munications technologies. tionships with political officials and (from 29% in 1999), yet fewer than half of profes- institutional leaders. sional organizers were white (vs. 64% of the U.S. population). Forty-three percent of organizers were women in 1999.

www.interfaithfunders.org

V “Wonderful quote, something important is being said here and there are far reaching effects of this quote by this extremely important personage.” - Important Person, PhD

Facing the Future: Ongoing Challenges in the Field

American society needs new investing talent, funding, and sheer capable than others. To realize its full sources of democratic vigor to suc- hard organizing work have built democratic potential, the savvy, dis- cessfully confront the challenges it a field with impressive strengths. cipline, and imagination of IBCO’s faces. There are no easy solutions to The number of individuals repre- most effective practitioners must our economic, political, or cultural sented by IBCO member institutions be multiplied throughout the field. problems, and no political superhero exceeds the historic threshold for Funding and talent are needed to will rescue us from them. A move- wielding powerful democratic influ- build strong local organizations, and ment embodying the democratic will ence. The field’s dynamic expansion these must be embedded in strong and political courage of the American in the last ten years has produced state- and national-level organizing people must come together with a solid organizational base and structures. Traditional organizing dedicated leaders from every institu- strengthened its multi-level federat- practices must be linked to sophisti- tional sector to craft the reforms and ed structures. Furthermore, IBCOs cated use of social media and innova- support the hard choices through bridge extraordinarily well many of tive organizing practices, and more which we will address our challenges. the social divides that fracture Amer- IBCOs need to collaborate with other That is how real change has hap- ican society, divides that constantly kinds of organizations. pened before in American history- stymied previous efforts to address -and that is how it will happen again. our challenges. The field’s deep ties Important progress has been made to America’s diverse faith traditions, in the last decade, with significant Institution-based community along with its active incorporation new initiatives and the launching organizing plays a key role in reinvig- of spiritual practices into organiz- of experimental forays. Given the orating democratic zeal. Decades of ing efforts, allow IBCOs to offer the current state of the field, institution- moral vision and prophetic voice to based community organizing is guide democratic reform efforts. The poised to be a strategic partner in most effective IBCO practitioners catalyzing democratic renewal. By combine strategic organizing prac- mobilizing the shared aspirations tice with the political imagination and hopes of the American people required to build effective demo- in all their diversity, our economics cratic capacity at the scale required and politics will be reshaped, and the for national reform. American democratic promise can be extended to all. But to take advantage of this moment and build a stronger sense of democratic renewal, institution- based community organizing faces ongoing challenges. At present, many of the innovative changes identified here are unevenly distributed, making some parts of the field far less

VI State of the Field Report “Wonderful quote, something important is being said here and there are far reachingBuildingBuilding effects of Bridges,Bridges, this quote by BuildingBuildingthis Power:Power: extremelyDevelopmentsDevelopments important inin Institution-BasedInstitution-Based personage.” CommunityCommunity OrganizingOrganizing - Important Person, PhD Richard L. Wood (University of New Mexico), Brad Fulton (Duke University), and Kathryn Partridge (Interfaith Funders)

I portionthink that of citizens; this is those a that have The dreams of the American people had to overcome similar ob- definingdone so have moment, profoundly I shapedthink people and the hopes of American stacles to democratic progress, mass democracy, undermined by a host membership organizations, built on thatAmerican this is society a defining in challenging mo- times. Second, historically the most of challenges, are at risk today. If a federated structure of local, state, mentsuccessful on whetherassociations we have can been we are to confront those challenges and national bodies, played a key buildbuilt onthe a “federated kind of structure”power of more courageously, we must gener- role. No one organization today is thatlocal will put America ate the broad democratic will to mo- well-situated to play this role by bilize new ideas and new resources. itself, but in this report we argue back to work, really pro- The political arena is one venue that institution-based community tect our public education where resources and ideas are mobi- organizing1 may be well-positioned system, and actually cre- lized--and it is the crucial venue for to do so as a field. generating democratic will. ate a government that is Community organizing efforts engaged in the common Yet recent legal and political today, built on a foundation of good of the citizens’ lives. changes threaten to shift, perhaps congregations plus other member permanently, the delicate equi- institutions, collectively represent

– Ana Garcia-Ashley, Gamaliel Foundation librium that has guided American over 5 million people. Associations democracy for more than 200 years: incorporating such a high propor- between the interests of elites, tion of citizens are rare in American mostly exerted via money, and the history; those that have done so interests of the non-elite majority, have profoundly shaped society mostly advanced via the influence challenging times.2 The fact that of mobilized citizens in the demo- 1. For reasons detailed later in this report, we cratic process. Citizens United and think the term “institution-based” now better reflects the reality in the field than “congregation- other recent legal decisions vastly based,” “faith-based,” or “broad-based” shift that equilibrium in favor of community organizing, though those terms are those with money. They represent still preferred by some participants in the field.

an unfair and elitist thumb on the 2. The key historical threshold for such influential scales of American democracy that mass organizations is mobilizing 1% of Americans. The 5 million people represented by the field’s

Photo: Dominique James must be countered by new forms of member institutions easily exceed this figure (~1.5 citizen empowerment if the balance percent). Note, however, that in this form of of justice is to be restored. organizing, membership is composed of institutions rather than individuals, so the parallel is inexact. See Skocpol, Ganz, and Munson (2000) for the This is hardly the first time crucial study and its key finding: Most history- American society has confronted changing voluntary associations that exceeded the on1% threshold were built on a “federated structure” such challenges. In the past, when of local, state, and national units.

www.interfaithfunders.org

1 “We began to imagine how our voice could be projected into the national debates about our future as a country –and do that in ways that really connected back into local communities. That creates opportunities for people to engage their own liberation, to really articulate their own interests and values in the public domain.” – Scott Reed, PICO National Network

institution-based community orga- n examines the changing racial and 1999 study offered a portrait of the nizing exceeds this historic threshold ethnic diversity within the field field that informed practitioners and reflects the field’s political signifi- and discusses the dynamics be- simultaneously gave credibility to cance, its communal reach, and its hind those changes; the work of institution-based com- potential for the monumental task munity organizing to a broad circle of n of moving America to confront its identifies the issues IBCOs are funders, researchers, advocates, and challenges. We argue that the field’s actively addressing; potential collaborators. organizing infrastructure and emerg- n documents the field’s ability to ing strategic capacity now position it Over the last decade, however, project power into higher-level to actually deliver on that potential. both the national context and the political arenas; IBCO field have changed substan- This report draws on results from tially. Economic inequality has risen, n describes how institution-based a national survey of all local institu- money now flows into electoral cam- community organizing is shaping tion-based community organizations paigns virtually uncontrolled, and policy in key issue areas including active in the United States in 2011 our political institutions are more education, health care, compre- to document the significance of the polarized. The three religious sectors hensive immigration, affordable field.3 It highlights the field’s emer- that comprised the membership core housing, criminal justice, employ- gence as a strategic partner in na- of the field in 1999--urban Catholic, ment and workers’ rights, finan- tionwide efforts to build democratic Mainline Protestant, and historic Af- cial reform and foreclosure policy, power, reverse rising inequality, and rican American churches--have each and transportation policy; strengthen public life while bridg- dealt with declining memberships.6 ing divisions throughout the United n outlines the strategic challenges Meanwhile, the IBCO field has States. In particular, the report: and opportunities facing the field evolved by extending its geographic n documents the dramatic expansion CONTEXT AND KEY FINDINGS 4 reach, both beyond the urban core of the field over the last decade; and into new states and cities. The In 1999, Interfaith Funders con- field has also developed a broader n provides a comprehensive profile ducted a national census of institu- base of member institutions and has of the field’s member institutions, tion-based community organizations increased its collaborative work with board members, and staff; that provided a baseline for understanding the scope and scale of this 6. We use the term “Mainline Protestant” in n outlines links to faith communi- community organizing model.5 The deference to its wide usage to refer to those liberal ties and how IBCOs incorporate and moderate Protestant denominations once 4. See “References for Further Reading” for key considered the “mainline” of American religions. spiritual practices into their work; sources. It includes those denominations of historic Protestantism usually listed as theologically liberal 5. See “Faith-Based Community Organizing: The or moderate, including the Evangelical Lutheran State of the Field 1999,” as well as later reports from Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), a major study of the impact of this kind of organizing Episcopal Church, American Baptist Churches, 3. The 2011 survey was sponsored by Interfaith upon congregational development, published by United Methodist Church, United Church of Funders and carried out by researchers at Duke Interfaith Funders and available at http://repository. Christ, and the Disciples of Christ. University and the University of New Mexico. unm.edu/handle/1928/10664 and 10678. 2 What is Community Organizing? deteriorating quality of life continue to their commitments. This often to diminish the power of disadvan- Contemporary community organiz- occurs through large “public actions” taged people, IBCOs reduce inequal- ing in the United States draws from or “accountability sessions” in which ity by consolidating power among a variety of figures in the history of several hundred or more constituents these people. As elites and lobbyists grassroots American democracy, in- ask officials to address specific issues, dominate the political arena, IB- cluding Jane Addams, Saul Alinsky, but it can also occur via public nego- COs generate substantial political Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther tiations in smaller settings. power among under-represented King, Jr., and from union organizing communities. Finally, even though and the movements for civil rights for Today, most institution-based the media often highlight contro- African Americans, women, and His- community organizing efforts are versies surrounding religion, IBCOs panics. Ed Chambers of the Industri- affiliated with a sponsoring network. demonstrate the positive outcomes al Areas Foundation (IAF) pioneered Nationally, these include the IAF, achieved by religious congregations early elements of organizing based the PICO National Network, the working together to address common explicitly in community institutions, Gamaliel Foundation, and National concerns in the public arena.3 which were primarily, but not exclu- People’s Action (which does both sively, religious congregations.1 institution-based and individual- Collectively, IBCOs represent a based organizing). Important social movement dedicated to build- The typical IBCO is a non-profit regional networks include Direct ing democratic power, strengthening organization set up under section Action Research Training (DART) public life, and improving social con- 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 of the IRS tax in the southeast and Midwest and ditions in low income and working code with the goal of empowering the Inter-Valley Project (IVP) in class communities. As documented residents of low-income and middle- New England. A smaller number in this report, they contribute to income communities to get govern- of organizations doing institution- American democracy by ground- ment and private enterprise to serve based work also exist independent ing democratic action in the social the common good rather than only of the networks.2 Although each institutions that structure the daily the interests of well-off elites. In a effort, whether network-affiliated lives of individuals, families, and typical city, the membership of the or independent, has developed its communities. They bolster public IBCO is composed of a dozen to own organizing model, they remain life by identifying leaders and devel- sometimes several dozen local insti- sufficiently similar to justify treat- oping them into effective advocates tutions, including religious congrega- ing them as a field. All are built with for their communities. In doing so, tions, public schools, parent-teacher institutions as their foundation, and they help communities organize and associations, faith-based organiza- their “tool kits” of organizing prac- generate power that can be chan- tions, labor unions, and neighbor- tices overlap considerably. neled toward shaping public policy hood associations. The IBCO hires to meet needs at the local level and, staff organizers to work with mem- Institution-based community or- increasingly, at the state and national ber institutions to develop leader- ganizations (IBCOs) show a growing level as well.4 ship within, teaching them how to capacity to produce outcomes that educate political officials and other deviate from major social trends. community elites about their needs Amid evidence that American society 3. On major contemporary social trends, see and how to hold them accountable is becoming increasingly fragmented, especially Putnam (2000); on particular trends, see Fischer and Mattson (2009) on increasing IBCOs bring people together across fragmentation; see Neckerman and Torche (2007) 1. See Warren (2001), Swarts (2008), and racial, class, religious, and ideologi on rising inequality. On the work of the IBCO field Bretherton (forthcoming 2013) for a fuller history cal lines. As rising inequality and to counter some of those trends, see Warren (2001), of institution-based community organizing. Note Wood (2002), Smock (2004), Fine (2006), Swarts that the institution-based model is one among a (2008), Ganz (2009), and Bretherton (2010). variety of approaches to community organizing 2. Some additional organizing structures have that emerge from overlapping roots. See http:// recently emerged alongside the networks and 4. On the democratic power and public role of www.trincoll.edu/depts/tcn/valocchi.htm and independent organizations; among these, the Ohio the IBCO field, see Wood and Warren (2002), Kling and Fischer (1993) on this wider community Organizing Collaborative has played a prominent Hart (2001), Gecan (2009), Osterman (2010), and organizing tradition. and innovative role. Putnam (2010).

www.interfaithfunders.org

3 “WeExecutive need Summary to be respectful of the universals of organizing and the core traditionBuilding that we’ve Bridges, inherited, but Building not Power: overly reverent of them.” Developments-Judy Donovan, in Southwest Institution-based Industrial Areas Foundation Community Organizing

other kinds of organizing efforts. Together, we argue that these preview of data that will be explored Finally, over the last decade a greater shifts position the field of institution- further in additional publications. proportion of the field has begun based community organizing will be RESEARCH DESIGN leveraging its power beyond the local key to reinvigorating the democratic level and is addressing issues at state infrastructure of American society. This study was designed to repli- and national levels. In recognition of the ongoing ac- cate and build upon the 1999 study In analyzing these trends, we complishments, current challenges, by surveying the entire field of document important changes in the and future promise of institution- IBCOs. In formulating the goals and IBCO field: A new willingness to based community organizing, Inter- content of the study, the research address frankly issues of race and eth- faith Funders committed significant team drew on the counsel of local nicity has emerged, and women now resources to conduct a follow-up of organizers, national organizing staff, occupy fully half of both volunteer its 1999 census study of the field. foundation program officers, denomi- and professional leadership positions We sought to provide a thorough national funders, and scholars of the at all levels of these organizations. assessment of the field by mapping field. In addition to asking identical While the racial/ethnic profile of its development and identifying the questions from the 1999 study, sev- IBCOs has shifted in complex ways critical issues it faces. eral new items were added to better (documented here), IBCOs remain assess the work on specific issues, far more diverse than comparable or- Through this project, we offer or- collaborative relations, and religious ganizational fields and more diverse ganizers, funders, and relevant stake- practices within the field. The survey than American society as a whole. holders a national lens through which instrument was composed of two They connect people across racial, to view organizing activity and sup- parts. Part one was an online sur- religious, and economic class lines. ply a tool for refining its practices. vey that gathered extensive data on Many IBCOs have left behind their More broadly, we aspire to promote each IBCO’s history, constituents, past tendency to work in relative public understanding of institution- collaborators, activities, finances, isolation and now collaborate with based community organizing and its and issue work. Part two consisted other organizations to project greater contributions to American society. of customized spreadsheets that political influence at the city, state, In an effort to foster further discus- respondents used to provide detailed and/or national levels. Half of all IB- sion and analysis, the results of this demographic information about their COs now engage in state-level work; study will be widely disseminated via organization’s member institutions, 7 such work has more than doubled in funder networks, faith-based consor- board members, and paid staff. tiums, organizing events, academic the last decade. A quarter of IBCOs 7. See appendix for the core survey instrument; are engaged in national-level policy associations, and media outlets. This full survey instruments can be accessed via: http:// www.soc.duke.edu/~brf6/ibcosurvey.pdf. work, barely an aspiration a decade report constitutes an invitation to ago. Less measurable, but equally joint strategizing about how to help important--ambitious strategic this burgeoning field achieve its full democratic potential. It is also an op- thinking grounded in creative moral 7. See appendix for the core survey instrument; vision now pervades at least some portunity for critical and strategic re- full survey instruments can be accessed via: http:// sectors of the field. flection among all participants and a www.soc.duke.edu/~brf6/XXXXX . 4 The study defines an IBCO as a lo- The structure of the study allows and 46 that had become inactive.11 cal organization that practices the the data to be analyzed at two levels. In most areas where an IBCO had institution-based model of organiz- The field level demonstrates pat- become inactive, another IBCO still ing (i.e., has institutional members), terns as a whole; the organization exists.12 Among the inactive orga- has an office address, and has at least level assesses similarities and dis. In nizations, 23 had dissolved, eight one paid organizer on staff. Based on addition, the fact that we replicated are rebuilding, 14 had merged into these criteria, 189 active organiza- items from the 1999 study and in- another IBCO, and one had stopped tions were identified using databases cluded the IBCOs surveyed in 1999 using the institution-based organiz- from organizing networks, IBCO means we can assess changes in the ing model. funders, and denominational bodies field (and in individual IBCOs) over as well as IRS 990 Forms. The survey the last decade. This offers a more The overall growth of the field was distributed electronically to the dynamic view than possible with corresponds with an increase in its director of every local IBCO during only a one-time snapshot.10 geographic spread. In 1999, 33 states had active IBCOs; today, IBCOs the second half of 2011. The directors OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD were informed that their responses are active in 39 states. IBCOs have would be kept confidential and that been established in nine new states Comparing the 1999 snapshot nothing would be published that (Alaska, Alabama, Maine, Mon- with the current state of the field identifies specific characteristics of tana, New Hampshire, Nevada, reveals dramatic growth over the last their organization unless they pro- Oklahoma, Virginia, and Vermont), decade, both in terms of geographic vided consent.8 The survey achieved all states characterized by dramati- reach and strategic depth. At the a response rate of 94%, gathering cally different dynamics within the organization level, the field experi- data on 178 IBCOs and demographic partisan political system. The enced an overall growth rate of 42% information on approximately 4,100 number of IBCOs at least doubled in with 102 new IBCOs established member institutions plus 2,900 board Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Missis- members and 600 paid staff involved So when providing total numbers for the entire sippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, field, we multiply values by a factor that accounts 9 and Wisconsin. While the field has in the IBCO field. for information not provided by the non-responsive 8.Each director who completed the study received IBCOs (i.e., we project figures from the 94% of 11. Some of the “new IBCOs” existed in 1999, but an honorarium that ranged between $25 and $100 respondents to the entire field). did not meet the criteria for being included in the based on the size of their organization. 1999 study. 10. However, in some instances technical 9. Our assessment of the key characteristics of those limitations in the 1999 study make fully rigorous 12. The exception is Tennessee, which had three IBCOs that did not respond to the survey suggests comparison impossible; we flag such instances active IBCOs in 1999, but no longer had any active that no systematic patterns of non-responses are below. IBCOs as of 2011. likely to have produced a biased profile of the field.

Growth of the Field ▲

IAF +6 (▲12%) PICO +13 (▲45%) GAM +6 (▲22%) DART +5 (▲42%) ■ 1999 NPA +10 ■ 2011 IVP +3 (▲75%) RCNO +1 (▲25%) Other No Change Indpt +12 (▲400%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

www.interfaithfunders.org

5 spread, it remains concentrated in urban areas and in populous states The State of the Field in 1999 with a long history of this kind of work: Half of the organizations reside in California, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Most IBCOs are formally affiliated with a national or regional organizing network, and over the last decade each of these networks increased the number of IBCOs they serve. The largest relative growth occurred among three networks that were comparatively smaller in 1999, making the field more evenly distributed among the various organizing networks. The number of organizations not affiliated with any formal The State of the Field in 2011 organizing network also increased during the same period.

The base of the IBCO field is its member institutions. That base has shifted in important ways. In 1999, the field was comprised of roughly 4,000 formal member institutions–88% were religious congregations, 12% were non-congregational. Even though the number of IBCOs increased by 42% over the last decade, the total number of member institutions increased by only 12.5% (to approximately 4,500). 13 As a result, the median number of member institutions per IBCO declined ibco map 2011 from 23 to 21. The composition of The State of the Field in 2011 by Network member institutions shifted as well. Since 1999, the number of member congregations has remained the same (approximately 3,500), while the number of non-congregational members has doubled (increasing from approximately 500 to 1000). IAF 13. The 1999 data include one IBCO that reported PICO having 230 member institutions, by far the GAM largest reported membership base (ten times DART larger than the median IBCO). This IBCO now has 40 institutions. Because the 1999 study did NPIAFA not properly account for this outlier, it likely IVPIPCO over-estimated the total number of member institutions in the field. A more accurate estimate RCNOGAM accounting for this outlier suggests that the field OtherDART/ had approximately 3,900 member institutions in Indp t 1999, meaning the field has increased by 15% since NPA then. 6 Non-congregational community faith-based organization, or neigh- Governing and Leading IBCO’s: institutions, which include schools, borhood association as a member Board members, leaders, organizers, faith-based nonprofits, unions, and institution. and directors neighborhood associations, now make up over 20% of all member in- This shift in the composition of As the field changed at the orga- stitutions, and 70% of IBCOs have at members suggests that the term con- nization level, it also changed at least one non-congregational member gregation-based community organiz- the individual level. Four groups of institution. This represents a signifi- ing no longer represents the field as a individuals are critical to the field: cant shift, and appears to be at least whole. Given that 20% of member in- Boards of Directors, typically made partly the result of former IBCO al- stitutions are not congregations, the up of representatives of the member lies becoming full members. Schools term institution-based community institutions; clergy and lay leaders, represent 18% of these non-congrega- organizing provides a more accurate who participate actively in the orga- tional institutions, and faith-based representation. In adopting this shift nizing; staff organizers, who provide non-profits represent 16%. Unions of terminology, however, it is impor- training to leaders; and directors, comprise 15%, and neighborhood as- tant to recognize that congregations who head up each IBCO. We first sociations 13%. remain the large majority of member consider broad changes within each institutions and 30% of IBCOs have a group, turning later to questions of A wide variety of other communi- member base comprised exclusively racial/ethnic and religious diversity: ty-based organizations make up the of congregations (down from 45% in remaining 38%, including community 1999). Furthermore, the networks Board members: The total number and economic development corpora- have launched significant work of board members increased 18.5% tions, immigrant associations, social specifically dedicated to using the (from approximately 2,700 to 3,200). service programs, civic organiza- practices of organizing to strengthen Among IBCO board members, the tions, etc. In 1999, 40% of IBCOs member congregations under the average age increased from 51 in 1999 indicated having collaborative ties auspices of the Interfaith Organizing to 54 in 2011. This indicates that with unions, and 13% had at least one Initiative, local and national clergy board members were likely to remain union as a member institution. To- caucuses, and/or training programs in place as they aged or be replaced day, 23% of IBCOs have at least one for future clergy and organizers.14 by people only slightly younger than union as a member institution, and themselves, rather than be replaced roughly one quarter have a school, by a significantly younger cohort. In terms of gender composition, male and female board members remain Types of IBCO Member Institutions equally represented. According to the 2011 data, 14% of board members are immigrants (56% of whom are Hispanic); 23% have less than a bach- Schools 4.0% elor’s degree; 23% have a household Faith-Based Organizations 3.6% income of less than $25,000 per year, Unions 3.4% and 35% have annual household in- Neighborhood Assoc. 2.9% comes between $25,000 and $50,000.

Other 8.1% 14. See Renewing Congregations and Faith and Public Life (Interfaith Funders 2003, 2004). See especially the work within the Evangelical Luther- an Church in America, the Unitarian Universalist Congregations Association, and the Union for Reform Judaism 78% to strengthen congregations using tools from community organizing at http://urj.org/socialaction/ training/justcongregations, http://www.interfaithfunders.org/Inter-ReligiousOrganizingInitiative. html, and www.uua.org. On similar work in the wider Jewish community, see http://bendthearc.us.

www.interfaithfunders.org

7 The household income figures are particularly revealing: Income Composition We suspect IBCO boards are extraordinarily less well-off than the typical board of directors in an 40% American non-profit, but the present ■ Board Members study does not provide comparative ■ U.S. Adults data. 30% Leaders: A primary objective of com- 20% munity organizing is to develop leaders from within member institutions who can organize their institutions to 10% build better quality of life in Ameri- can communities. The IBCO field 0% currently reports having over 20,000 Less than $25,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to More than core leaders playing active volun- $25,000/year $49,999/year $74,999/year $100,000/year $100,000/year tary roles within local organizations. Among these leaders, over 5,000 had For U.S. Adults, the source is the 2010 General Social Survey attended a multi-day training event in the last year.15 This represents a 70% increase in the number of lead- member institutions per organizer 75% men and 25% women; today, it ers receiving intensive training since for the average IBCO decreased is 54% men and 46% women. Ten per- 1999, illustrating the field’s commit- from 15:1 to 12:1. These changes may cent of the IBCO directors have been ment to develop a strong leadership reflect two important developments: in their current position for more base among its constituents. the effort to increase organizing at than ten years, while 38% have been the state and national levels and the leading their organizations for fewer Organizers: The number of paid or- effort to use the tools of organizing than two years. In 2011, 7% of direc- ganizing staff across the IBCO field to contribute to congregational and tors were immigrants (83% of whom increased 70% (from approximately institutional development. Both were Hispanic). 320 to 545).16 Approximately 80 developments likely require greater percent of organizers work full-time. numbers of organizers on staff. The field has achieved this level of However, the majority of IBCOs engagement and leadership develop- still have only one or two organizers A generational and gender shift is ment with fairly modest financial on staff. The total number of staff occurring among professionals in the resources. Since 1999, the median increased partly because there are field. The average age of the organiz- annual budget for IBCOs increased more organizations that need to be ing staff decreased. In 1999, a major- from $150,000 to $175,000, but staffed. But five percent of IBCOs ity of the organizers were between 30 adjusted for inflation, this represents have more than eight paid organiz- and 50 years old. Today, the majority a net decline of 12.5% in effective 18 ers; these organizations account for are between 20 and 40. The gender revenue for the average IBCO. On the bulk of the increase in organiz- composition of the organizing staff average, 60% of an IBCO’s budget ing staff.17 Importantly, the ratio of also flipped. In 1999, 57% were male; goes toward staff expenses. now 55% are female. Also, according 15. In addition, most IBCOs indicated that they 18. In 1999, $150,000 had the purchasing power also provide smaller training events throughout the to the 2011 data, 14% of organizers equivalent of about $202,000 in 2011 (U.S. Bureau year at which even more leaders are trained. are immigrants (76% of these are of Labor Statistics). Note that the reported decline pertains only to local IBCOs and does not reflect 16. The figures reported here for 1999 differ slightly Hispanic), and 17% have less than a revenues to national-level organizing efforts, nor from those reported at the time; during reanalysis bachelor’s degree. does it reflect what budgets may have been just we discovered an error in the prior calculations and prior to the 2008 recession. are publishing a separate correction. Directors: Similar significant shifts 17. These nine organizations employ approximately have occurred among the organizing 20% of all IBCO organizers. In 1999, no IBCO had staff directors. In 1999, the gender more than eight paid organizers. composition of directors was roughly 8 Organizing Money Funding sources have Age Composition shifted significantly. Even though IBCOs prioritize raising funds from their member institutions in order to protect their autonomy, 40% 1999 the percentage of funding ■ ■ 2011 that comes from member dues 30% decreased from 22% to 15%. The percentage provided by the Catholic Campaign for Human 20% Development decreased from 19 to 15%, and the percentage 10% provided by other faith-based funders decreased from 12 to 7%. Meanwhile, the percentage 0% provided by secular foundations Under 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 Over 69 and corporations increased from Years Old 30% to 39%. The 1999 data does not allow us to separate out donations from corporations and donations from secular Gender Composition foundations. In 2011, however, donations from corporations con- stituted 4.5% of total reported IBCO revenues. Gender Composition Male Female The above financial patterns 1999 57% 43% reflect several dynamics:

n non-faith-based institutions’ 2011 45% 55% Male Female expanding interest in the field, even as its membership base 1999 57% 43% remains primarily in faith com- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% munities

2011 45% 55% n percent of all U.S. congregations are increasing recognition of the Organizing and Religion field’s current impact and future Religious Composition of the Field involved in institution-based com- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% potential munity organizing. In the early days of institution- Catholic, Mainline Protestant, n declining contributions to the based organizing, religious congrega- and Black Protestant congregations Catholic and Mainline Protes- tions were the primary constituen- are the core members, while Evan- tant denominational units that cies that organizers recruited. While gelical, Jewish, Muslim, Pentecostal, the proportion of non-congregational previously provided much of and Unitarian Universalist congre- member institutions has since the field’s faith-based funding gations represent a much smaller increased, religious congregations constituency. still make up the large majority. One

www.interfaithfunders.org

9 the IBCO field matches its propor- IBCO Member Congregations tion of U.S. congregations. With regard to minority religious traditions, Jewish, Muslim, and Unitarian Universalist congregations Mainline Protestant 32% (-5%) are relatively well represented in Catholic 27% (-6%) the IBCO field. Jewish synagogues, Black Protestant for example, make up roughly 2% of 24% (+1.5%) U.S. congregations, but make up 5% Jewish 5% (+3%) of all IBCO member congregations; Evangelical 4% (+1.5%) ■ 1999 Unitarian Universalist congregations make up less than 1% of U.S. congre- Unitarian Universalist ■ 2011 4% (+2%) gations but 4% of all IBCO member Pentecostal / Charismatic 2% (N/A) congregations. Thus, congregations Muslim 1% (N/A) from the Mainline Protestant, Catho- lic, Jewish, and Unitarian-Universal- Other Non-Christian <1% (No Change) ist traditions are strongly represented 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% in the IBCO field, while Evangelical and Pentecostal congregations are In the last decade, however, the congregations represent a majority in highly under-represented. religious composition of the IBCO the IBCO field, though they repre- The religious affiliation of board field shifted to become more evenly sent a minority among congregations members and organizing staff shifted distributed among the various in the United States. On the other similarly.21 Among staff, the propor- religious traditions. The proportion hand, almost half the U.S. congre- tion of Mainline Protestant, Black of Mainline Protestant and Catholic gations are Evangelical and Pente- Protestant, and Catholic organizers congregations decreased,19 reflecting costal, but these faith communities decreased, while the proportion of the overall decrease in the number represent a small minority in the organizers from other faith com- of Mainline Protestant and Catholic IBCO field. Black Protestantism is munities increased. In particular, congregations in the United States. the only religious tradition in which the percentage of Evangelical and Because fewer exist, fewer are avail- the proportion of congregations in able to participate in community organizing. Meanwhile, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim, Pentecostal, and Unitarian Universalist congregations IBCO Member Congregations have all increased their representation within the field, and a growing number of IBCOs have at least one ■ Member Congregations (2011) member congregation from these Mainline Protestant traditions.20 ■ U.S. Congregations (2006) Catholic Even though congregations from every major religious tradition are Black Protestant involved in IBCO, they do not represent the religious composition of Evangelical / Pentecostal congregations in the United States. Mainline Protestant and Catholic All Non-Christian 19. The proportion of Black Protestant member congregations has remained basically the same. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 20. In the 1999 study, when directors mentioned 21 Information on the board For U.S. Congregations , the source is the 2006-7 National Congregations Study reaching out to new religious constituencies, these members’ religious affiliation was not collected in are the religious groups they referenced most often. the 1999 study.

10 Universalist traditions, 20% have at IBCO Member Congregations least one Muslim congregation, and 15% have at least one Jewish and one Muslim congregation. Furthermore, over 50% of IBCOs have at least one Mainline Black secular member institution, and 20% Catholic Other Protestant Protestant of the members of a typical IBCO Member are non-congregations. Organizing Congregations 32% 27% 24% 16% builds bridges among faith communities and between faith communities and secular institutions, and Board 26% 33% 22% 19% across lines of race and class, even Members when these institutions are typically divided in American culture. They Not Organizing 20% 34% 14% 22% 10% Religiously do so not only nationally in the ag- Staff Affiliated gregate, but locally in the communities where people actually live. As 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% participants build local relationships with members of other groups, their perception of these groups can be Pentecostal organizers doubled, and Protestants, Jews, Unitarian Univer- enriched and informed. the percentage of Jewish and Unitar- salists, Muslims, and the religiously ian Universalist organizers increased unaffiliated. The Effects of Religious Diversity on Organizing Activities slightly. In 1999, the entire field had Religious Diversity among IBCOs only one Muslim organizer--now there are nine. Furthermore, the Even though many IBCOs are The growing religious diversity of percentage of organizers identify- religiously diverse and leaders are the field, however, does not necessar- ing as being not religiously affiliated often encouraged to draw on their ily mean that each individual IBCO increased from 2% to 10% (still less specific faith traditions, participants reflects this diversity. Four percent than the U.S. population as a whole, seldom focus on religious differences. of IBCOs are mono-religious (i.e., which has risen sharply to 18%). The Most IBCOs reported discussing all of their member institutions are religious composition of the IBCO religious differences only “rarely” affiliated with the same religious tra- directors shifted in almost the exact to “sometimes,” and most indicated dition). Among the mono-religious same ways, except that the number that religious differences had a mini- IBCOs, two have only Catholic of Muslim directors decreased from mal effect on their planning meet- congregations, four have only Black 23 one to zero and only 3% of IBCOs are ings. Interestingly, IBCOs that fre- Protestant congregations, and one led by a person who is not religiously quently discuss religious differences has only Mainline Protestant congre- affiliated.22 were more likely to report that their gations. The percentage of IBCOs differences affected their planning that have only Mainline Protestant, Overall, the IBCO field has meetings. Yet an IBCO’s propensity Catholic, and/or Black Protestant become more religiously diverse, to discuss religious differences is congregations–-the traditional reli- still sustained by its historic core unrelated to its degree of religious gious core of IBCOs– decreased from in Mainline Protestantism, Ca- diversity. Furthermore, the directors 25% to 15%. tholicism, and the historic African 23. Likewise, more religiously diverse IBCOs American churches but also growing were no more likely than less diverse IBCOs to Unlike many voluntary associa- indicate that religious differences complicated, among Evangelical and Pentecostal tions in America, most IBCOs are prolonged, or hindered their planning meetings. 22. Religious professionals continue to be active in One exception: IBCOs that had at least one Jewish the IBCO field. Roughly 30% of board members, religiously diverse. Almost half have or Muslim member congregation were more likely 20% of directors, and 10% of organizing staff are at least one congregation from the to report that religious differences complicated clergy/ordained ministers. Evangelical, Jewish, or Unitarian their planning meetings.

www.interfaithfunders.org

11 of religiously diverse IBCOs did not report it to be any more difficult to accommodate different faith tradi- Pray/Meditate Privately tions in their organizing work than did directors of less diverse IBCOs. 60% As IBCO members from diverse ■ IBCO Directors faith traditions work together to 50% improve their communities, they ap- ■ U.S. Adults 40% pear to navigate religious differences by downplaying them. Rather than 30% using differences to pit faith communities against each other (or to 20% antagonize divergent strands within 10% a particular tradition), IBCO culture seeks to transcend this diversity by 0% focusing on shared values and pursu- Daily 2-3 Times Once a Week Less than Never ing common goals. In an increasingly a Week Once a Week polarized political culture, in which For U.S. Adults, the source is the 2010 General Social Survey religious differences are often used

to amplify political disagreements, IBCOs are thus strikingly counter- cultural. Incorporating Religion Religious Practices of IBCOs and Their Directors Never Occasionally Often Despite the field’s tendency to de- Praying 7% 93% emphasize religious differences and the growing proportion of member Discussing 23% 77% institutions and organizers that are secular, religious faith continues to Teaching 5% 37% 58% be an integral part of the IBCOs’ organizing ethos. Sixty percent of Reading 9% 46% 45% IBCO offices contain objects with religious references, and 80% of IB- Singing 10% 57% 33% COs reported that their promotional Announcements 25% 57% 18% material contains religious content. Furthermore, the directors of IBCOs 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% are, on average, more religious than the general U.S. population (i.e., some form of religious teaching into Increasing the religious diversity of they pray, read sacred texts, and their organizing activities, though it an IBCO does not seem to dampen attend religious services more often is less common for IBCO activities the influence of religious faith in than the average U.S. adult). to include people singing or reading the organization. In fact, religiously religious-based content together. diverse IBCOs are more likely to Most IBCOs actively integrate The least common practice is for incorporate religious practices into religious practices into their organiz- people to make announcements their organizing activities, and the ing activities. Over 90% of IBCOs about upcoming religious events.24 report that they often open and close their meetings with a prayer, and over 75% often have discussions 24. This reflects the tendency in IBCO culture to about the connection between faith focus on shared beliefs and avoid giving preference to or promoting specific faith traditions. and organizing. Most incorporate 12

directors of diverse IBCOs reported feeling more comfortable doing so. IBCO Member Institutions IBCOs led by people who engage in the spiritual practices of their tradition tend to incorporate religion into their organizing activities more White Black Hispanic Other often. Religiously active directors were also more likely to report that 1999 36% 35% 21% 8% religious differences enhanced their organization’s planning meetings. 2011 46% 30% 13% 11% There are two possible explanations: Religiously active directors help to cultivate an environment in which 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% people are at ease with religious dif- Percentage of Immigrant Member Institutions ferences and comfortable with incor- 1999: 11% porating religion into their activities, 2011: 14% or perhaps IBCOs more grounded in religion tend to recruit directors who reflect that orientation. Immigrant Composition Overall, while many IBCOs tend to ignore religious differences, that is not to say that they ignore religion. Percentage of member institutions whose constituents are predominantly Indeed, they often draw on religion Types of Immigrant richly as they build an organizational Member Institutions culture for political engagement. For example, most public actions include U.S. Born Black 11% 86% stories, music, examples, and sym- Asian 7% bols rooted in faith communities, and Immigrants Other or many local organizing meetings begin 14% Multi-Racial and end with prayer. But rather than Hispanic 14% being venues for interfaith dialogue, 68% IBCOs are vehicles for interfaith action. Instead of discussing potentially divisive differences, organizing harnesses their shared beliefs to motivate and mobilize members around issues of common concern Organizing and Race represents more than 50%, then the and prompting relationships Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Field institution is identified as being between leaders of differing faiths. multiracial. The figure above shows Moreover, incorporation of these An enduring characteristic of the racial/ethnic composition in 1999 kinds of religious elements is stron- the IBCO field has been its capac- and 2011. gest among IBCOs that are reli- ity to bridge racial/ethnic divides. giously diverse and led by religiously Consistent with the 1999 study, we The racial/ethnic diversity of active directors. defined the racial/ethnic identity of a the IBCO field has shifted over the member institution to be the racial/ last decade in ways that reflect the ethnic group that represents a major- changes of member institutions. ity in that institution. If no group The percentage of majority-white

www.interfaithfunders.org

13 member institutions increased, and the percentage of black and Hispanic member institutions decreased. IBCO Member Institutions Meanwhile, the percentage of member institutions comprised primarily of immigrants increased from 11% to 14%. The proceeding chart shows the White Black Hispanic Other racial/ethnic diversity of the immi- Member grant institutions, about two-thirds 46% 30% 13% 11% of which are mostly Hispanic. Institutions

The racial/ethnic composition of Board 49% 32% 14% 5% IBCO governing boards shifted simi- Members larly. The percentage of white board members increased, the percentage of Organizing 48% 21% 24% 7% Hispanic board members decreased, Staff and the percentage of black board members remained the same. How- 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ever, among IBCO organizing staff, the percentage of Hispanic organizers increased, and the percentage of white and black organizers decreased.25

Thus, while IBCO professional IBCO Member Congregations staffing became more diverse over the last decade, the IBCO institutional base and boards of direc- Percentage that are predominantly… tors became less racially/ethnically diverse (by this measure; see below White Black Hispanic Other for different results from a more Member sophisticated measure of diversity). 49% 32% 12% 7% However, the IBCO field remains Congregations (2011) substantially more diverse than its 2.4% institutional equivalents. IBCO U.S. 67% 24% 6% member congregations represent Congregations greater diversity than the field of (2006) congregations in the United States, 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% and IBCO boards represent greater diversity than the boards of the non- profit sector.26 The IBCO field is also For U.S. Congregations , the source is the 2006-7 National Congregations Study substantially more diverse than the

25. The figures reported here for 1999 differ slightly U.S. population as a whole. geographic areas and into higher-level from those reported at the time; during re-analysis political arenas. This strategy has we discovered an error in the prior calculations and are publishing a separate correction. Why has the field become less di- led many IBCOs to seek new mem- verse in the last decade, and why has bers beyond core urban districts by 26. See Mark Chaves and Shawna Anderson, National Congregations Study: Cumulative white representation increased? We expanding into inner- and sometimes Data File and Codebook (Durham, NC: Duke believe this at least partially reflects a outer-ring suburbs. Though these University, Department of Sociology, 2008); key strategic dynamic in the field over suburbs today often include signifi- and Francie Ostrower, “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on Performance the last decade: Networks have made cant minority populations, they still and Accountability,” from the First National a widespread effort to better serve the typically have a larger white percent- Representative Study (The Urban Institute: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, 2007). interests of low-income communities age than do core cities. by projecting power across broader 14 Hispanic institutions might reflect IBCO Board Members the ongoing financial struggles of historic African American churches and (often Hispanic) Catholic parishes in core urban areas. White Black Hispanic Other Racial/Ethnic Diversity among IBCOs

1999 43% 32% 21% 4% Even though the IBCO field as a IBCO Board whole has become somewhat less ra- Members cially/ethnically diverse, the percent- 2011 49% 32% 14% 5% age of IBCOs that are mono-racial (i.e., all of their member institutions All Nonprofit had the same racial/ethnic identity), 2005 86% 7% 4% 4% Boards has decreased. In 1999, 11% were mono-racial; by 2011 only 8% of 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% IBCOs were mono-racial. Further- more, “mono-racial” looks different For non-profit boards, the sources is The Urban Institute: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy (2007) in different settings: Three of the 14 mono-racial institutions in 2011 were all black and practiced a model of organizing that focused explicitly on organizing in African American con- IBCO Organizing Staff gregations. Two of the 14 were His- panic and located in the south valley of Texas, an overwhelmingly His- panic region. The remaining nine had White Black Hispanic Other only majority-white institutions and organized in Maine, Vermont, small- 1999 50% 29% 16% 5% town Wisconsin, Oregon, upstate Organizing New York, eastern Washington, and Staff suburban California, some but not all 2011 48% 21% 24% 7% of which have populations with little racial diversity. Thus, while prob- lematic questions can legitimately be U.S. Adults 2010 64% 13% 16% 8% raised about mono-racial organizing in an increasingly diverse America, many of these cases can readily be at- 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% tributed to local demographics. For U.S. Adults, the source is the 2010 General Social Survey While a small percentage of IBCOs remain racially/ethnically The field has also expanded into capacity. More speculatively, the homogenous, most IBCOs are be- secondary cities of the upper Mid- drop in membership by Hispanic coming more diverse. Ninety-three west (Wisconsin, Michigan) and institutions might reflect insecurity percent of IBCOs have at least one Northeast (Maine, New Hampshire, Hispanic immigrants feel regard- white member institution, 77% have Vermont, upstate New York). Both ing public engagement, perhaps at least one black member institu- dynamics likely lower the field’s the result of recent anti-immigrant tion, and 68% have at least one His- racial/ethnic diversity, albeit while discourse and legislation. Likewise, panic member institution. Compared potentially increasing its strategic the fall in membership in black and

www.interfaithfunders.org

15 to 1999, the percentage of IBCOs is 0%). As the number of different counties is .28 and for congregations represented by only two racial/ethnic racial/ethnic groups increases and as is .12.30 IBCOs thus tend to be more groups decreased from 41% to 35%, the proportion of each group becomes diverse than public schools and U.S. while the percentage of IBCOs repre- more evenly distributed, the IBCO’s counties, and much more diverse sented by three or more racial groups diversity score approaches 1 (i.e., the than congregations. In an era of de- increased from 48% to 57%.27 probability of selecting two member clining social capital, it appears that institutions from different races/eth- the IBCO field plays a crucial role in Measuring Diversity nicities approaches 100%). The figure bolstering “bridging capital” by link- below shows the 2011 distribution of ing Americans across the divides that The description above does not IBCOs based on their diversity score, otherwise separate them. fully capture the complex dynam- the percentage of the dominant race/ ics of racial/ethnic diversity in the ethnicity, and the identity of the IBCO field. For example, consider dominant race/ethnicity.29 two IBCOs--each comprised of three different racial/ethnic groups, but with different percentages. The Racial/Ethnic Diversity first IBCO is 70% white, 15% black, and 15% Hispanic, while the second IBCO has 33% from each of the racial/ Dominant Race 100% ethnic groups. Both IBCOs would ● White 44% be categorized as “multi-racial,” but ● Black 18% in fact they are quite different: The 80% ● Hispanic 6% membership of the second IBCO is ● None Dominant 31% significantly more diverse. Mean Diversity Scores for: 60% IBCOs .47 To capture this complexity we also Public Schools .33 used a more comprehensive measure U.S. Counties .27 40% of diversity that takes into account Congregations .12 both the number of racial/ethnic Percentage of Race/Ethnicity Dominant Percentage groups and the proportion of each 20% group. This diversity scale can be .00 .20 .40 .60 .80 used to measure and compare the di- Degree of Diversity versity of IBCOs that have different Sources for public schools, U.S. counties and congregations are the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Census, and National Congregations Study group configurations.28 It generates a diversity score that ranges from 0 to 1, and the score can be interpreted as By using the diversity scale, the The Effects of Racial/Ethnic Diversity the probability that two randomly se- racial/ethnic diversity of IBCOs on Organizing Activities lected member institutions within an today can be compared with IBCOs a IBCO will be of a different race/eth- decade ago and the diversity of other Even though historically this form nicity. Based on this scale, a mono- community institutions today. The of organizing typically downplayed racial IBCO has a diversity score of 0 average diversity score for IBCOs racial differences, in 2011 most (i.e., the probability that two ran- was .47 in both 1999 and 2011. Thus, IBCOs reported discussing racial/ domly selected member institutions by this measure, IBCOs are equally ethnic differences either “sometimes” will be of a different race/ethnicity diverse in 2011 as in 1999. In com- or “often.” Diverse IBCOs, as well as 27. 31 “Bi-racial” here means that the IBCO has parison, today the average diversity IBCOs with at least one black mem- member institutions whose primary constituency ber institution, are likely to discuss represents two different racial/ethnic groups. score for public schools is .33, for U.S. “Multi-racial” here means that the IBCO has 30. The mean diversity score for public schools is member institutions whose primary constituency 29. The effects of diversity can also be influenced if based on the 2009-10 NCES Common Core of Data represents three or more racial/ethnic groups. one particular racial/ethnic group has a dominating Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe presence (i.e., represents more than 50% of the Survey, the score for counties is based on the 2010 28. Diversity = where N = total number of members). An IBCO that is majority-white but Census Demographic Profile, and the score for member institutions and nk = number of member has the same “diversity index” as a majority-black congregations is based on the 2006-7 National institutions in group k. IBCO is likely to operate quite differently. Congregations Study.

16 racial/ethnic differences more often. siders the field as a whole versus indi- of member institutions both helped Diverse IBCOs were more likely to vidual IBCOs. But by all measures, to plan and attended their IBCO’s indicate that racial/ethnic differences the field is more racially/ethnically most recent public action, 30% only complicated, prolonged, hindered, and diverse than America generally--and attended, and 20% neither helped to enhanced their planning meetings.31 much more diverse than corporate plan nor attended. IBCO board mem- This suggests that diverse IBCOs do and non-profit boards, congrega- bers also vary in their level of involve- not attempt to be “color blind” in their tions, neighborhoods, etc. In this ment: The typical IBCO board met operations. Rather they appear to be way, the field’s ability to bring 12 times in the last year, and 75% of cognizant of racial/ethnic differences, Americans together across racial board members attended at least half they focus on addressing those differ- and ethnic divides is extraordinary of their IBCO’s board meetings, while ences, and these differences influence within American political culture 6% attended none. their organizing activity. and institutions. Geographic Scope Based on these results, it appears Organizing Activity and outcomes that IBCOs respond to religious and Levels of Involvement The vast majority of IBCOs focus racial/ethnic differences in contrast- their primary organizing work ing ways. IBCOs tend to talk less Member institutions and their within a particular city/county or about religious differences, and constituents vary widely in their level cluster of cities/counties. Six percent religious differences tend to have of involvement. We measured their restrict their organizing area to a par- little impact on their planning meet- involvement along three dimensions- ticular neighborhood, and another ings. Conversely, IBCOs tend to talk -overall level of participation, pro- 5% define their organizing area to be more about racial/ethnic differences, portion of meetings attended, and an entire state This does not include and these differences tend to have a involvement in the most recent public more locally-focused IBCOs that also greater impact their planning meet- action. In terms of their overall par- organize at the state level via net- ings. Moreover, these opposite ways ticipation, 60% of member institutions work affiliations or other collabora- of responding to differences become were characterized as being active tions (see below). IBCOs that limit amplified as the diversity of the participants, 32% partially active, their organizing area to a neighbor- IBCO increases.32 and 8% not active. The typical IBCO hood tend to be in large metropolitan held 12 organization-wide member areas. IBCOs that organize an entire No simple summary can fully cap- institution meetings in the last year, state tend to be located in smaller ture the complex patterns of racial/ and 65% of member institutions at- states or are independent organiza- ethnic diversity within the IBCO tended at least half of their IBCO’s tions that have adopted an explicit field. By some measures, the field has member meetings, while 8% attended statewide organizing model. grown somewhat less diverse in the none of the meetings. Fifty percent last decade; by other measures, it has held its own or gained in diversity. The picture also changes if one con- Geographic Scope

31. Even when controlling for the effects of language differences, racial/ethnic differences Multiple continue to affect planning meetings. Language Neighborhood City/County State differences have the strongest effect on IBCOs Cities / Counties that have at least one Hispanic or Asian member institution. 1999 10% 36% 53% 32. Further research might delve into these dynamics more fully--including the fact that roughly 70% of IBCOs have a policy in place for dealing with religious differences, and 50% for 2011 6% 54% 35% 5% dealing with racial/ethnic differences. Meanwhile, religiously diverse IBCOs are more likely, and racially/ethnically diverse IBCOs no more likely, to 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% have the corresponding type of policy.

www.interfaithfunders.org

17 “It is easy in a time of polarization to just get angry, to see the other side as monolithic and having much more power than they really have. Part of the beauty of our approach to organizing is that we have always been good at going into diverse situations and drawing people out around their stories.” – Ken Galdston, InterValley Project

Collaborative Work: Coalitions 1999, only 20% of IBCOs participated among IBCOs seems to be toward and Networks in statewide collaborations, and even building collaborative ties “upward” fewer participated in nationwide through the national networks, “out- Beyond their primary organizing efforts. These are profound changes ward” through local coalitions, and/ base, most IBCOs collaborate far in a field of organizing once criticized or “upward and outward” through more broadly and strategically than as narrowly local, parochial, and national coalitions seeking to influ- they did in 1999. These collaborative non-strategic. Today, large sectors ence public policy at higher political efforts take a variety of forms: IB- of the IBCO field transcend local- levels. 33 COs within a single network pursu- ized concerns while remaining deeply Communicating with Constituents ing work on state- and national-level embedded in local communities and issues; those network-based efforts operate with a strategic vision that The ways IBCOs communicate coordinating with other national carries them into regional-, state-, with their constituents has shifted organizations; or a single IBCO and national-level work. dramatically in the last decade. joining a coalition with other local Technological developments alone community organizations. These col- All this collaborative work may have created several new modes of laborations may focus on single issue have contributed to another de- communication. Email, for example, campaigns or may constitute long- velopment in organizing culture: has become the most prevalent form term strategic alliances, and they IBCOs sharing credit for victories. of mass communication among IB- can help IBCOs broaden their base, In answering the survey, several COs, with 94% indicating that they consolidate power, and extend their IBCO directors made unsolicited correspond with their constituents reach. Sixty-six percent of IBCOs statements such as, “We would like via email.34 Eighty-two percent of participate in multi-organizational to reiterate that many organizations IBCOs have a website, though the collaborations of some kind, and and factors have contributed to these sophistication levels of those sites among these, over 95% collaborate victories, but we believe that we and how regularly they are updated with organizations outside their played a substantial role in contrib- vary greatly. formal organizing network (either uting to these important changes.” Long-time observers of the field will locally or through their network’s 33. Further analysis could assess how collaboration higher-level work). recognize just what a cultural shift affects IBCOs by comparing IBCOs from the 1999 this represents. study that participated in multi-organizational Perhps most importantly, par- coalitions and addressed issues at higher levels Some IBCOs, however, avoid with those that did not. Further research is also ticipating in multi-organizational needed on the emergent national issue work by collaborations helps IBCOs address participating in multi-organizational the networks and the strategic alliances that have issues at higher levels of government. coalitions and addressing issues at developed from that work. Even though most IBCOs limit their higher levels of government, argu- 34.A handful of IBCOs indicated that they do primary organizing to cities/coun- ing that doing so would undermine not “mass communicate” with their constituents their local organizing work or lead because it violates their organizing philosophy ties, 50% are affiliated with statewide which emphasizes corresponding with constituents collaborations, and 25% are affiliated their member institutions to become exclusively face-to-face via one-to-ones. This stance with nationwide collaborations. In less engaged. Nonetheless, the trend was virtual dogma within organizing at one time.

18 IBCOs use a variety of languages Modes of Mass Communication when conducting their organizing activities. Every IBCO uses English; however, 60% now also report con- Email ducting some organizing activities U.S.P.S. in Spanish. Various IBCOs use other Facebook languages (including Creole, Hmong, Arabic, French, Tagalog, Vietnam- Phone ■ At All ese, and Chinese), yet none of those

YouTube ■ At Least languages is used by more than 5% of Online Albums Once per Week IBCOs. Twitter Over the last decade, IBCOs have Evite also increased their communications 82% of IBCOs outreach to specific constituencies, A Blog have a website including immigrants and youth: The Podcast percentage of IBCOs who reported 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% engaging in outreach to immigrants rose from half to two-thirds, and the percentage who reported engaging in outreach to youth rose from about a Primary Issues third to over half of all IBCOs. Issue Work

Poverty 70% IBCOs are addressing a wide Education 66% variety of social issues. Generally Healthcare 57% speaking, most IBCOs are work- Immigration 54% ing to reduce poverty and economic Housing 53% inequality. On average, each IBCO Criminal Justice 53% is addressing six issues, and the Employment / Wages 49% maximum number of issues any one Banking / Foreclosures 42% IBCO is addressing is 14.35 Over 50% Public Finances 31% of IBCOs reported at least one of the Public Transportation 31% following issues as part of their work: Voter Registration 30% education, health care, immigration, Racism 29% affordable housing, and the criminal Environment 20% justice system.36 Between 30% and 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 50% of IBCOs reported addressing

35. On the survey, directors could indicate their The most notable communication these communication tools on a level of involvement in addressing an issue over difference among active IBCOs is weekly basis. Our communication the last two years. We coded an issue as being “addressed” by the IBCO if the IBCO selected one the extent to which they use social with IBCOs during this study sug- of the two highest levels of involvement for that media to facilitate organizing efforts. gests that constituents’ lack of access issue. Half of the IBCOs use Facebook, or familiarity with more advanced 36. With the exception of health care and immigration, these were also the issues most and a quarter update their pages at modes of communication may limit commonly addressed by IBCOs in 1999. This least weekly. Less than one third of some IBCOs from using even more reflects the dramatic expansion of state- and national-level work by some networks, which IBCOs use YouTube, Twitter, blogs common technologies, such as email. has focused partly on health reform (PICO) and or podcasts, and fewer than 10% use immigration (PICO and Gamaliel).

www.interfaithfunders.org

19 the following issues: employment/ Historically, IBCOs have em- to address issues, their responses wages, banking/foreclosures, pub- ployed a relatively limited range of included a long list of diverse lic finances, public transportation, tactics. In recent years, however, actions. We group those tactics into voter registration, or racism. Twenty many appear to have broadened their a few categories and offer an example percent reported addressing enviro- tactical repertoires. When the IBCO of how that issue was addressed by mental issues. Less than 5% of IBCOs directors were asked to identify the organizing in local and higher-level reported addressing issues related to concrete actions they have taken political arenas: farming, women’s rights, domestic addressing issues related to same-sex marriage. 37 The lack of activity in this arena reflects the field’s violence, and HIV/AIDS. strategy to focus on addressing issues of common concern and to avoid potentially divisive issues. 37. As a collective, IBCOs are addressing most social issues; however, only one IBCO is actively

Tactic/practice: Example from local work Example from higher arena work

“Research Meeting” with city administrator Met with academic experts on the history of immigra- Explore policy options or department head tion reform

Briefing by city council budget staff on rev- Met with Center on Budget Priorities to learn about Gain budgetary expertise enues/outlays and city budgetary process federal budget priorities and options

Cultivated ties to a politician over many years Met with hometown aides to congressional representa- Build relationships with key as he rose to increasing influence, eventu- tive, gaining sufficient respect to meet with D.C. aides political actors ally becoming mayor (key ally, sometimes and eventually with Representative on specific issues opponent) (repeatedly).

Met with allies on school board and asked Understand backroom political Met with congressional aides from both parties to dis- what interests are in play on a specific upcom- dynamics behind an issue cuss how to get financial reform legislation passed ing decision

Multiple actions through the Reform Immigration for America campaign for comprehensive immigration Got mayor to commit to support specific reform, including “March for America/Change takes Public actions and appropriation in front of several thousand Courage” and collaboration with statewide student people (with press and TV coverage); showed organizations. National actions to hold Congress and accountability sessions school board president’s refusal to commit to Administration accountable to protect most vulner- teacher home visit, in front of 300 parents able populations under health care reform (poor and immigrants)

Ran “Get Out the Vote” effort with several dozen faith Ran petition campaign to get referendum on communities simultaneously; registered several thou- Active civic engagement ballot; ran pro-referendum campaign sand new voters, drove them to polls on election day (one race was won by a few hundred votes).

Before public action, negotiated with mayor’s Renegotiated the outlines of major national healthcare Negotiation aides the outlines of what she could agree to reform legislation as it moved through congressional in budget approval (also state-level examples)

Simultaneous multi-site occupation of bank offices Direct action Occupied office of local “shady employer” involved in unfair foreclosure practices

Sponsored local prayer vigil for vulnerable Provided key “faith voices” in Congressional testimony Moral/ethical framing of issues immigrants and victims of gang violence; regarding national health care reform, including need linked to immigration reform for increased access for poor and vulnerable

www.interfaithfunders.org

20 Outcomes Achieved today these are sometimes changes outcomes during a period of wide- in major policy arenas at the state spread reduction of public services Through these organizing ef- or national level, the most dramatic makes them all the more significant. forts, IBCOs strive to bring about recent examples being passage of the concrete changes that improve the Affordable Care Act and reauthoriza- When the directors were asked to quality of life in poor, working class, tion of the State Children’s Health identify their organization’s accom- and middle-income communities. Insurance Program, both of which plishments, their responses included As in the past, sometimes these are narrowly passed with key involve- the following (grouped under the small changes that make a difference ment by the PICO National Net- most common issue areas reported): to a local community, such as bet- work. But stories of policy impact at ter after-school programs in work- the regional, state, or national levels ing class neighborhoods or better could be multiplied many times over. community policing in a town. But That IBCOs have achieved these

EXAMPLES FROM: Issue Area Local Level State/Regional Level National Level Amendment of federal Affordable Gained new money for HIV and diabe- Passage of new funding for health clin- Care Act to provide better access for tes care for uninsured patients; created Healthcare ics in targeted poor communities where low-income families; Signing of SCHIP more accessible and lower-cost health there was overuse of emergency rooms (children’s program) after two presi- insurance and medical care alternatives dential vetoes

Restored some state budget cuts Passage of living wage ordinance and Helped to strengthen financial reform Poverty (housing, health care, education, youth increased minimum wages; agreement legislation; gained U.S. Dept. of Labor Employment development) for use of unionized labor on all county commitment to address “wage theft” and Wages capital construction issues; some wages recovered

Built parent-union compromise on Some IBCOs involved in policy discus- teacher evaluations; new charter Saved funding for pre-K and after- sions related to flexibility of standards schools; teacher-home visitation pro- Education school programs; restored state funding under “No Child Left Behind;” reports gram; capital and operational funds for cuts and/or prevented deeper cuts in this issue area all focused on local and charter schools; major new funding for state levels local public schools

Stopped police impoundment of Eliminated barriers to immigrant access Supported network effort to pass Com- Immigration vehicles driven by undocumented im- to healthcare; California and Illinois prehensive Immigration Reform law migrants DREAM Acts passed (unsuccessful so far)

New affordable rental units con- $4 billion for public housing nationally; Housing and structed or renovated; new mixed-use/ Passed state laws limiting predatory annual funding of Affordable Housing Foreclosure mixed-income owner-occupied housing lending and reforming foreclosure Trust Fund development

Anti-crime strategy meetings that reduced crime; anti-racial profiling laws Implementation of “Ceasefire” and Criminal and changes in process for selecting Advanced community policing in local “Lifelines to Healing” (violence-reduc- Justice police recruits; new police account- jurisdictions nationally tion and reintegration) projects ability via dashboard and body camera requirements

21 Putting reliable dollar figures on Examples of specific accomplish- On banking reform: these achievements in a variety of ments at the state and national levels political arenas is extraordinarily reported by IBCO directors give Our campaign played a key role in difficult, and we do not attempt to some sense of the kinds of gains that demonstrating public outrage at the do so in this brief report. (See our have been made (see Appendix for role of large banks in the collapse of subsequent reports and the recent further reports): the economy during the debate over studies by the National Center for financial reform. We helped to initi- Responsive Philanthropy for efforts ate and orchestrate some of the larg- to estimate the dollar impact of the On healthcare reform: est actions around the country from IBCO field). April to June 2010 that helped to Our [IBCO] leaders worked tire- shape media coverage that emphasized The most important recent lessly in support of health care reform the public outcry for stronger reform. change has been that the number of and played a key role along with the This had a direct impact on strength- IBCOs engaged in policy change at [national network] in getting strong ening financial reform legislation as the higher levels of government has affordability standards. Our leaders it moved through the Senate and also grown dramatically. The range ex- played a key role in bringing health contributed to our ability to win the tends from the neighborhood level to care reform home (i.e. bringing money new federal policy to provide assis- the national level, and many IBCOs and policy changes flowing from tance for unemployed homeowners. are simultaneously addressing issues healthcare reform down to the local at multiple levels. In 1999, it was rare From San Francisco to New York, level), and were successful in secur- for IBCOs to address issues beyond Chicago to Charlotte, Kansas City to ing a site and full funding for a new the city level. Since then, however, Washington, D.C., we let Congress clinic. It will provide health access to this organizing strategy has become know that a broad cross-section of critically underserved [part of much more common. Over 87% of Americans would hold them account- our county]. IBCOs report addressing at least one able for passing real financial reform. 38 39 issue at the state or national level. , We advocated for quality, affordable, We shut down the financial district The issues most commonly addressed accessible, health care for all people. in San Francisco, Kansas City, and at the state or national level are National health care reforms were Wall Street. We shut down K Street immigration, health care, banking/ passed, and state wide mental health at the height of the process and told a foreclosures, public finances, employ- care reform legislation passed. new public narrative that declared de- ment/wages, poverty, racism, and cisively that the American people were public transportation. angry at the abuses of Wall Street and were demanding change. Primary Issues On foreclosure reform: City State National 38 Immigration Four percent16% of IBCOs19% 65% We played a strong role in press- are addressingHealthcare at least one issue19% at an 25% 56% ing for the creation of a national internationalBanking / Foreclosures level. 20% 27% 53% loan modification program and were Public Finances 23% 49% 28% credited in the White House’s online 39 Employment /In Wages 1999, when IBCO42% 38% 20% rollout of the “Making Home Afford- directors were asked to identify the Poverty 46% 25% 29% able” program in April 2009….Many critical needs of theRacism field, several 47% 22% 30% mentioned the need to develop an ability of our members and their stories Public Transportation 49% 21% 30% to address issues and impact policy at were featured in a series of local and Education 52% 37% 11% levels beyond the city. national media coverage and served to Environment 59% 34% 6% generate pressure on the Department Housing 61% 22% 17% Voter Registration 71% 21% 8% Criminal Justice 73% 18% 9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

22 of Treasury to launch an audit and investigation which preceded the At- torneys General lawsuit. Political Officials [A particular] meeting generated national media coverage and our recommendations have been circulated to key Administration officials, includ- City State National ing Peter Rouse, the current White House chief of staff. Our meeting was IBCO 10% 22% 66% also referenced by a group of U.S. Senators in a letter to the Treasury Secretary where they supported the 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% key points of our recommendations. The Treasury Department has made a series of policy changes in response to our recommendations. On electoral influence: some IBCOs restrict their organizing area to a city, most are also engag- [Local Congressman] came under ing political officials beyond the city On employment& public transportation: heavy assault by the coal industry level. Eighty-four percent had met for his position against mountaintop with a state-level official within the We maintained state funding [for removal mining. We have two large last year and 66% had met with a public transit] through a designated chapters in his district that registered, national-level official. However, not transportation fund. We won collec- informed, and mobilized thousands of all IBCOs have embraced this trend tive bargaining for transit workers. voters. He won by 647 votes. toward higher level engagement. We won a commitment from two Con- Twelve percent of IBCOs had not gressmen to solve a federal funding Researchers who have recently engaged any political official be- issue....On the national level, we have sought to substantiate similar claims yond the city level, and 34% had not been to Washington, D.C. four times 40 have found them quite credible. In engaged any official beyond the state to speak with congressional leaders these higher-level arenas, such victo- level. or their staff about the need for the ries almost always involve broad coali- reauthorization of transportation leg- tions of organizations and officials Most IBCOs interact with po- islation and our interests around jobs and are rarely the work of single orga- litical officials in order to be more and flexible funds. nizations or even networks. But these effective at influencing decisions IBCO organizations have been among in public life. Thus, their meetings the crucial actors in a variety of im- with officials do not always focus On immigration reform: portant high-level policy outcomes. exclusively on winning a particular issue. Rather, they can also be used We fought successfully to stop to lay the relational groundwork for Arizona-style legislation from coming Engaging Political Officials future negotiations or to gain politi- to our state; that fight will continue cal knowledge, etc. IBCO directors next year. A strategic component of IBCOs’ reported several different kinds of work is to engage political officials. outcomes from their meetings with We won passage of [state-level] In the last year, 92% of IBCOs had political officials. Dream Act. met with a city-level political official about a particular issue. Although 40. See the recent reports of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (Ranghelli 2012).

www.interfaithfunders.org

23 Through these meetings, IBCOs: and its total turnout over the last field’s primary tactic for enhancing year. While the attendance figures its influence. Instead, IBCOs have n built relationships useful for their reported for the largest public ac- developed a wider array of tactics. future political work; tion decreased since 1999, the data They now turn out people for more suggests that total number of people events, coordinate organizing efforts n increased their understanding of mobilized by IBCO increased.41 In at several levels simultaneously, the political dynamics underlying 2011, IBCO directors reported over and cultivate strategic relationships a particular issue; 200,000 people attended at least one with political officials and institu- n educated the official about their event in the course of a year. The tional leaders. Beyond this, they now organization’s position on an is- typical organization-wide public systematically use electronic com- sue; action drew roughly 600 people, and munication technologies, actively the average IBCO reported having cultivate media coverage, and draw n informed the official about the 1,000 different people participate in on policy expertise more broadly and organization’s power base in the their events during the past year.42 systematically than in the past. local community (or statewide, or Any organization that reliably turns nationally in some cases); out 600 people for focused meetings One way to see these developments on substantive political issues is like- in the field over the last decade is to n held the official accountable for ly to gain attention in most American compare the ideas of hard power” community needs and for the com- cities. Furthermore, IBCOs have and soft power. The older model fo- mitments he or she made during the potential to generate even larger cused primarily on creating a “power elections; turnouts and impact at the polls, organization” through what might be called hard power,43 “organized n promoted bipartisan cooperation considering that their member insti- people” holding political officials for good of the community; tutions collectively represent over 5 million people. accountable via the sheer weight of n extracted specific commitments to their numbers. This involved build- support concrete policy proposals; Overall, the picture of higher-level ing power through internal relational issue work and extensive meetings work and then projecting that power n articulated the moral issues behind with state and federal officials, along into the political sphere. particular public policies; with specific issue victories in those higher arenas, provide evidence of Today, the IBCO field has learned n provided opportunities for leaders intensified power projection in the to extend that relational power to tell their own stories to power- IBCO field over the last ten years. externally in more systematic ways ful people; That power has been achieved de- via a wider set of organizing practices spite a decline in attendance at the more oriented toward what might n helped their leaders develop a bet- largest public actions, previously the be called soft power, which involves ter understanding of how power cultivating relationships with politi- works in public life 41. Because of differences in the wording of cal officials and other institutional questions between the two surveys, the data regarding the total number of people mobilized in a leaders, negotiating policies, build- year is not strictly comparable. ing long-term strategic alliances,

Projecting Power in Public Life: 42. IBCOs vary in the number of people they and drawing on specialized policy can mobilize for their events, and their capacity expertise. Linking these hard and Developing community leaders, often corresponds with the number of member soft forms of power appears to have institutions they have. While the average number identifying issues, and engaging of member institutions per IBCO has declined, bolstered IBCOs’ public influence. political officials are means to an the ability of member institutions to mobilize overall goal of projecting influence their constituents has remained the same. On Political reality is harsh, however. average, each member institution tends to mobilize in public life to achieve change in approximately 30 participants to public events. Severe and rising economic inequal- the issue areas listed above. One When considering an IBCO’s overall ability to ity continues to be the defining mobilize participants, it can expect, on average, way IBCOs achieve influence is by approximately 60 different people per member 43. The soft power/hard power distinction as used turning people out for public actions. institution to attend at least one of their events per here is adapted from the international relations This study assesses this dimension year. However, the mobilizing ability of a member literature; see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. institution varies greatly and depends on several Nye, Jr. 1998 "Power and Interdependence in the of power projection via two mea- factors, including its size and level of involvement Information Age." Foreign Affairs 77:81-94. sures: each IBCO’s largest turnout with the IBCO.

24 reality of American life, and in a “organized money,” they will have to mechanisms for exerting power, post-Citizens United context, money project still greater influence in the nothing can replace their ability to flows virtually unrestricted into the public arena. To do so, IBCOs must turn people out for public action and political arena. If IBCOs and their continue cultivating a sophisticated contested elections. If they sustain “organized people” want to lower mix of soft and hard power. Even that balance, they can make a crucial economic inequality and counter as they embrace more relational, contribution to renewing American the anti-democratic influence of cultural, and negotiation-based democracy in the years ahead.

CONCLUSION

As American society confronts moved a long way towards creating effective collaboration with other the challenges it faces in 2012 and the federated structure needed for kinds of organizations. Important beyond, new sources of democratic national change. progress has been made in these areas vigor will be required. No easy solu- in the last decade, and significant tions to our economic, political, or IBCOs bridge many of the racial/ new initiatives and experimental cultural problems are available, and ethnic and religious divides that forays are occurring in 2012. All these no political superhero will rescue us fracture American society, divides efforts will require new funding, from them. A movement embody- that constantly stymie serious efforts new organizing talent, and creative ing the democratic will and politi- to address our challenges. Indeed, responses to emerging challenges. cal courage of the American people IBCOs bridge those divides extraor- If these efforts create foundations must come together with dedicated dinarily well in comparison to other for future coordination-- within this leaders in politics, business, labor, organizations. The field’s deep ties sector and beyond--democracy in philanthropy, the law, and cultural to America’s diverse faith traditions, America will benefit. and academic institutions. This along with its active incorporation movement must craft the reforms of spiritual practices into organiz- Although the strategic capacity and lead the hard choices that will ing efforts, allow IBCOs to offer the of the IBCO field today significantly address our challenges. That is how moral vision and prophetic voice to transcends the state of the field we real change has happened before in guide democratic reform efforts. The analyzed a decade ago, institution- American history--and how it will most effective IBCO practitioners based community organizing will happen again. combine strategic savvy, disciplined not reform American society alone. organizing practice, and political Today, no single sector can provide Such movements have typically imagination to build effective demo- the mass movement or strategic been built via “federated structures” cratic capacity at the scale required capacity necessary for deep societal linking local, state, and national-lev- for national reform. For the IBCO reform. Collaborators from other sec- el organizing capacities: for example, field to reach its full potential, this tors will be crucial co-leaders in this gaining benefits for military veter- savvy, discipline, and imagination effort, learning from and teaching ans after the Civil War. No single must be multiplied throughout the the IBCO sector the arts and skills of organization fully provides such a IBCO sector. effective democratic reform. Given mobilizing structure today, but as a the promising current state of the field, institution-based community A key challenge facing the field lies field, institution-based community organizing offers a substantial base in consistently maximizing its politi- organizing is poised to be a strategic around which such a movement cal leverage. Practitioners can do so partner in the coming democratic might coalesce. As documented in by coordinating local level organiz- renewal of America. Only via such re- this report, the number of individu- ing with work at higher political newal will our economics and politics als represented by IBCO member levels, by judiciously and strategi- better reflect the shared aspirations institutions exceeds the historic cally expanding into new geographic and hopes of the American people in threshold for wielding such influence, settings, through sophisticated use all their diversity. and in the last ten years the field has of new and “old” media, and through

www.interfaithfunders.org

25 Appendix A: Research Opportunities

Link to the Full Survey Instrument http://www.soc.duke.edu/~brf6/ibcosurvey.pdf

Further Research from the IBCO State of the Field Project

“Building Bridges, Building Power” represents only the initial report on the rich data collected during the IBCO State of the Field Project. Further research will be published in articles, a book, and short reports on key findings. We intend to write in the following areas (depending on unfolding priorities and funding availability):

· Racial justice work within the culture of organizing, the shifting racial/ethnic profile of the field, and changes in how IBCOs approach issues of racial/ethnic identity

· Immigrants working in or with IBCOs, how IBCOs engage immigrants and bridge the immigrant-native divide, and how this intersects with changing dynamics around race/ethnicity in IBCO work

· New developments in state-level and national-level organizing (within IBCO models and/or in collaboration with other kinds of organizations): new tactics, new collaborations, new strategic visions and kinds of influence

· Religion in the culture of IBCO work: In facing a variety of internal and external challenges, how do these organizations draw on the cultural resources of the diverse faith communities that are key institutional members? What role do spiritual practices (public and private) play in this work?

· Denominational profiles of IBCO work: Analyses of the extent and character of involvement in institution- based community organizing by particular denominations or religious traditions

· Impact of varying organizational profiles on the efficacy of different IBCOs

· Comparative analysis with other organizing models, including that of National People’s Action

· Fundraising in IBCO work: Challenges to adequate resource provision for IBCOs’ strategic ambitions; the implications of the field’s changing funding profile; the impact of national-level strategic funding on the field; and the impact on IBCO work of member-generated versus foundation and corporate funding

· Geographical profiles: Statistical profiles linked to case studies of IBCO work in particular states, regions, or metropolitan areas (to be done with collaborating researchers)

· Network effects: Analyses of the effects on organizational efficacy of organizational ties within a given IBCO; organizational ties from an IBCO to its local environment; and organizational ties from an IBCO to a larger national, regional, or state network of any kind

· Others to be determined as time, priorities, and funding develop

For further conversation on these or other research ideas, contact Richard Wood at [email protected], Brad Fulton at [email protected], or Kathryn Partridge at [email protected].

Appendix B: Publications

Interfaith Funders Publications:

Warren, Mark R. and Richard L. Wood. “Faith-Based Community Organizing: The State of the Field.” Interfaith Funders, 2001.

“FBCO: Building Democracy for the Next Millennium.” Interfaith Funders, 2001.

“FBCO: Five Stories of Community Change.” Interfaith Funders, 2001.

“Renewing Congregations: The Contribution of Faith-Based Community Organizing.” Interfaith Funders, 2004.

“Good for the Soul, Good for the Whole.” Interfaith Funders, 2004. 26 Mary Ann Ford Flaherty and Richard L. Wood. “Faith and Public Life: Faith-Based Community Organizing and the Development of Congregations.” Interfaith Funders, 2004.

Coming in 2013:

Richard L. Wood’s new book, Faith and the Fire of Public Life, on the contributions of institution-based community organizing to strengthening diverse faith communities from a wide variety of religious traditions. Publisher to be an- nounced.

References and Suggestions for Further Reading:

Boyte, Harry C. and Nancy N. Kari. Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996.

Bretherton, Luke. Christianity and Contemporary Politics: The Conditions and Possibilities of Faithful Witness. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Chambers, Edward T. and Michael A. Cowan. Roots for Radicals: Organizing for Power, Action, and Justice. New York: Continuum, 2003.

Fine, Janice. Worker Centers: Organizing Communities at the Edge of the Dream. Ithaca: ILR Press/Cornell Univer- sity Press, 2006.

Fischer, Claude S. and Greggor Mattson. “Is America Fragmenting?” Annual Review of Sociology 35, no. 1 (2009): 435-55.

Ganz, Marshall. Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Gecan, Michael. After America’s Midlife Crisis. Boston: MIT Press, 2009.

Hart, Stephen. Cultural Dilemmas of Progressive Politics: Styles of Engagement Among Grassroots Activists. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Jacobsen, Dennis A. Doing Justice: Congregations and Community Organizing. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.

Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. “Power and Interdependence in the Information Age.” Foreign Affairs 77 (1998): 81-94.

Kling, Joseph M. and Prudence S. Posner. Dilemmas of Activism: Class, Community, and the Politics of Local Mobi- lization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Lowndes, Joe, Dorian Warren, and Julie Novkov, eds. Race and American Political Development. New York: Rout- ledge, 2008.

Neckerman, Kathryn, and Florencia Torche. “Inequality: Causes and Consequences.” Annual Review of Sociology 33 (2007): 335-5.

Osterman, Paul. Gathering Power; the Future of Progressive Politics in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 2003.

Osterman, Paul, and Beth Shulman. Good Jobs America: Making Work Better for Everyone. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2010.

Putnam, Robert D., David E. Campbell, and Shaylyn Romney Garrett. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010.

Smock, Kristina. Democracy in Action: Community Organizing and Urban Change. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

27 Swarts, Heidi. Organizing Urban America: Secular and Faith-Based Progressive Movements. Minneapolis, MN: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Warren, Mark. Dry Bones Rattling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Wood, Richard L. “Higher Power: Strategic Capacity for State and National Organizing”, in Transforming the City: Community Organizing and the Challenge of Political Change, edited by Marion Orr, 164-92. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2007.

Wood, Richard L. and Mark R. Warren. “A Different Face of Faith-Based Politics: Social Capital and Community Or- ganizing in the Public Arena.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 22, no. 9/10 (2002): 6-54.

Wood, Richard L. Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and Democratic Organizing in America, in the “Morality and Society Series” edited by Alan Wolfe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Appendix C: Partial List of Issues Addressed and Gains Made

Partial List of Issues Addressed and Gains Made:

Health Care: •Amendment of the federal Affordable Care Act to provide better access for low-income families; •passage and signing of State Children’s Health Insurance Program after two presidential vetoes by previous Administration; •passage of new funding for health clinics in poor communities and increased incentives for health providers to serve underserved populations; •gained new money for HIV and diabetes care for uninsured patients; •created more accessible and lower-cost health insurance and medical care alternatives

Poverty/Employment/Wages: •Living wage ordinance and increased minimum wages; •agreement for use of unionized labor on all county capital construction; •dedicated ARRA funding for transitional jobs; •U.S. Dept. of Labor commitment to address “wage theft” issues, some wages recovered; •money for long-term job training; training initiatives for jobs paying at least $15/hour; •local hiring/minority contractor preference and prevailing wage ordinances; •legislation to reduce discrimination toward ex-offenders; •congressional redistricting along pro-working family lines; •organizing workers with unions; strike support; •partial restoration of Earned Income Tax Credit; •restored some federal and state budget cuts (housing, health care, education, youth development); prevented worse state budget cuts;

Education: •Teacher-home visitation program; •capital and operational funds for charter schools; founded new charter schools; •major new funding for local public schools; small schools initiative; •saved funding for pre-K and after-school programs; •restored state funding cuts/prevented deeper cuts; •reduced truancy; asserted parental involvement in public school decisions; •new programs to value diversity in schools; •new discipline programs; anti-bullying resources; •improved test scores; new school accountability state-wide; etc. •built parent-union compromise on teacher evaluations; •school transportation overhaul for better school choice; •eliminated teacher lay-offs;

28 Immigration: •Eliminated barriers to immigrant access to state health care; •stopped local police enforcement of immigration laws; •got sympathetic legislators to “bottle up” anti-immigrant legislation in committee; •temporary protected status for Haitians; •California and Illinois DREAM Acts passed; some DREAM provisions adopted locally (e.g.in-state tuition); •Spanish 911 services and public transit materials; •worked unsuccessfully for Comprehensive Immigration Reform law; • stopped “Arizona-like proposals;” •supported national network Comprehensive Immigration Reform effort; •got state to withdraw from the Secure Communities Program; •changed how business leaders, religious leaders, and people of faith think about immigration; •promoted collaboration between African American and Mexican immigrant communities

Housing/Foreclosures/Banking: •Flipped U.S. Senator’s vote on finance reform; •creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; •new local fees on banks for each foreclosure; •creation of local/state housing trust funds; annual funding of Affordable Housing Trust Fund •forced big banks to provide principle reductions on subprime mortgages; •passed “replacement value” legislation; •new affordable rental units constructed/renovated; new mixed-use/mixed-income owner-occupied housing development; •$4 billion for public housing nationally; •passed state laws limiting predatory lending and reforming foreclosure; •helped Bank of America improve practices toward military families; •saved homes from foreclosure; won foreclosure mediation at county and state levels; lifted up moral and economic issues with foreclosures •$1 billion for unemployed homeowners facing foreclosure; •built cooperative housing; •forced new enforcement of existing slumlord legislation; •helped congregations renegotiate mortgages;

Criminal Justice: •Advanced community policing in local jurisdictions nationally; •new money for drug treatment and rehabilitation; •immigrant-sheriff/police liaison programs; •held “New Jim Crow” sessions with mayors, police chiefs, school board members; •promoted better police investigations in high crime areas; •decreased drug activity in local areas; •implementation of “Ceasefire” and “Lifelines to Healing” (violence-reduction and re-integration) projects; •new procedures for reporting police misconduct; new training in police academy; new police accountability via dashboard and body camera requirements; etc. •“restorative justice” projects at local and state levels; •roll-back of planned jail construction; •new partnerships with law enforcement; anti-crime strategy meetings that reduced crime; •anti-racial profiling laws and changes in process for selecting police recruits

29 Acknowledgments

Interfaith Funders and the authors of this report hereby express our gratitude to all those who contributed to this research. They are too many to name, but in particular we thank the following:

· The nearly two hundred IBCO directors who spent hours responding to an in-depth survey and follow-up inqui- ries. The State of the Field project would not have been possible without their collaboration. · The strategic leaders in institution-based community organizing whom we interviewed and whose thinking deepened our understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by the field. Their insights will be quoted and discussed in future publications. · Colleagues who collaborated in designing the study or otherwise contributed invaluably, including Mark War- ren, Randy Stoecker, Mark Chaves, Katherine DiSalvo, Aaron Dorfman, Ira Chernus, Christine Reeves, Lori Villarosa, Lisa Ranghelli, Manuel Pastor, and Dania Rajendra · The many organizers, faith leaders, funders, and other colleagues who attended our consultations, participated in interviews, and offered feedback at our early presentations, including Esther Nieves, Ana Garcia Ashley, Gerald Taylor, Michael-Ray Mathews, Denise Collazo, Haley Grossman, Chris Kromm, Alta Starr, Patricia Jerido, Bill Vandenberg, Katie Campbell Simon, Arnie Graf, Ponsella Hardaway, Doran Schrantz, Haley Gross- man, Ben McConnell, Jared Rivera, Rochelle Martin, James Mumm, Kirk Nodan, Margaret Hughes, Eliza- beth Valdez, Carol Barton, Ken Grosinger, Shona Chakrovartty, Alexia Salvatierra, Laine Romero-Alston, John Vaughn, Kavitha Mediratta, Dru Greenwood, Katherine McFate, Anya Rous, Susan Leslie, Mary Gonzales, Ken Galston, George Goehl, Judy Donovan, Jim Keddy, Troy Jackson, Jeremy Emmi, and the late Eugene Wil- liams. · Research associates at the University of New Mexico and at Duke University contributed invaluably to this work. These include Xin “Karen” Wang, Sarah Nance, Gary Thompson, Kristen Lee, Michael Habashi, and Tian Chen. · Graphic designer Li Hertzi and editor Mary Kettl, whose professional skills were coupled with their warmth and good humor. · Communications mavens Duane Elling and Jennifer Butler, who skillfully focused our message and helped us identify our audiences.

We thank the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock, the C.S. Mott Foundation, the Needmor Fund, the New York Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Presbyterian Church-USA, the Catholic Cam- paign for Human Development, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Duke University, the Hearst Founda- tion, the Religious Research Association, and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion for the funding that made this study possible.

The authors benefited greatly from the insight and leadership of the State of the Field Project Committee within Interfaith Funders, led by co-chairs Molly Schultz Hafid and Randy Keesler; of the Board of Directors of Interfaith Funders: Ned Wight (chair), Mary Sobecki (co-chair), Randy Keesler (Treasurer), Susan Engh (Secretary), Char- lie Bernstein, Rachel Feldman, and Cris Doby; and of Interfaith Funders members Dave Beckwith, Kevin Ryan, Alexie Fleming, Thu Cao, Eric Muschler, Sean Wendlinder, Bonita Anderson, Trey Hammond, Seamus Finn, Dylan Corbettt, and DeJuan Woods, and IF alums Marjorie Fine, Phil Tom, Shuli Passow, Benjamin Ross, Jeremy Burton, Nicolle Cirillo, Brian Stevens, Braedon Lentz, and Jeannie Appleman.

We are grateful to several organizations for sharing the photos used in this publication including Together Colorado, PICO National Network, PICO California, ISAIAH, Communidades de Fey y Accion NM, Arizona Interfaith, New Mexico Interfaith, Metro IAF, New Voices, and PICO California.

We dedicate this report to all those committed to the challenging work of community organizing. Your work to build justice and deepen democracy in America inspires us.

30 WHO ARE INTERFAITH FUNDERS?

Interfaith Funders (IF) is a network of faith-based and secular grant makers committed to social change and economic justice. IF works to advance the field of institution-based community organizing and to educate and activate IF members’ constituencies. Membership is open to entities that share our mission and make a significant commitment to our joint work, including:

Bend the Arc: Jewish Partnership for Justice C.S. Mott Foundation Catholic Campaign for Human Development The Needmor Fund Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s Division New York Foundation for Church in Society One Great Hour of Sharing Fund of the Presbyterian Maine Initiatives Church (USA) The McKnight Foundation Sister Fund Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock

Each IF member also supports a broad range of community organizing groups in low- and moderate-income communities around the country, including faith-based groups and those using other organizing models.

What does Interfaith Funders do?

• Collaborative grant-making, 1998-2005: IF awarded over $1.8 million in grants to congregation-based community organizing groups and networks to promote living wages, school and welfare reform, economic development for impov- erished communities, and organizer recruitment in the field.

• Collaborative research: IF conducted the first ever field-wide, national study of IBCO, the findings of which are documented in “Faith-Based Community Organizing: The State of the Field” (2001), and updated the findings with this IBCO State of the Field study in 2011. Through our 2004 published study on congregational development, IF seeks to increase support for and engagement in CBCO among congregations and faith traditions.

• Strategic convening: IF brings together organizers, leaders in faith traditions, funders, and scholars to discuss the current state and future of the field and other topics of mutual interest, such as the role of IBCO in strengthening congregations.

• Education and outreach sessions: IF provides workshops on IBCO at funder conferences and briefings, gatherings of faith communities, and individual meetings. IF also offers members valuable networking and internal education

31 Rich Wood Kathy Partridge Brad Fulton

Rich Wood (Associate Professor Kathy Partridge (Executive Direc- Brad Fulton (Ph.D. Candidate in of Sociology, University of New tor, Interfaith Funders) served as Sociology, Duke University) served Mexico) served as Research Director the administrative director for the as the lead researcher for the State for the Interfaith Funders’ State of State of the Field Project, coordi- of the Field Project. His research the Field Project, as part of his focus nating publications and communi- focuses on social movement orga- on the cultural and institutional cations as well as co-authoring the nizations and the intersections of bases of democratic life. Wood’s report. She has been an organizer in race, religion and social inequality. Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and Mississippi, Europe, and Colorado, Fulton has recently completed two Democratic Organizing in America and has led non-profit organizations projects related to congregations and (University of Chicago Press, 2002) in management, development, com- social service provision. One study won the 2003 ASA award for out- munications, and volunteer coordi- demonstrates how congregations’ standing book in the sociology of nation, from the local to the interna- collaborator networks shape their religion. Wood has led major funded tional level. Partridge was Program social service activity and the other research on religion and politics in Officer with the Needmor Fund for study analyzes the factors influenc- the United States, the Middle East, ten years, where her grantmaking ing black churches’ responsiveness and Central America. He is currently focused on community organizing to people living with HIV/AIDS. writing Faith and the Fire of Public nationwide and in the US South. Fulton also has a forthcoming article Life, on the impact of democratic Active in philanthropic reform, she (co-authored with Richard Wood) engagement on faith communities. co-authored the National Network on the benefits and challenges of He co-edits the Cambridge Studies of Grantmakers Common Grant interfaith organizing, and another of Social Theory, Religion, Application. Partridge holds an (co-authored with Lisa Keister) on and Politics. M.A. from Regis University in religion and social stratification. Social Justice Philanthropy and Community Organizing.