Number Seven

BuildingBridgesBuildingPower-DevelopmentsinInstitution-BasedCommunityOrganizingWoodetal.2012.pdf

Home >English homework help >Number Seven

www.interfaithfunders.org www.interfaithfunders.org

Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing

Building Bridges, Building Power: Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing Building Bridges, Building Power: Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing

Table of Contents

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

www.interfaithfunders.org

Building Bridges, Building Power: Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing Building Bridges, Building Power: Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing

Building a Bigger and Wider Bridge: Dynamic Expansion in Scope, Scale, and Collaboration

Community organizing in America is alive and well and being vigorously practiced in the version we call “institution- based community organizing.” This national study shows that in the last decade institution- based community organizing has significantly increased its power base as it continues to bridge divides that deeply be- devil American politics–-divides of racial and ethnic identity, religion, socio-economic status, geography, and immigrant-na- tive background. This executive summary details the dynamic expansion of the field over the last decade, outlines the impres- sive “bridging social capital” it generates, discusses ways it has overcome the strategic limita- tions 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.

The dynamic expansion of

institution-based community orga-

nizing (IBCO) over the last decade

has taken place in three ways. First,

the field has made impressive gains

in sheer geographic reach: The

number of local IBCO organizations

has grown by 42% since 1999, today

reaching into 40 states. Second,

many IBCO organizations have

expanded beyond core urban areas

and now organize entire metropoli-

tan and regional areas. Third, many

IBCOs are partnering with other or-

ganizations (either within their own

network or via collaborations) to

directly influence state and national

policy-making. Taken together,

these three forms of expansion

create a new power within the field

that, at its best, links vigorous local

community organizing to a strong

presence in higher-level political

arenas in ways that strengthen both.

Reaching More People: The Impact of Critical Organizational Capacity

Two results of this dynamic

expansion are especially powerful.

IBCO Organizations: National Presence

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

Executive Summary

“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

the base of the IBCO field (ap-

proximately 3,500 congregations and

1,000 public schools, labor unions,

neighborhood associations, faith-

based organizations, and others)

collectively represent over 5 mil-

lion Americans. Rarely in American

history have voluntary associations

incorporated such a high proportion

of citizens; those that have done so

have profoundly shaped American

society in challenging times. Sec-

ond, historically the most successful

associations have been built on a

“federated structure” of local orga-

nizations nested within state and

national organizations. The IBCO

field today has begun to build such

a federated structure–-only partially

and unevenly, but nonetheless sub-

stantially. As a result, institution-

based community organizing has the

organizational capacity to make a

powerful impact on democratic life,

especially if best practices spread

across the field.

Bridging the Divides of American Society: Race, Class and Religion

For America to undertake the

joint action required to confront our

challenges, we must bridge the social

fissures that divide us as a nation.

Among these are the divides of race

and ethnicity, socio-economic status,

religion, and immigration status that

separate people and undermine ef-

forts to confront our challenges.

Institution-based community

organizing has historically brought

people of different races together

to pursue their shared interest in

building better communities. But

questions by critics regarding how

consistently the field has cultivated

cross-racial social capital deserve to

be tested rigorously, and the State of

the Field project has done this both

nationally and at the local level. Our

results show that the IBCO field is

actively engaging a broad represen-

tation of America. Predominantly

Hispanic institutions (13%) are repre-

sented at about Hispanics’ percent-

age of the total U.S. population,

and

predominantly African American

institutions (30%) are represented

at more than twice their percentage

of the U.S. population. In addition,

“other” non-white or mixed institu-

tions make up over 10% of IBCO

members. At the individual level,

more than 50% of IBCO organizing

1. Hispanic participation may in fact be higher.

It is difficult to reliably measure the racial/ethnic

identities of individuals participating in IBCO,

and the State of the Field study did not attempt

to do so. However, such a measure would likely

show larger Hispanic involvement than the figure

cited above: in many IBCOs, large Hispanic

congregations produce a disproportionate share of

turnout at public actions. But a ten-year relative

decrease in the proportion of Hispanic-led member

institutions deserves attention; it might reflect

immigrant insecurity regarding public engagement

as a result of recent anti-immigrant discourse and

legislation.

staff and board members (together

the crucial decision-makers in these

organizations) are non-white.

These organizations also incor- porate significant numbers of pre-

dominantly white institutions. This

matters for political efficacy because

substantial economic resources,

political power, and cultural influ-

ence reside in this sector, which still

constitutes two-thirds of the Ameri-

can population. To be viable, any

national political movement needs

alliances with such institutions.

Their involvement has actually risen

in the last decade, apparently a result

of the strategic choice to expand into

suburban areas nationwide and into

secondary cities of the upper Mid-

west and Northeast.

Expanding into these predomi-

nantly white settings reduces the

field’s overall racial/ethnic diversity,

but also likely increases its strategic

capacity: By creating more fully

multiracial/multiethnic organiza-

tions that bridge urban and subur-

ban boundaries and represent new

geographic areas, the field expands

its own base and external alliances in

useful ways. Simultaneously, much

of the field has gained a more reflec

www.interfaithfunders.org

tive and critical understanding of

the role of race in American society.

As a result, the IBCO field is better

positioned to play a central strategic

role in the public arena of our multi-

racial nation. Finally, we note that,

on average, IBCO boards of directors

are dramatically more diverse than

boards in the corporate and non-

profit sectors.

The IBCO field not only incor-

porates impressive racial/ethnic

diversity on a national level, but

more importantly at the local level

as well: IBCOs are actually getting

people to collaborate across racial

and ethnic lines. To estimate cross-

racial interaction within IBCOs, we

used a diversity index to measure the

probability that two members of the

same IBCO would be of a different

race/ethnicity. This analysis shows

that the average “diversity score” for

IBCOs (0.49) is substantially higher

than the average diversity score for

congregations (0.12), counties (0.28),

and even public schools (0.33).

The census study and our inter-

views with strategic leaders show

that most local IBCOs actively

engage in discussions about racial

and ethnic identity, racial inequity in

America, and the impact of race on

organizing itself. This was not part of

the organizing ethos a decade ago and

thus represents an important shift in

the culture of organizing. By culti-

vating strong cross-racial ties and by

explicitly discussing racial/ethnic dif-

ferences, institution-based organiz-

ing is now able to address questions

of inequality in American life more

authentically and effectively than in

the past.

These organizations generate

social capital by bridging other social

divides in America as well. For ex-

ample, instead of allowing faith to be

a divisive factor, IBCOs draw on the

unifying components of faith to span

a diverse array of religious congrega-

tions. While mainline Protestant,

Catholic, and Black Protestant

churches continue to make up the

core of the field, Jewish, Unitarian-

Universalist, and Evangelical/Pen-

tecostal congregations have each

doubled their representation from a

decade ago, and 20% of IBCOs have

at least one Muslim congregation.

In addition, secular institutions

(mostly public schools, unions, and

neighborhood associations) represent

approximately one-fifth of all mem-

ber institutions. IBCO boards and

staff organizers also reflect these high

levels of religious diversity. Finally,

spiritual practices remain salient in

the IBCO world: IBCO directors

tend to be more religious than the

overall American population (i.e.,

they pray, read sacred texts, and

attend religious services more often

than the average U.S. adult) and

a large majority of IBCOs report

that they often incorporate prayer,

religious teachings, and discussions

about faith into their organizing

activities.

Institution-based community

organizing also bridges the divide

between socio-economic groups,

incorporating a significant propor-

tion of low-income people within its

top leadership structures. Nearly

one quarter of IBCO board mem-

bers have a household income of

less than $25,000 per year, and 58%

have a household income of less than

$50,000 per year (about the same as

the U.S. population as a whole--but

rare for a board of directors). About

37% have household incomes be-

tween $50,000 and $100,000 per year,

and less than 5% have household

incomes over $100,000 per year (com-

pared to the U.S. figure of over ten

percent). Thus, the IBCO field also

bridges economic class structures to a

significant degree.

“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

III

Finally, the IBCO field reaches

across the chasm that too often

lies between immigrants and the

native-born, while building power

to change immigration policy at

the national level. Fourteen per-

cent of all IBCO member institu-

tions are predominantly made up

of immigrants. Over two-thirds of

those institutions (mostly congre-

gations, but also secular organiza-

tions) are predominantly His-

panic, while smaller proportions

of immigrant member institutions

are Black, Asian, or other/multira-

cial. Furthermore, more than half

of IBCOs are addressing immi-

gration issues, and, among those,

two-thirds are addressing them at

the national level.

Overall, institution-based com-

munity organizations are today

generating valuable social capital

by bridging some of the major

divides in American communities.

This bridging social capital offers

a vital resource in the ongoing

struggle to deepen democracy in

America and confront our shared

challenges–-a resource for both the

IBCO field and its partners, and

for American society as a whole.

The State of the Field study

provides an up-to-date picture of the

field of institution-based community

organizing and draws on data from

Interfaith Funders’ 1999 study to

show how the field has changed over

the last decade. Interfaith Funders

coordinated and funded the study,

which was conducted primarily by

lead researcher Brad Fulton (Duke

University) and overseen by research

director Richard L. Wood (Univer-

sity of New Mexico) and Interfaith

Funders members and director

Kathy Partridge. The study drew on

insight from local organizers, national

organizing staff, foundation program

officers, denominational funders, and

scholars of the field.

The core of the study is a national

census of every local organization

practicing institution-based commu-

nity organizing (IBCO), supplement-

ed by a dozen in-depth interviews

with key strategic thought leaders in

the national networks, independent

IBCOs, and foundations that fund

this work. For the census, a total

universe of 189 active local IBCOs

was identified. During the second

half of 2011, a two-part survey was

distributed electronically to the direc-

tor of each. Part one was an online

survey that gathered extensive data

on each IBCO’s history, constituents,

collaborators, activities, finances, and

issue work. Part two consisted of

customized spreadsheets that collect-

ed demographic information about

each organization’s member institu-

tions, board members, and paid staff.

The survey achieved a response rate

of 94%, gathering data on 178 IBCOs

and demographic information on

approximately 4,100 member institu-

tions, plus 2,900 board members

and 600 paid staff involved in the

IBCO field.

Strengths of the State of the Field

project: The study’s extraordinarily

high response rate allows us to char-

acterize the field of institution-based

community organizing with great

confidence.

The structure of the study

enables the data to be analyzed at two

levels-–the field level, to demonstrate

patterns in the field as a whole, and

the organization level, to assess simi-

larities and differences among individ-

ual IBCOs. In addition, because we

replicated items from the 1999 study

and included the IBCOs surveyed

in 1999, we can assess changes in the

field (and in individual IBCOs) over

the last decade. This offers a more

dynamic view than is possible with

only a one-time snapshot. Together,

these strengths make the State of the

Field project the most comprehensive

and rigorous assessment of the field as

a whole.

Designing the State of the Field Study

www.interfaithfunders.org

Over the last decade, several institu-

tion-based community organizations,

and, to a large extent, the field as a

whole have made significant progress

in overcoming critical challenges that

had previously limited the field’s

democratic impact.

First, the organizing field now in- corporates women and people of

color in top leadership positions.

Whereas professional staff organiz-

ers (especially at the higher levels)

once tended to be white and male,

today they are substantially more

diverse than the U.S. population. In

one decade, the gender composition

has shifted, with 55% of organizers

now being women. The percentage

of African American and Hispanic or-

ganizers is each 50% higher than their

representation in the general U.S.

population.

Second, many IBCOs now widely and routinely collaborate, rather

than work in the relative isolation of

the past. Two-thirds of IBCOs now

engage in a variety of new forms of

collaboration at the local, regional,

state, or national levels, and among

these IBCOs, 95% coordinate their ef-

forts with organizations outside their

formal organizing networks.

Third, IBCOs are projecting power into higher-level political arenas

while staying rooted in local organiz-

ing. Today, half of all IBCOs engage

1. In 2011, 21% of professional IBCO organizers

were African American (vs. 13% of the U.S. popula-

tion in 2010), and 24% of organizers were Hispanic

(vs. 16% of U.S. population). The percentage of

African American organizers had fallen somewhat

(from 29% in 1999), yet fewer than half of profes-

sional organizers were white (vs. 64% of the U.S.

population). Forty-three percent of organizers were

women in 1999.

in state-level collaborations, whereas

a decade ago only a fifth did so. Ten

years ago, virtually no IBCO work

focused on the national political

arena, where many decisions are

made that shape the quality of life of

all Americans. Today, a quarter of all

IBCOs are engaged in national-level

work. The issues most commonly ad-

dressed at the state or national level

are immigration, health care, bank-

ing/foreclosures, public finances,

employment/wages, poverty, racism,

and public transportation.

Fourth, the active dialogues around race, ethnicity, and racial inequity

create new strategic possibilities.

Whereas an earlier generation of

organizers built IBCOs that linked

people across racial categories, they

largely avoided discussing race due to

a fear that this could prove divisive.

These days, issues of race, ethnicity,

and racial inequity-–including racial

tensions–-are now “on the table.”

Where those discussions are handled

well, they generate new internal

trust and give IBCOs greater strate-

gic capacity and a new willingness to

address the “new Jim Crow” era of

structural racism.

Fifth, there has been a substantial shift in the culture of organizing

toward innovation and strategic

coordination. New thinking, oppor-

tunities, and leadership have driven

parts of the field to pursue new col-

laborative ventures, experiment with

different organizing practices, and

leverage social media and other com-

munications technologies.

Interviewees noted that much of this

innovation has occurred because they

came to realize that traditional prac-

tices and isolated efforts were not

producing real democratic influence

on big policy decisions. In response,

they envisioned new coordinating

structures and gradually developed

both greater vertical integration

within existing networks and greater

strategic coordination across differ-

ent kinds of associations.

Finally, the field’s most adept practi- tioners have developed a wider array

of tactics for IBCOs to exert influ-

ence. IBCOs continue to organize

large public actions to exert organi-

zational power via direct democratic

pressure. Indeed, the field’s capacity

in this regard has grown, with direc-

tors reporting over 200,000 people

attending at least one event in the

last year. To complement this “hard

power” approach, many IBCOs have

begun to make sophisticated use of

“soft power” tactics: negotiating with

representatives of political and eco-

nomic elites; shifting public opinion

via the mass media; simultaneously

educating local, state, and national

representatives regarding the same

issue; and intentionally cultivating

strategic relationships with political

officials, institutional leaders, and

policy experts. Linking these hard

and soft forms of power appears to

have bolstered IBCOs’ public influ-

ence as they now turn out people for

more events, coordinate organizing

efforts at several levels simultane-

ously, and cultivate strategic rela-

tionships with political officials and

institutional leaders.

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

American society needs new

sources of democratic vigor to suc-

cessfully confront the challenges it

faces. There are no easy solutions to

our economic, political, or cultural

problems, and no political superhero

will rescue us from them. A move-

ment embodying the democratic will

and political courage of the American

people must come together with

dedicated leaders from every institu-

tional sector to craft the reforms and

support the hard choices through

which we will address our challenges.

That is how real change has hap-

pened before in American history-

-and that is how it will happen again.

Institution-based community

organizing plays a key role in reinvig-

orating democratic zeal. Decades of

investing talent, funding, and sheer

hard organizing work have built

a field with impressive strengths.

The number of individuals repre-

sented by IBCO member institutions

exceeds the historic threshold for

wielding powerful democratic influ-

ence. The field’s dynamic expansion

in the last ten years has produced

a solid organizational base and

strengthened its multi-level federat-

ed structures. Furthermore, IBCOs

bridge extraordinarily well many of

the social divides that fracture Amer-

ican society, divides that constantly

stymied previous efforts to address

our challenges. The field’s deep ties

to America’s diverse faith traditions,

along with its active incorporation

of spiritual practices into organiz-

ing efforts, allow IBCOs to offer the

moral vision and prophetic voice to

guide democratic reform efforts. The

most effective IBCO practitioners

combine strategic organizing prac-

tice with the political imagination

required to build effective demo-

cratic capacity at the scale required

for national reform.

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 iden-

tified here are unevenly distributed,

making some parts of the field far less

capable than others. To realize its full

democratic potential, the savvy, dis-

cipline, and imagination of IBCO’s

most effective practitioners must

be multiplied throughout the field.

Funding and talent are needed to

build strong local organizations, and

these must be embedded in strong

state- and national-level organizing

structures. Traditional organizing

practices must be linked to sophisti-

cated use of social media and innova-

tive organizing practices, and more

IBCOs need to collaborate with other

kinds of organizations.

Important progress has been made

in the last decade, with significant

new initiatives and the launching

of experimental forays. Given the

current state of the field, institution-

based community organizing is

poised to be a strategic partner in

catalyzing democratic renewal. By

mobilizing the shared aspirations

and hopes of the American people

in all their diversity, our economics

and politics will be reshaped, and the

American democratic promise can be

extended to all.

“Wonderful quote, something impor-

tant 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

portion of citizens; those that have

done so have profoundly shaped

American society in challenging

times. Second, historically the most

successful associations have been

built on a “federated structure” of

local

“Wonderful quote, something impor-

tant is being said here and there are far

reaching effects of this quote by this

extremely important personage.”

- Important Person, PhD

State of the Field Report

Building Bridges, Building Power: Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing Building Bridges, Building Power: Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing

I think that this is a defining moment, I think that this is a defining mo- ment on whether we can build the kind of power that will put America back to work, really pro- tect our public education system, and actually cre- ate a government that is engaged in the common good of the citizens’ lives. – Ana Garcia-Ashley, Gamaliel Foundation

The dreams of the American

people and the hopes of American

democracy, undermined by a host

of challenges, are at risk today. If

we are to confront those challenges

more courageously, we must gener-

ate the broad democratic will to mo-

bilize new ideas and new resources.

The political arena is one venue

where resources and ideas are mobi-

lized--and it is the crucial venue for

generating democratic will.

Yet recent legal and political

changes threaten to shift, perhaps

permanently, the delicate equi-

librium that has guided American

democracy for more than 200 years:

between the interests of elites,

mostly exerted via money, and the

interests of the non-elite majority,

mostly advanced via the influence

of mobilized citizens in the demo-

cratic process. Citizens United and

other recent legal decisions vastly

shift that equilibrium in favor of

those with money. They represent

an unfair and elitist thumb on the

scales of American democracy that

must be countered by new forms of

citizen empowerment if the balance

of justice is to be restored.

This is hardly the first time

American society has confronted

such challenges. In the past, when

people had to overcome similar ob-

stacles to democratic progress, mass

membership organizations, built on

a federated structure of local, state,

and national bodies, played a key

role. No one organization today is

well-situated to play this role by

itself, but in this report we argue

that institution-based community

organizing

may be well-positioned

to do so as a field.

Community organizing efforts

today, built on a foundation of

congregations plus other member

institutions, collectively represent

over 5 million people. Associations

incorporating such a high propor-

tion of citizens are rare in American

history; those that have done so

have profoundly shaped society

challenging times.

The fact that

1. For reasons detailed later in this report, we

think the term “institution-based” now better

reflects the reality in the field than “congregation-

based,” “faith-based,” or “broad-based”

community organizing, though those terms are

still preferred by some participants in the field.

2. The key historical threshold for such influential

mass organizations is mobilizing 1% of Americans.

The 5 million people represented by the field’s

member institutions easily exceed this figure (~1.5

percent). Note, however, that in this form of

organizing, membership is composed of institutions

rather than individuals, so the parallel is inexact.

See Skocpol, Ganz, and Munson (2000) for the

crucial study and its key finding: Most history-

changing voluntary associations that exceeded the

on1% threshold were built on a “federated structure”

of local, state, and national units.

www.interfaithfunders.org

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

P h

o t o

: D

o m

i n

i q

u e

a m

e s

“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 communi-

ties. 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-

nizing exceeds this historic threshold

reflects the field’s political signifi-

cance, its communal reach, and its

potential for the monumental task

of moving America to confront its

challenges. We argue that the field’s

organizing infrastructure and emerg-

ing strategic capacity now position it

to actually deliver on that potential.

This report draws on results from

a national survey of all local institu-

tion-based community organizations

active in the United States in 2011

to document the significance of the

field.

It highlights the field’s emer-

gence as a strategic partner in na-

tionwide efforts to build democratic

power, reverse rising inequality, and

strengthen public life while bridg-

ing divisions throughout the United

States. In particular, the report:

■ documents the dramatic expansion of the field over the last decade;

■ provides a comprehensive profile of the field’s member institutions,

board members, and staff;

■ outlines links to faith communi- ties and how IBCOs incorporate

spiritual practices into their work;

3. The 2011 survey was sponsored by Interfaith

Funders and carried out by researchers at Duke

University and the University of New Mexico.

■ examines the changing racial and ethnic diversity within the field

and discusses the dynamics be-

hind those changes;

■ identifies the issues IBCOs are actively addressing;

■ documents the field’s ability to project power into higher-level

political arenas;

■ describes how institution-based community organizing is shaping

policy in key issue areas including

education, health care, compre-

hensive immigration, affordable

housing, criminal justice, employ-

ment and workers’ rights, finan-

cial reform and foreclosure policy,

and transportation policy;

■ outlines the strategic challenges and opportunities facing the field

CONTEXT AND KEY FINDINGS 4

In 1999, Interfaith Funders con-

ducted a national census of institu-

tion-based community organizations

that provided a baseline for under-

standing the scope and scale of this

community organizing model.

The

4. See “References for Further Reading” for key

sources.

5. See “Faith-Based Community Organizing: The

State of the Field 1999,” as well as later reports from

a major study of the impact of this kind of organizing

upon congregational development, published by

Interfaith Funders and available at http://repository.

unm.edu/handle/1928/10664 and 10678.

1999 study offered a portrait of the

field that informed practitioners and

simultaneously gave credibility to

the work of institution-based com-

munity organizing to a broad circle of

funders, researchers, advocates, and

potential collaborators.

Over the last decade, however,

both the national context and the

IBCO field have changed substan-

tially. Economic inequality has risen,

money now flows into electoral cam-

paigns virtually uncontrolled, and

our political institutions are more

polarized. The three religious sectors

that comprised the membership core

of the field in 1999--urban Catholic,

Mainline Protestant, and historic Af-

rican American churches--have each

dealt with declining memberships.

Meanwhile, the IBCO field has

evolved by extending its geographic

reach, both beyond the urban core

and into new states and cities. The

field has also developed a broader

base of member institutions and has

increased its collaborative work with

6. We use the term “Mainline Protestant” in

deference to its wide usage to refer to those liberal

and moderate Protestant denominations once

considered the “mainline” of American religions.

It includes those denominations of historic

Protestantism usually listed as theologically liberal

or moderate, including the Evangelical Lutheran

Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA),

Episcopal Church, American Baptist Churches,

United Methodist Church, United Church of

Christ, and the Disciples of Christ.

www.interfaithfunders.org

Contemporary community organiz-

ing in the United States draws from

a variety of figures in the history of

grassroots American democracy, in-

cluding Jane Addams, Saul Alinsky,

Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther

King, Jr., and from union organizing

and the movements for civil rights for

African Americans, women, and His-

panics. Ed Chambers of the Industri-

al Areas Foundation (IAF) pioneered

early elements of organizing based

explicitly in community institutions,

which were primarily, but not exclu-

sively, religious congregations.

The typical IBCO is a non-profit

organization set up under section

501(c)3 or 501(c)4 of the IRS tax

code with the goal of empowering

residents of low-income and middle-

income communities to get govern-

ment and private enterprise to serve

the common good rather than only

the interests of well-off elites. In a

typical city, the membership of the

IBCO is composed of a dozen to

sometimes several dozen local insti-

tutions, including religious congrega-

tions, public schools, parent-teacher

associations, faith-based organiza-

tions, labor unions, and neighbor-

hood associations. The IBCO hires

staff organizers to work with mem-

ber institutions to develop leader-

ship within, teaching them how to

educate political officials and other

community elites about their needs

and how to hold them accountable

1. See Warren (2001), Swarts (2008), and

Bretherton (forthcoming 2013) for a fuller history

of institution-based community organizing. Note

that the institution-based model is one among a

variety of approaches to community organizing

that emerge from overlapping roots. See http://

www.trincoll.edu/depts/tcn/valocchi.htm and

Kling and Fischer (1993) on this wider community

organizing tradition.

to their commitments. This often

occurs through large “public actions”

or “accountability sessions” in which

several hundred or more constituents

ask officials to address specific issues,

but it can also occur via public nego-

tiations in smaller settings.

Today, most institution-based

community organizing efforts are

affiliated with a sponsoring network.

Nationally, these include the IAF,

the PICO National Network, the

Gamaliel Foundation, and National

People’s Action (which does both

institution-based and individual-

based organizing). Important

regional networks include Direct

Action Research Training (DART)

in the southeast and Midwest and

the Inter-Valley Project (IVP) in

New England. A smaller number

of organizations doing institution-

based work also exist independent

of the networks.

Although each

effort, whether network-affiliated

or independent, has developed its

own organizing model, they remain

sufficiently similar to justify treat-

ing them as a field. All are built with

institutions as their foundation, and

their “tool kits” of organizing prac-

tices overlap considerably.

Institution-based community or-

ganizations (IBCOs) show a growing

capacity to produce outcomes that

deviate from major social trends.

Amid evidence that American society

is becoming increasingly fragmented,

IBCOs bring people together across

racial, class, religious, and ideologi

cal lines. As rising inequality and

2. Some additional organizing structures have

recently emerged alongside the networks and

independent organizations; among these, the Ohio

Organizing Collaborative has played a prominent

and innovative role.

deteriorating quality of life continue

to diminish the power of disadvan-

taged people, IBCOs reduce inequal-

ity by consolidating power among

these people. As elites and lobbyists

dominate the political arena, IB-

COs generate substantial political

power among under-represented

communities. Finally, even though

the media often highlight contro-

versies surrounding religion, IBCOs

demonstrate the positive outcomes

achieved by religious congregations

working together to address common

concerns in the public arena.

Collectively, IBCOs represent a

social movement dedicated to build-

ing democratic power, strengthening

public life, and improving social con-

ditions in low income and working

class communities. As documented

in this report, they contribute to

American democracy by ground-

ing democratic action in the social

institutions that structure the daily

lives of individuals, families, and

communities. They bolster public

life by identifying leaders and devel-

oping them into effective advocates

for their communities. In doing so,

they help communities organize and

generate power that can be chan-

neled toward shaping public policy

to meet needs at the local level and,

increasingly, at the state and national

level as well.

3. On major contemporary social trends, see

especially Putnam (2000); on particular trends,

see Fischer and Mattson (2009) on increasing

fragmentation; see Neckerman and Torche (2007)

on rising inequality. On the work of the IBCO field

to counter some of those trends, see Warren (2001),

Wood (2002), Smock (2004), Fine (2006), Swarts

(2008), Ganz (2009), and Bretherton (2010).

4. On the democratic power and public role of

the IBCO field, see Wood and Warren (2002),

Hart (2001), Gecan (2009), Osterman (2010), and

Putnam (2010).

What is Community Organizing?

Executive Summary

Building Bridges, Building Power: Developments in Institution-based Community Organizing

other kinds of organizing efforts.

Finally, over the last decade a greater

proportion of the field has begun

leveraging its power beyond the local

level and is addressing issues at state

and national levels.

In analyzing these trends, we

document important changes in the

IBCO field: A new willingness to

address frankly issues of race and eth-

nicity has emerged, and women now

occupy fully half of both volunteer

and professional leadership positions

at all levels of these organizations.

While the racial/ethnic profile of

IBCOs has shifted in complex ways

(documented here), IBCOs remain

far more diverse than comparable or-

ganizational fields and more diverse

than American society as a whole.

They connect people across racial,

religious, and economic class lines.

Many IBCOs have left behind their

past tendency to work in relative

isolation and now collaborate with

other organizations to project greater

political influence at the city, state,

and/or national levels. Half of all IB-

COs now engage in state-level work;

such work has more than doubled in

the last decade. A quarter of IBCOs

are engaged in national-level policy

work, barely an aspiration a decade

ago. Less measurable, but equally

important--ambitious strategic

thinking grounded in creative moral

vision now pervades at least some

sectors of the field.

Together, we argue that these

shifts position the field of institution-

based community organizing will be

key to reinvigorating the democratic

infrastructure of American society.

In recognition of the ongoing ac-

complishments, current challenges,

and future promise of institution-

based community organizing, Inter-

faith Funders committed significant

resources to conduct a follow-up of

its 1999 census study of the field.

We sought to provide a thorough

assessment of the field by mapping

its development and identifying the

critical issues it faces.

Through this project, we offer or-

ganizers, funders, and relevant stake-

holders a national lens through which

to view organizing activity and sup-

ply a tool for refining its practices.

More broadly, we aspire to promote

public understanding of institution-

based community organizing and its

contributions to American society.

In an effort to foster further discus-

sion and analysis, the results of this

study will be widely disseminated via

funder networks, faith-based consor-

tiums, organizing events, academic

associations, and media outlets. This

report constitutes an invitation to

joint strategizing about how to help

this burgeoning field achieve its full

democratic potential. It is also an op-

portunity for critical and strategic re-

flection among all participants and a

preview of data that will be explored

further in additional publications.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study was designed to repli-

cate and build upon the 1999 study

by surveying the entire field of

IBCOs. In formulating the goals and

content of the study, the research

team drew on the counsel of local

organizers, national organizing staff,

foundation program officers, denomi-

national funders, and scholars of the

field. In addition to asking identical

questions from the 1999 study, sev-

eral new items were added to better

assess the work on specific issues,

collaborative relations, and religious

practices within the field. The survey

instrument was composed of two

parts. Part one was an online sur-

vey that gathered extensive data on

each IBCO’s history, constituents,

collaborators, activities, finances,

and issue work. Part two consisted

of customized spreadsheets that

respondents used to provide detailed

demographic information about their

organization’s member institutions,

board members, and paid staff.

7. See appendix for the core survey instrument;

full survey instruments can be accessed via: http://

www.soc.duke.edu/~brf6/ibcosurvey.pdf.

7. See appendix for the core survey instrument;

full survey instruments can be accessed via: http://

www.soc.duke.edu/~brf6/XXXXX .

“We need to be respectful of the

universals of organizing and the core

tradition that we’ve inherited, but not

overly reverent of them.”

-Judy Donovan, Southwest Industrial Areas Foundation

The study defines an IBCO as a lo-

cal organization that practices the

institution-based model of organiz-

ing (i.e., has institutional members),

has an office address, and has at least

one paid organizer on staff. Based on

these criteria, 189 active organiza-

tions were identified using databases

from organizing networks, IBCO

funders, and denominational bodies

as well as IRS 990 Forms. The survey

was distributed electronically to the

director of every local IBCO during

the second half of 2011. The directors

were informed that their responses

would be kept confidential and that

nothing would be published that

identifies specific characteristics of

their organization unless they pro-

vided consent.

The survey achieved

a response rate of 94%, gathering

data on 178 IBCOs and demographic

information on approximately 4,100

member institutions plus 2,900 board

members and 600 paid staff involved

in the IBCO field.

8.Each director who completed the study received

an honorarium that ranged between $25 and $100

based on the size of their organization.

9. Our assessment of the key characteristics of those

IBCOs that did not respond to the survey suggests

that no systematic patterns of non-responses are

likely to have produced a biased profile of the field.

The structure of the study allows

the data to be analyzed at two levels.

The field level demonstrates pat-

terns as a whole; the organization

level assesses similarities and dis. In

addition, the fact that we replicated

items from the 1999 study and in-

cluded the IBCOs surveyed in 1999

means we can assess changes in the

field (and in individual IBCOs) over

the last decade. This offers a more

dynamic view than possible with

only a one-time snapshot.

OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD

Comparing the 1999 snapshot

with the current state of the field

reveals dramatic growth over the last

decade, both in terms of geographic

reach and strategic depth. At the

organization level, the field experi-

enced an overall growth rate of 42%

with 102 new IBCOs established

So when providing total numbers for the entire

field, we multiply values by a factor that accounts

for information not provided by the non-responsive

IBCOs (i.e., we project figures from the 94% of

respondents to the entire field).

10. However, in some instances technical

limitations in the 1999 study make fully rigorous

comparison impossible; we flag such instances

below.

and 46 that had become inactive.

In most areas where an IBCO had

become inactive, another IBCO still

exists.

Among the inactive orga-

nizations, 23 had dissolved, eight

are rebuilding, 14 had merged into

another IBCO, and one had stopped

using the institution-based organiz-

ing model.

The overall growth of the field

corresponds with an increase in its

geographic spread. In 1999, 33 states

had active IBCOs; today, IBCOs

are active in 39 states. IBCOs have

been established in nine new states

(Alaska, Alabama, Maine, Mon-

tana, New Hampshire, Nevada,

Oklahoma, Virginia, and Vermont),

all states characterized by dramati-

cally different dynamics within the

partisan political system. The

number of IBCOs at least doubled in

Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Missis-

sippi, North Carolina, New Mexico,

and Wisconsin. While the field has

11. Some of the “new IBCOs” existed in 1999, but

did not meet the criteria for being included in the

1999 study.

12. The exception is Tennessee, which had three

active IBCOs in 1999, but no longer had any active

IBCOs as of 2011.

www.interfaithfunders.org

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Indpt

Other

RCNO

IVP

NPA

DART

GAM

PICO

IAF

Growth of the Field ▲

+6 (▲12%)

+13 (▲45%)

+6 (▲22%)

+5 (▲42%)

+10

+3 (▲75%)

+1 (▲25%)

+12 (▲400%)

No Change

■ 1999 ■ 2011

spread, it remains concentrated in

urban areas and in populous states

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 af-

filiated 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 distrib-

uted among the various organizing

networks. The number of organiza-

tions not affiliated with any formal

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 institu-

tions–88% were religious congrega-

tions, 12% were non-congregational.

Even though the number of IBCOs

increased by 42% over the last de-

cade, the total number of member

institutions increased by only 12.5%

(to approximately 4,500).

As a

result, the median number of mem-

ber institutions per IBCO declined

from 23 to 21. The composition of

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).

13. The 1999 data include one IBCO that reported

having 230 member institutions, by far the

largest reported membership base (ten times

larger than the median IBCO). This IBCO now

has 40 institutions. Because the 1999 study did

not properly account for this outlier, it likely

over-estimated the total number of member

institutions in the field. A more accurate estimate

accounting for this outlier suggests that the field

had approximately 3,900 member institutions in

1999, meaning the field has increased by 15% since

then.

The State of the Field in 2011 by Network

IAF

PICO

GAM

DART

NPA

IAF

PICO

GAM

DART

NPA

IVP

RCNO

Other/ Indpt

The State of the Field in 1999

The State of the Field in 2011

Non-congregational community

institutions, which include schools,

faith-based nonprofits, unions, and

neighborhood associations, now

make up over 20% of all member in-

stitutions, and 70% of IBCOs have at

least one non-congregational member

institution. This represents a signifi-

cant shift, and appears to be at least

partly the result of former IBCO al-

lies becoming full members. Schools

represent 18% of these non-congrega-

tional institutions, and faith-based

non-profits represent 16%. Unions

comprise 15%, and neighborhood as-

sociations 13%.

A wide variety of other communi-

ty-based organizations make up the

remaining 38%, including community

and economic development corpora-

tions, immigrant associations, social

service programs, civic organiza-

tions, etc. In 1999, 40% of IBCOs

indicated having collaborative ties

with unions, and 13% had at least one

union as a member institution. To-

day, 23% of IBCOs have at least one

union as a member institution, and

roughly one quarter have a school,

faith-based organization, or neigh-

borhood association as a member

institution.

This shift in the composition of

members suggests that the term con-

gregation-based community organiz-

ing no longer represents the field as a

whole. Given that 20% of member in-

stitutions are not congregations, the

term institution-based community

organizing provides a more accurate

representation. In adopting this shift

of terminology, however, it is impor-

tant to recognize that congregations

remain the large majority of member

institutions and 30% of IBCOs have a

member base comprised exclusively

of congregations (down from 45% in

1999). Furthermore, the networks

have launched significant work

specifically dedicated to using the

practices of organizing to strengthen

member congregations under the

auspices of the Interfaith Organizing

Initiative, local and national clergy

caucuses, and/or training programs

for future clergy and organizers.

Governing and Leading IBCO’s: Board members, leaders, organizers, and directors

As the field changed at the orga-

nization level, it also changed at

the individual level. Four groups of

individuals are critical to the field:

Boards of Directors, typically made

up of representatives of the member

institutions; clergy and lay leaders,

who participate actively in the orga-

nizing; staff organizers, who provide

training to leaders; and directors,

who head up each IBCO. We first

consider broad changes within each

group, turning later to questions of

racial/ethnic and religious diversity:

Board members: The total number of board members increased 18.5%

(from approximately 2,700 to 3,200).

Among IBCO board members, the

average age increased from 51 in 1999

to 54 in 2011. This indicates that

board members were likely to remain

in place as they aged or be replaced

by people only slightly younger than

themselves, rather than be replaced

by a significantly younger cohort. In

terms of gender composition, male

and female board members remain

equally represented. According to

the 2011 data, 14% of board members

are immigrants (56% of whom are

Hispanic); 23% have less than a bach-

elor’s degree; 23% have a household

income of less than $25,000 per year,

and 35% have annual household in-

comes between $25,000 and $50,000.

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

Association, and the Union for Reform Judaism

to strengthen congregations using tools from com-

munity organizing at http://urj.org/socialaction/

training/justcongregations, http://www.interfaith-

funders.org/Inter-ReligiousOrganizingInitiative.

html, and www.uua.org. On similar work in the

wider Jewish community, see http://bendthearc.us.

www.interfaithfunders.org

Types of IBCO Member Institutions

Congregations 78%

Faith-Based Organizations 3.6% Schools 4.0%

Unions 3.4% Neighborhood Assoc. 2.9%

Other 8.1%

The household income figures are

particularly revealing:

We suspect IBCO boards are ex-

traordinarily less well-off than the

typical board of directors in an

American non-profit, but the present

study does not provide comparative

data.

Leaders: A primary objective of com- munity organizing is to develop lead-

ers from within member institutions

who can organize their institutions to

build better quality of life in Ameri-

can communities. The IBCO field

currently reports having over 20,000

core leaders playing active volun-

tary roles within local organizations.

Among these leaders, over 5,000 had

attended a multi-day training event

in the last year.

This represents a

70% increase in the number of lead-

ers receiving intensive training since

1999, illustrating the field’s commit-

ment to develop a strong leadership

base among its constituents.

Organizers: The number of paid or- ganizing staff across the IBCO field

increased 70% (from approximately

320 to 545).

Approximately 80

percent of organizers work full-time.

However, the majority of IBCOs

still have only one or two organizers

on staff. The total number of staff

increased partly because there are

more organizations that need to be

staffed. But five percent of IBCOs

have more than eight paid organiz-

ers; these organizations account for

the bulk of the increase in organiz-

ing staff.

Importantly, the ratio of

15. In addition, most IBCOs indicated that they

also provide smaller training events throughout the

year at which even more leaders are trained.

16. The figures reported here for 1999 differ slightly

from those reported at the time; during reanalysis

we discovered an error in the prior calculations and

are publishing a separate correction.

17. These nine organizations employ approximately

20% of all IBCO organizers. In 1999, no IBCO had

more than eight paid organizers.

member institutions per organizer

for the average IBCO decreased

from 15:1 to 12:1. These changes may

reflect two important developments:

the effort to increase organizing at

the state and national levels and the

effort to use the tools of organizing

to contribute to congregational and

institutional development. Both

developments likely require greater

numbers of organizers on staff.

A generational and gender shift is

occurring among professionals in the

field. The average age of the organiz-

ing staff decreased. In 1999, a major-

ity of the organizers were between 30

and 50 years old. Today, the majority

are between 20 and 40. The gender

composition of the organizing staff

also flipped. In 1999, 57% were male;

now 55% are female. Also, according

to the 2011 data, 14% of organizers

are immigrants (76% of these are

Hispanic), and 17% have less than a

bachelor’s degree.

Directors: Similar significant shifts have occurred among the organizing

staff directors. In 1999, the gender

composition of directors was roughly

75% men and 25% women; today, it

is 54% men and 46% women. Ten per-

cent of the IBCO directors have been

in their current position for more

than ten years, while 38% have been

leading their organizations for fewer

than two years. In 2011, 7% of direc-

tors were immigrants (83% of whom

were Hispanic).

The field has achieved this level of

engagement and leadership develop-

ment with fairly modest financial

resources. Since 1999, the median

annual budget for IBCOs increased

from $150,000 to $175,000, but

adjusted for inflation, this represents

a net decline of 12.5% in effective

revenue for the average IBCO.

average, 60% of an IBCO’s budget

goes toward staff expenses.

18. In 1999, $150,000 had the purchasing power

equivalent of about $202,000 in 2011 (U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics). Note that the reported decline

pertains only to local IBCOs and does not reflect

revenues to national-level organizing efforts, nor

does it reflect what budgets may have been just

prior to the 2008 recession.

Income Composition

10%

20%

30%

40%

Less than $25,000/year

$25,000 to $49,999/year

$50,000 to $74,999/year

$75,000 to $100,000/year

More than $100,000/year

■ Board Members ■ U.S. Adults

For U.S. Adults, the source is the 2010 General Social Survey

Organizing Money

Funding sources have shifted significantly. Even though IBCOs prioritize raising funds from their member institutions in order to protect their autonomy, the percentage of funding that comes from member dues decreased from 22% to 15%. The percentage provided by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development decreased from 19 to 15%, and the percentage provided by other faith-based funders decreased from 12 to 7%. Meanwhile, the percentage provided by secular foundations and corporations increased from 30% to 39%. The 1999 data does not allow us to separate out donations from corporations and donations from secular foundations. In 2011, however, donations from corporations con- stituted 4.5% of total reported IBCO revenues.

The above financial patterns reflect several dynamics:

■ non-faith-based institutions’ expanding interest in the field, even as its membership base remains primarily in faith com- munities

■ increasing recognition of the field’s current impact and future potential

■ declining contributions to the Catholic and Mainline Protes- tant denominational units that previously provided much of the field’s faith-based funding

ORGANIZING AND RELIGION Religious Composition of the Field

In the early days of institution-

based organizing, religious congrega-

tions were the primary constituen-

cies that organizers recruited. While

the proportion of non-congregational

member institutions has since

increased, religious congregations

still make up the large majority. One

percent of all U.S. congregations are

involved in institution-based com-

munity organizing.

Catholic, Mainline Protestant,

and Black Protestant congregations

are the core members, while Evan-

gelical, Jewish, Muslim, Pentecostal,

and Unitarian Universalist congre-

gations represent a much smaller

constituency.

www.interfaithfunders.org

Age Composition

10%

20%

30%

40%

Under 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 Over 69

Years Old

■ 1999 ■ 2011

Gender Composition

45%

57%

55%

43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2011

1999

Male Female

In the last decade, however, the

religious composition of the IBCO

field shifted to become more evenly

distributed among the various

religious traditions. The proportion

of Mainline Protestant and Catholic

congregations decreased,

reflecting

the overall decrease in the number

of Mainline Protestant and Catholic

congregations in the United States.

Because fewer exist, fewer are avail-

able to participate in community

organizing. Meanwhile, Evangelical,

Jewish, Muslim, Pentecostal, and

Unitarian Universalist congregations

have all increased their representa-

tion within the field, and a growing

number of IBCOs have at least one

member congregation from these

traditions.

Even though congregations from

every major religious tradition are

involved in IBCO, they do not rep-

resent the religious composition of

congregations in the United States.

Mainline Protestant and Catholic

19. The proportion of Black Protestant member

congregations has remained basically the same.

20. In the 1999 study, when directors mentioned

reaching out to new religious constituencies, these

are the religious groups they referenced most often.

congregations represent a majority in

the IBCO field, though they repre-

sent a minority among congregations

in the United States. On the other

hand, almost half the U.S. congre-

gations are Evangelical and Pente-

costal, but these faith communities

represent a small minority in the

IBCO field. Black Protestantism is

the only religious tradition in which

the proportion of congregations in

the IBCO field matches its propor-

tion of U.S. congregations.

With regard to minority religious

traditions, Jewish, Muslim, and

Unitarian Universalist congregations

are relatively well represented in

the IBCO field. Jewish synagogues,

for example, make up roughly 2% of

U.S. congregations, but make up 5%

of all IBCO member congregations;

Unitarian Universalist congregations

make up less than 1% of U.S. congre-

gations but 4% of all IBCO member

congregations. Thus, congregations

from the Mainline Protestant, Catho-

lic, Jewish, and Unitarian-Universal-

ist traditions are strongly represented

in the IBCO field, while Evangelical

and Pentecostal congregations are

highly under-represented.

The religious affiliation of board

members and organizing staff shifted

similarly.

Among staff, the propor-

tion of Mainline Protestant, Black

Protestant, and Catholic organizers

decreased, while the proportion of

organizers from other faith com-

munities increased. In particular,

the percentage of Evangelical and

21 Information on the board

members’ religious affiliation was not collected in

the 1999 study.

<1% (No Change)

1% (N/A)

2% (N/A)

4% (+2%)

4% (+1.5%)

5% (+3%)

24% (+1.5%)

27% (-6%)

32% (-5%)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Other Non-Christian

Muslim

Pentecostal / Charismatic

Unitarian Universalist

Evangelical

Jewish

Black Protestant

Catholic

Mainline Protestant

IBCO Member Congregations

■ 1999 ■ 2011

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

All Non-Christian

Evangelical / Pentecostal

Black Protestant

Catholic

Mainline Protestant ■ Member Congregations (2011)

■ U.S. Congregations (2006)

IBCO Member Congregations

For U.S. Congregations , the source is the 2006-7 National Congregations Study

www.interfaithfunders.org

Pentecostal organizers doubled, and

the percentage of Jewish and Unitar-

ian Universalist organizers increased

slightly. In 1999, the entire field had

only one Muslim organizer--now

there are nine. Furthermore, the

percentage of organizers identify-

ing as being not religiously affiliated

increased from 2% to 10% (still less

than the U.S. population as a whole,

which has risen sharply to 18%). The

religious composition of the IBCO

directors shifted in almost the exact

same ways, except that the number

of Muslim directors decreased from

one to zero and only 3% of IBCOs are

led by a person who is not religiously

affiliated.

Overall, the IBCO field has

become more religiously diverse,

still sustained by its historic core

in Mainline Protestantism, Ca-

tholicism, and the historic African

American churches but also growing

among Evangelical and Pentecostal

22. Religious professionals continue to be active in

the IBCO field. Roughly 30% of board members,

20% of directors, and 10% of organizing staff are

clergy/ordained ministers.

Protestants, Jews, Unitarian Univer-

salists, Muslims, and the religiously

unaffiliated.

Religious Diversity among IBCOs

The growing religious diversity of

the field, however, does not necessar-

ily mean that each individual IBCO

reflects this diversity. Four percent

of IBCOs are mono-religious (i.e.,

all of their member institutions are

affiliated with the same religious tra-

dition). Among the mono-religious

IBCOs, two have only Catholic

congregations, four have only Black

Protestant congregations, and one

has only Mainline Protestant congre-

gations. The percentage of IBCOs

that have only Mainline Protestant,

Catholic, and/or Black Protestant

congregations–-the traditional reli-

gious core of IBCOs– decreased from

25% to 15%.

Unlike many voluntary associa-

tions in America, most IBCOs are

religiously diverse. Almost half have

at least one congregation from the

Evangelical, Jewish, or Unitarian

Universalist traditions, 20% have at

least one Muslim congregation, and

15% have at least one Jewish and one

Muslim congregation. Furthermore,

over 50% of IBCOs have at least one

secular member institution, and 20%

of the members of a typical IBCO

are non-congregations. Organizing

builds bridges among faith commu-

nities and between faith communi-

ties and secular institutions, and

across lines of race and class, even

when these institutions are typically

divided in American culture. They

do so not only nationally in the ag-

gregate, but locally in the communi-

ties where people actually live. As

participants build local relationships

with members of other groups, their

perception of these groups can be

enriched and informed.

The Effects of Religious Diversity on Organizing Activities

Even though many IBCOs are

religiously diverse and leaders are

often encouraged to draw on their

specific faith traditions, participants

seldom focus on religious differences.

Most IBCOs reported discussing

religious differences only “rarely”

to “sometimes,” and most indicated

that religious differences had a mini-

mal effect on their planning meet-

ings.

Interestingly, IBCOs that fre-

quently discuss religious differences

were more likely to report that their

differences affected their planning

meetings. Yet an IBCO’s propensity

to discuss religious differences is

unrelated to its degree of religious

diversity. Furthermore, the directors

23. Likewise, more religiously diverse IBCOs

were no more likely than less diverse IBCOs to

indicate that religious differences complicated,

prolonged, or hindered their planning meetings.

One exception: IBCOs that had at least one Jewish

or Muslim member congregation were more likely

to report that religious differences complicated

their planning meetings.

20%

26%

32%

34%

33%

27%

14%

22%

24%

22%

19%

16%

10%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Member Congregations

Board Members

Organizing Staff

IBCO Member Congregations

Catholic Other Black

Protestant Mainline

Protestant

Not Religiously Affiliated

of religiously diverse IBCOs did not

report it to be any more difficult to

accommodate different faith tradi-

tions in their organizing work than

did directors of less diverse IBCOs.

As IBCO members from diverse

faith traditions work together to

improve their communities, they ap-

pear to navigate religious differences

by downplaying them. Rather than

using differences to pit faith com-

munities against each other (or to

antagonize divergent strands within

a particular tradition), IBCO culture

seeks to transcend this diversity by

focusing on shared values and pursu-

ing common goals. In an increasingly

polarized political culture, in which

religious differences are often used

to amplify political disagreements,

IBCOs are thus strikingly counter-

cultural.

Religious Practices of IBCOs and Their Directors

Despite the field’s tendency to de-

emphasize religious differences and

the growing proportion of member

institutions and organizers that are

secular, religious faith continues to

be an integral part of the IBCOs’

organizing ethos. Sixty percent of

IBCO offices contain objects with

religious references, and 80% of IB-

COs reported that their promotional

material contains religious content.

Furthermore, the directors of IBCOs

are, on average, more religious than

the general U.S. population (i.e.,

they pray, read sacred texts, and

attend religious services more often

than the average U.S. adult).

Most IBCOs actively integrate

religious practices into their organiz-

ing activities. Over 90% of IBCOs

report that they often open and

close their meetings with a prayer,

and over 75% often have discussions

about the connection between faith

and organizing. Most incorporate

some form of religious teaching into

their organizing activities, though it

is less common for IBCO activities

to include people singing or reading

religious-based content together.

The least common practice is for

people to make announcements

about upcoming religious events.

24. This reflects the tendency in IBCO culture to

focus on shared beliefs and avoid giving preference

to or promoting specific faith traditions.

Increasing the religious diversity of

an IBCO does not seem to dampen

the influence of religious faith in

the organization. In fact, religiously

diverse IBCOs are more likely to

incorporate religious practices into

their organizing activities, and the

Incorporating Religion

25%

10%

57%

46%

37%

23%

18%

33%

45%

58%

77%

93%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Announcements

Singing

Reading

Teaching

Discussing

Praying

Occasionally Often Never

Pray/Meditate Privately

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Daily 2-3 Times a Week

Once a Week Less than Once a Week

Never

■ IBCO Directors

■ U.S. Adults

For U.S. Adults, the source is the 2010 General Social Survey

www.interfaithfunders.org

directors of diverse IBCOs reported

feeling more comfortable doing so.

IBCOs led by people who engage

in the spiritual practices of their

tradition tend to incorporate religion

into their organizing activities more

often. Religiously active directors

were also more likely to report that

religious differences enhanced their

organization’s planning meetings.

There are two possible explanations:

Religiously active directors help to

cultivate an environment in which

people are at ease with religious dif-

ferences and comfortable with incor-

porating religion into their activities,

or perhaps IBCOs more grounded in

religion tend to recruit directors who

reflect that orientation.

Overall, while many IBCOs tend

to ignore religious differences, that is

not to say that they ignore religion.

Indeed, they often draw on religion

richly as they build an organizational

culture for political engagement. For

example, most public actions include

stories, music, examples, and sym-

bols rooted in faith communities, and

many local organizing meetings begin

and end with prayer. But rather than

being venues for interfaith dialogue,

IBCOs are vehicles for interfaith

action. Instead of discussing poten-

tially divisive differences, organiz-

ing harnesses their shared beliefs

to motivate and mobilize members

around issues of common concern

and prompting relationships

between leaders of differing faiths.

Moreover, incorporation of these

kinds of religious elements is stron-

gest among IBCOs that are reli-

giously diverse and led by religiously

active directors.

ORGANIZING AND RACE Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Field

An enduring characteristic of

the IBCO field has been its capac-

ity to bridge racial/ethnic divides.

Consistent with the 1999 study, we

defined the racial/ethnic identity of a

member institution to be the racial/

ethnic group that represents a major-

ity in that institution. If no group

represents more than 50%, then the

institution is identified as being

multiracial. The figure above shows

the racial/ethnic composition in 1999

and 2011.

The racial/ethnic diversity of

the IBCO field has shifted over the

last decade in ways that reflect the

changes of member institutions.

The percentage of majority-white

46%

36%

30%

35%

13%

21%

11%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

2011

1999

Black Other Hispanic White

IBCO Member Institutions

Percentage of Immigrant Member Institutions 1999: 11%

2011: 14%

Immigrant Composition

Black 11%

Hispanic 68%

Asian 7%

Other or Multi-Racial

14%

U.S. Born 86%

Immigrants 14%

Percentage of member institutions whose constituents are predominantly

Types of Immigrant Member Institutions

member institutions increased, and

the percentage of black and Hispanic

member institutions decreased.

Meanwhile, the percentage of mem-

ber institutions comprised primarily

of immigrants increased from 11% to

14%. The proceeding chart shows the

racial/ethnic diversity of the immi-

grant institutions, about two-thirds

of which are mostly Hispanic.

The racial/ethnic composition of

IBCO governing boards shifted simi-

larly. The percentage of white board

members increased, the percentage of

Hispanic board members decreased,

and the percentage of black board

members remained the same. How-

ever, among IBCO organizing staff,

the percentage of Hispanic organizers

increased, and the percentage of white

and black organizers decreased.

Thus, while IBCO professional

staffing became more diverse over

the last decade, the IBCO insti-

tutional base and boards of direc-

tors became less racially/ethnically

diverse (by this measure; see below

for different results from a more

sophisticated measure of diversity).

However, the IBCO field remains

substantially more diverse than its

institutional equivalents. IBCO

member congregations represent

greater diversity than the field of

congregations in the United States,

and IBCO boards represent greater

diversity than the boards of the non-

profit sector.

The IBCO field is also

substantially more diverse than the

25. The figures reported here for 1999 differ slightly

from those reported at the time; during re-analysis

we discovered an error in the prior calculations and

are publishing a separate correction.

26. See Mark Chaves and Shawna Anderson,

National Congregations Study: Cumulative

Data File and Codebook (Durham, NC: Duke

University, Department of Sociology, 2008);

and Francie Ostrower, “Nonprofit Governance

in the United States: Findings on Performance

and Accountability,” from the First National

Representative Study (The Urban Institute:

Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, 2007).

U.S. population as a whole.

Why has the field become less di-

verse in the last decade, and why has

white representation increased? We

believe this at least partially reflects a

key strategic dynamic in the field over

the last decade: Networks have made

a widespread effort to better serve the

interests of low-income communities

by projecting power across broader

geographic areas and into higher-level

political arenas. This strategy has

led many IBCOs to seek new mem-

bers beyond core urban districts by

expanding into inner- and sometimes

outer-ring suburbs. Though these

suburbs today often include signifi-

cant minority populations, they still

typically have a larger white percent-

age than do core cities.

67%

49%

24%

32%

2.4%

12%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

U.S. Congregations

Member Congregations

IBCO Member Congregations

(2006)

Black Other Hispanic White

Percentage that are predominantly…

(2011)

For U.S. Congregations , the source is the 2006-7 National Congregations Study

48%

49%

46%

21%

32%

30%

24%

14%

13%

11%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Organizing Staff

Board Members

Member Institutions

IBCO Member Institutions

Black Other Hispanic White

www.interfaithfunders.org

The field has also expanded into

secondary cities of the upper Mid-

west (Wisconsin, Michigan) and

Northeast (Maine, New Hampshire,

Vermont, upstate New York). Both

dynamics likely lower the field’s

racial/ethnic diversity, albeit while

potentially increasing its strategic

capacity. More speculatively, the

drop in membership by Hispanic

institutions might reflect insecurity

Hispanic immigrants feel regard-

ing public engagement, perhaps

the result of recent anti-immigrant

discourse and legislation. Likewise,

the fall in membership in black and

Hispanic institutions might reflect

the ongoing financial struggles of his-

toric African American churches and

(often Hispanic) Catholic parishes in

core urban areas.

Racial/Ethnic Diversity among IBCOs

Even though the IBCO field as a

whole has become somewhat less ra-

cially/ethnically diverse, the percent-

age of IBCOs that are mono-racial

(i.e., all of their member institutions

had the same racial/ethnic identity),

has decreased. In 1999, 11% were

mono-racial; by 2011 only 8% of

IBCOs were mono-racial. Further-

more, “mono-racial” looks different

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-

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

only majority-white institutions and

organized in Maine, Vermont, small-

town Wisconsin, Oregon, upstate

New York, eastern Washington, and

suburban California, some but not all

of which have populations with little

racial diversity. Thus, while prob-

lematic questions can legitimately be

raised about mono-racial organizing

in an increasingly diverse America,

many of these cases can readily be at-

tributed to local demographics.

While a small percentage of

IBCOs remain racially/ethnically

homogenous, most IBCOs are be-

coming more diverse. Ninety-three

percent of IBCOs have at least one

white member institution, 77% have

at least one black member institu-

tion, and 68% have at least one His-

panic member institution. Compared

64%

48%

50%

13%

21%

29%

16%

24%

16%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

2010

2011

1999

IBCO Organizing Staff

Organizing Staff

U.S. Adults

Black Other Hispanic White

For U.S. Adults, the source is the 2010 General Social Survey

86%

49%

43%

32%

14%

21%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

2005

2011

1999

IBCO Board Members

All Nonprofit Boards

Black Other Hispanic White

For non-profit boards, the sources is The Urban Institute: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy (2007)

to 1999, the percentage of IBCOs

represented by only two racial/ethnic

groups decreased from 41% to 35%,

while the percentage of IBCOs repre-

sented by three or more racial groups

increased from 48% to 57%.

Measuring Diversity The description above does not

fully capture the complex dynam-

ics of racial/ethnic diversity in the

IBCO field. For example, consider

two IBCOs--each comprised of three

different racial/ethnic groups, but

with different percentages. The

first IBCO is 70% white, 15% black,

and 15% Hispanic, while the second

IBCO has 33% from each of the racial/

ethnic groups. Both IBCOs would

be categorized as “multi-racial,” but

in fact they are quite different: The

membership of the second IBCO is

significantly more diverse.

To capture this complexity we also

used a more comprehensive measure

of diversity that takes into account

both the number of racial/ethnic

groups and the proportion of each

group. This diversity scale can be

used to measure and compare the di-

versity of IBCOs that have different

group configurations.

It generates a

diversity score that ranges from 0 to

1, and the score can be interpreted as

the probability that two randomly se-

lected member institutions within an

IBCO will be of a different race/eth-

nicity. Based on this scale, a mono-

racial IBCO has a diversity score of 0

(i.e., the probability that two ran-

domly selected member institutions

will be of a different race/ethnicity

27. 31 “Bi-racial” here means that the IBCO has

member institutions whose primary constituency

represents two different racial/ethnic groups.

“Multi-racial” here means that the IBCO has

member institutions whose primary constituency

represents three or more racial/ethnic groups.

28. Diversity =

where N = total number of

member institutions and nk = number of member

institutions in group k.

is 0%). As the number of different

racial/ethnic groups increases and as

the proportion of each group becomes

more evenly distributed, the IBCO’s

diversity score approaches 1 (i.e., the

probability of selecting two member

institutions from different races/eth-

nicities approaches 100%). The figure

below shows the 2011 distribution of

IBCOs based on their diversity score,

the percentage of the dominant race/

ethnicity, and the identity of the

dominant race/ethnicity.

By using the diversity scale, the

racial/ethnic diversity of IBCOs

today can be compared with IBCOs a

decade ago and the diversity of other

community institutions today. The

average diversity score for IBCOs

was .47 in both 1999 and 2011. Thus,

by this measure, IBCOs are equally

diverse in 2011 as in 1999. In com-

parison, today the average diversity

score for public schools is .33, for U.S.

29. The effects of diversity can also be influenced if

one particular racial/ethnic group has a dominating

presence (i.e., represents more than 50% of the

members). An IBCO that is majority-white but

has the same “diversity index” as a majority-black

IBCO is likely to operate quite differently.

counties is .28 and for congregations

is .12.

IBCOs thus tend to be more

diverse than public schools and U.S.

counties, and much more diverse

than congregations. In an era of de-

clining social capital, it appears that

the IBCO field plays a crucial role in

bolstering “bridging capital” by link-

ing Americans across the divides that

otherwise separate them.

The Effects of Racial/Ethnic Diversity on Organizing Activities

Even though historically this form

of organizing typically downplayed

racial differences, in 2011 most

IBCOs reported discussing racial/

ethnic differences either “sometimes”

or “often.” Diverse IBCOs, as well as

IBCOs with at least one black mem-

ber institution, are likely to discuss

30. The mean diversity score for public schools is

based on the 2009-10 NCES Common Core of Data

Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe

Survey, the score for counties is based on the 2010

Census Demographic Profile, and the score for

congregations is based on the 2006-7 National

Congregations Study.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

.00 .20 .40 .60 .80

Pe rce

nt ag

e of

D om

in an

t R ac

e/ Et

hn ici

Degree of Diversity

Dominant Race

White 44% Black 18% Hispanic 6% None Dominant 31%

Mean Diversity Scores for:

IBCOs .47

Public Schools .33

U.S. Counties .27

Congregations .12

Racial/Ethnic Diversity

Sources for public schools, U.S. counties and congregations are the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Census, and National Congregations Study

racial/ethnic differences more often.

Diverse IBCOs were more likely to

indicate that racial/ethnic differences

complicated, prolonged, hindered, and

enhanced their planning meetings.

This suggests that diverse IBCOs do

not attempt to be “color blind” in their

operations. Rather they appear to be

cognizant of racial/ethnic differences,

they focus on addressing those differ-

ences, and these differences influence

their organizing activity.

Based on these results, it appears

that IBCOs respond to religious and

racial/ethnic differences in contrast-

ing ways. IBCOs tend to talk less

about religious differences, and

religious differences tend to have

little impact on their planning meet-

ings. Conversely, IBCOs tend to talk

more about racial/ethnic differences,

and these differences tend to have a

greater impact their planning meet-

ings. Moreover, these opposite ways

of responding to differences become

amplified as the diversity of the

IBCO increases.

No simple summary can fully cap-

ture the complex patterns of racial/

ethnic diversity within the IBCO

field. By some measures, the field has

grown somewhat less diverse in the

last decade; by other measures, it has

held its own or gained in diversity.

The picture also changes if one con-

31. Even when controlling for the effects of

language differences, racial/ethnic differences

continue to affect planning meetings. Language

differences have the strongest effect on IBCOs

that have at least one Hispanic or Asian member

institution.

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

dealing with racial/ethnic differences. Meanwhile,

religiously diverse IBCOs are more likely, and

racially/ethnically diverse IBCOs no more likely, to

have the corresponding type of policy.

siders the field as a whole versus indi-

vidual IBCOs. But by all measures,

the field is more racially/ethnically

diverse than America generally--and

much more diverse than corporate

and non-profit boards, congrega-

tions, neighborhoods, etc. In this

way, the field’s ability to bring

Americans together across racial

and ethnic divides is extraordinary

within American political culture

and institutions.

ORGANIZING ACTIVITY AND OUTCOMES Levels of Involvement

Member institutions and their

constituents vary widely in their level

of involvement. We measured their

involvement along three dimensions-

-overall level of participation, pro-

portion of meetings attended, and

involvement in the most recent public

action. In terms of their overall par-

ticipation, 60% of member institutions

were characterized as being active

participants, 32% partially active,

and 8% not active. The typical IBCO

held 12 organization-wide member

institution meetings in the last year,

and 65% of member institutions at-

tended at least half of their IBCO’s

member meetings, while 8% attended

none of the meetings. Fifty percent

of member institutions both helped

to plan and attended their IBCO’s

most recent public action, 30% only

attended, and 20% neither helped to

plan nor attended. IBCO board mem-

bers also vary in their level of involve-

ment: The typical IBCO board met

12 times in the last year, and 75% of

board members attended at least half

of their IBCO’s board meetings, while

6% attended none.

Geographic Scope

The vast majority of IBCOs focus

their primary organizing work

within a particular city/county or

cluster of cities/counties. Six percent

restrict their organizing area to a par-

ticular neighborhood, and another

5% define their organizing area to be

an entire state This does not include

more locally-focused IBCOs that also

organize at the state level via net-

work affiliations or other collabora-

tions (see below). IBCOs that limit

their organizing area to a neighbor-

hood tend to be in large metropolitan

areas. IBCOs that organize an entire

state tend to be located in smaller

states or are independent organiza-

tions that have adopted an explicit

statewide organizing model.

www.interfaithfunders.org

10%

54%

36%

35%

53%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

2011

1999

City/County State Multiple

Cities / Counties Neighborhood

Geographic Scope

Collaborative Work: Coalitions and Networks

Beyond their primary organizing

base, most IBCOs collaborate far

more broadly and strategically than

they did in 1999. These collaborative

efforts take a variety of forms: IB-

COs within a single network pursu-

ing work on state- and national-level

issues; those network-based efforts

coordinating with other national

organizations; or a single IBCO

joining a coalition with other local

community organizations. These col-

laborations may focus on single issue

campaigns or may constitute long-

term strategic alliances, and they

can help IBCOs broaden their base,

consolidate power, and extend their

reach. Sixty-six percent of IBCOs

participate in multi-organizational

collaborations of some kind, and

among these, over 95% collaborate

with organizations outside their

formal organizing network (either

locally or through their network’s

higher-level work).

Perhps most importantly, par-

ticipating in multi-organizational

collaborations helps IBCOs address

issues at higher levels of government.

Even though most IBCOs limit their

primary organizing to cities/coun-

ties, 50% are affiliated with statewide

collaborations, and 25% are affiliated

with nationwide collaborations. In

1999, only 20% of IBCOs participated

in statewide collaborations, and even

fewer participated in nationwide

efforts. These are profound changes

in a field of organizing once criticized

as narrowly local, parochial, and

non-strategic. Today, large sectors

of the IBCO field transcend local-

ized concerns while remaining deeply

embedded in local communities and

operate with a strategic vision that

carries them into regional-, state-,

and national-level work.

All this collaborative work may

have contributed to another de-

velopment in organizing culture:

IBCOs sharing credit for victories.

In answering the survey, several

IBCO directors made unsolicited

statements such as, “We would like

to reiterate that many organizations

and factors have contributed to these

victories, but we believe that we

played a substantial role in contrib-

uting to these important changes.”

Long-time observers of the field will

recognize just what a cultural shift

this represents.

Some IBCOs, however, avoid

participating in multi-organizational

coalitions and addressing issues at

higher levels of government, argu-

ing that doing so would undermine

their local organizing work or lead

their member institutions to become

less engaged. Nonetheless, the trend

among IBCOs seems to be toward

building collaborative ties “upward”

through the national networks, “out-

ward” through local coalitions, and/

or “upward and outward” through

national coalitions seeking to influ-

ence public policy at higher political

levels.

Communicating with Constituents

The ways IBCOs communicate

with their constituents has shifted

dramatically in the last decade.

Technological developments alone

have created several new modes of

communication. Email, for example,

has become the most prevalent form

of mass communication among IB-

COs, with 94% indicating that they

correspond with their constituents

via email.

Eighty-two percent of

IBCOs have a website, though the

sophistication levels of those sites

and how regularly they are updated

vary greatly.

33. Further analysis could assess how collaboration

affects IBCOs by comparing IBCOs from the 1999

study that participated in multi-organizational

coalitions and addressed issues at higher levels

with those that did not. Further research is also

needed on the emergent national issue work by

the networks and the strategic alliances that have

developed from that work.

34.A handful of IBCOs indicated that they do

not “mass communicate” with their constituents

because it violates their organizing philosophy

which emphasizes corresponding with constituents

exclusively face-to-face via one-to-ones. This stance

was virtual dogma within organizing at one time.

“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 draw-

ing people out around their stories.”

– Ken Galdston, InterValley Project

www.interfaithfunders.org

The most notable communication

difference among active IBCOs is

the extent to which they use social

media to facilitate organizing efforts.

Half of the IBCOs use Facebook,

and a quarter update their pages at

least weekly. Less than one third of

IBCOs use YouTube, Twitter, blogs

or podcasts, and fewer than 10% use

these communication tools on a

weekly basis. Our communication

with IBCOs during this study sug-

gests that constituents’ lack of access

or familiarity with more advanced

modes of communication may limit

some IBCOs from using even more

common technologies, such as email.

IBCOs use a variety of languages

when conducting their organizing

activities. Every IBCO uses English;

however, 60% now also report con-

ducting some organizing activities

in Spanish. Various IBCOs use other

languages (including Creole, Hmong,

Arabic, French, Tagalog, Vietnam-

ese, and Chinese), yet none of those

languages is used by more than 5% of

IBCOs.

Over the last decade, IBCOs have

also increased their communications

outreach to specific constituencies,

including immigrants and youth: The

percentage of IBCOs who reported

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

third to over half of all IBCOs.

Issue Work

IBCOs are addressing a wide

variety of social issues. Generally

speaking, most IBCOs are work-

ing to reduce poverty and economic

inequality. On average, each IBCO

is addressing six issues, and the

maximum number of issues any one

IBCO is addressing is 14.

Over 50%

of IBCOs reported at least one of the

following issues as part of their work:

education, health care, immigration,

affordable housing, and the criminal

justice system.

Between 30% and

50% of IBCOs reported addressing

35. On the survey, directors could indicate their

level of involvement in addressing an issue over

the last two years. We coded an issue as being

“addressed” by the IBCO if the IBCO selected one

of the two highest levels of involvement for that

issue.

36. With the exception of health care and

immigration, these were also the issues most

commonly addressed by IBCOs in 1999. This

reflects the dramatic expansion of state- and

national-level work by some networks, which

has focused partly on health reform (PICO) and

immigration (PICO and Gamaliel).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Podcast A Blog

Evite Twitter

Online Albums YouTube

Phone Facebook

U.S.P.S. Email

Modes of Mass Communication

■ At All

■ At Least Once per Week

82% of IBCOs have a website

Primary Issues

20% 29% 30% 31% 31%

42% 49%

53% 53% 54%

57% 66%

70%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Environment Racism

Voter Registration Public Transportation

Public Finances Banking / Foreclosures

Employment / Wages Criminal Justice

Housing Immigration

Healthcare Education

Poverty

the following issues: employment/

wages, banking/foreclosures, pub-

lic finances, public transportation,

voter registration, or racism. Twenty

percent reported addressing enviro-

mental issues. Less than 5% of IBCOs

reported addressing issues related to

farming, women’s rights, domestic

violence, and HIV/AIDS.

37. As a collective, IBCOs are addressing most

social issues; however, only one IBCO is actively

Historically, IBCOs have em-

ployed a relatively limited range of

tactics. In recent years, however,

many appear to have broadened their

tactical repertoires. When the IBCO

directors were asked to identify the

concrete actions they have taken

addressing issues related to same-sex marriage.

The lack of activity in this arena reflects the field’s

strategy to focus on addressing issues of common

concern and to avoid potentially divisive issues.

to address issues, their responses

included a long list of diverse

actions. We group those tactics into

a few categories and offer an example

of how that issue was addressed by

organizing in local and higher-level

political arenas:

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

Explore policy options

“Research Meeting” with city administrator

or department head

Met with academic experts on the history of immigra-

tion reform

Gain budgetary expertise

Briefing by city council budget staff on rev-

enues/outlays and city budgetary process

Met with Center on Budget Priorities to learn about

federal budget priorities and options

Build relationships with key

political actors

Cultivated ties to a politician over many years

as he rose to increasing influence, eventu-

ally becoming mayor (key ally, sometimes

opponent)

Met with hometown aides to congressional representa-

tive, gaining sufficient respect to meet with D.C. aides

and eventually with Representative on specific issues

(repeatedly).

Understand backroom political

dynamics behind an issue

Met with allies on school board and asked

what interests are in play on a specific upcom-

ing decision

Met with congressional aides from both parties to dis-

cuss how to get financial reform legislation passed

Public actions and

accountability sessions

Got mayor to commit to support specific

appropriation in front of several thousand

people (with press and TV coverage); showed

school board president’s refusal to commit to

teacher home visit, in front of 300 parents

Multiple actions through the Reform Immigration for

America campaign for comprehensive immigration

reform, including “March for America/Change takes

Courage” and collaboration with statewide student

organizations. National actions to hold Congress and

Administration accountable to protect most vulner-

able populations under health care reform (poor and

immigrants)

Active civic engagement

Ran petition campaign to get referendum on

ballot; ran pro-referendum campaign

Ran “Get Out the Vote” effort with several dozen faith

communities simultaneously; registered several thou-

sand new voters, drove them to polls on election day

(one race was won by a few hundred votes).

Negotiation

Before public action, negotiated with mayor’s

aides the outlines of what she could agree to

in budget

Renegotiated the outlines of major national healthcare

reform legislation as it moved through congressional

approval (also state-level examples)

Direct action Occupied office of local “shady employer”

Simultaneous multi-site occupation of bank offices

involved in unfair foreclosure practices

Moral/ethical framing of issues

Sponsored local prayer vigil for vulnerable

immigrants and victims of gang violence;

linked to immigration reform

Provided key “faith voices” in Congressional testimony

regarding national health care reform, including need

for increased access for poor and vulnerable

www.interfaithfunders.org

Outcomes Achieved

Through these organizing ef-

forts, IBCOs strive to bring about

concrete changes that improve the

quality of life in poor, working class,

and middle-income communities.

As in the past, sometimes these are

small changes that make a difference

to a local community, such as bet-

ter after-school programs in work-

ing class neighborhoods or better

community policing in a town. But

today these are sometimes changes

in major policy arenas at the state

or national level, the most dramatic

recent examples being passage of the

Affordable Care Act and reauthoriza-

tion of the State Children’s Health

Insurance Program, both of which

narrowly passed with key involve-

ment by the PICO National Net-

work. But stories of policy impact at

the regional, state, or national levels

could be multiplied many times over.

That IBCOs have achieved these

outcomes during a period of wide-

spread reduction of public services

makes them all the more significant.

When the directors were asked to

identify their organization’s accom-

plishments, their responses included

the following (grouped under the

most common issue areas reported):

Issue Area EXAMPLES FROM:

Local Level State/Regional Level National Level

Healthcare

Passage of new funding for health clin-

ics in targeted poor communities where

there was overuse of emergency rooms

Gained new money for HIV and diabe-

tes care for uninsured patients; created

more accessible and lower-cost health

insurance and medical care alternatives

Amendment of federal Affordable

Care Act to provide better access for

low-income families; Signing of SCHIP

(children’s program) after two presi-

dential vetoes

Poverty

Employment

and Wages

Passage of living wage ordinance and

increased minimum wages; agreement

for use of unionized labor on all county

capital construction

Restored some state budget cuts

(housing, health care, education, youth

development)

Helped to strengthen financial reform

legislation; gained U.S. Dept. of Labor

commitment to address “wage theft”

issues; some wages recovered

Education

Built parent-union compromise on

teacher evaluations; new charter

schools; teacher-home visitation pro-

gram; capital and operational funds for

charter schools; major new funding for

local public schools

Saved funding for pre-K and after-

school programs; restored state funding

cuts and/or prevented deeper cuts

Some IBCOs involved in policy discus-

sions related to flexibility of standards

under “No Child Left Behind;” reports

in this issue area all focused on local and

state levels

Immigration

Stopped police impoundment of

vehicles driven by undocumented im-

migrants

Eliminated barriers to immigrant access

to healthcare; California and Illinois

DREAM Acts passed

Supported network effort to pass Com-

prehensive Immigration Reform law

(unsuccessful so far)

Housing and

Foreclosure

New affordable rental units con-

structed or renovated; new mixed-use/

mixed-income owner-occupied housing

development

Passed state laws limiting predatory

lending and reforming foreclosure

$4 billion for public housing nationally;

annual funding of Affordable Housing

Trust Fund

Criminal

Justice

Anti-crime strategy meetings that re-

duced crime; anti-racial profiling laws

and changes in process for selecting

police recruits; new police account-

ability via dashboard and body camera

requirements

Implementation of “Ceasefire” and

“Lifelines to Healing” (violence-reduc-

tion and reintegration) projects

Advanced community policing in local

jurisdictions nationally

Putting reliable dollar figures on

these achievements in a variety of

political arenas is extraordinarily

difficult, and we do not attempt to

do so in this brief report. (See our

subsequent reports and the recent

studies by the National Center for

Responsive Philanthropy for efforts

to estimate the dollar impact of the

IBCO field).

The most important recent

change has been that the number of

IBCOs engaged in policy change at

the higher levels of government has

grown dramatically. The range ex-

tends from the neighborhood level to

the national level, and many IBCOs

are simultaneously addressing issues

at multiple levels. In 1999, it was rare

for IBCOs to address issues beyond

the city level. Since then, however,

this organizing strategy has become

much more common. Over 87% of

IBCOs report addressing at least one

issue at the state or national level.

The issues most commonly addressed

at the state or national level are

immigration, health care, banking/

foreclosures, public finances, employ-

ment/wages, poverty, racism, and

public transportation.

38 Four percent of IBCOs are addressing at least one issue at an

international level.

39 In 1999, when IBCO directors were asked to identify the

critical needs of the field, several mentioned the need to develop an ability

to address issues and impact policy at

levels beyond the city.

Examples of specific accomplish-

ments at the state and national levels

reported by IBCO directors give

some sense of the kinds of gains that

have been made (see Appendix for

further reports):

On healthcare reform:

Our [IBCO] leaders worked tire-

lessly in support of health care reform

and played a key role along with the

[national network] in getting strong

affordability standards. Our leaders

played a key role in bringing health

care reform home (i.e. bringing money

and policy changes flowing from

healthcare reform down to the local

level), and were successful in secur-

ing a site and full funding for a new

clinic. It will provide health access to

critically underserved [part of

our county].

We advocated for quality, affordable,

accessible, health care for all people.

National health care reforms were

passed, and state wide mental health

care reform legislation passed.

On banking reform:

Our campaign played a key role in

demonstrating public outrage at the

role of large banks in the collapse of

the economy during the debate over

financial reform. We helped to initi-

ate and orchestrate some of the larg-

est actions around the country from

April to June 2010 that helped to

shape media coverage that emphasized

the public outcry for stronger reform.

This had a direct impact on strength-

ening financial reform legislation as

it moved through the Senate and also

contributed to our ability to win the

new federal policy to provide assis-

tance for unemployed homeowners.

From San Francisco to New York,

Chicago to Charlotte, Kansas City to

Washington, D.C., we let Congress

know that a broad cross-section of

Americans would hold them account-

able for passing real financial reform.

We shut down the financial district

in San Francisco, Kansas City, and

Wall Street. We shut down K Street

at the height of the process and told a

new public narrative that declared de-

cisively that the American people were

angry at the abuses of Wall Street and

were demanding change.

On foreclosure reform:

We played a strong role in press-

ing for the creation of a national

loan modification program and were

credited in the White House’s online

rollout of the “Making Home Afford-

able” program in April 2009….Many

of our members and their stories

were featured in a series of local and

national media coverage and served to

generate pressure on the Department

Primary Issues

73% 71%

61% 59%

52% 49%

47% 46%

42% 23%

20% 19%

16%

18% 21%

22% 34%

37% 21%

22% 25%

38% 49%

27% 25%

19%

9% 8%

17% 6%

11% 30% 30% 29%

20% 28%

53% 56%

65%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Criminal Justice Voter Registration

Housing Environment

Education Public Transportation

Racism Poverty

Employment / Wages Public Finances

Banking / Foreclosures Healthcare

Immigration City State National

www.interfaithfunders.org

of Treasury to launch an audit and

investigation which preceded the At-

torneys General lawsuit.

[A particular] meeting generated

national media coverage and our rec-

ommendations have been circulated to

key Administration officials, includ-

ing Peter Rouse, the current White

House chief of staff. Our meeting was

also referenced by a group of U.S.

Senators in a letter to the Treasury

Secretary where they supported the

key points of our recommendations.

The Treasury Department has made a

series of policy changes in response to

our recommendations.

On employment& public transportation:

We maintained state funding [for

public transit] through a designated

transportation fund. We won collec-

tive bargaining for transit workers.

We won a commitment from two Con-

gressmen to solve a federal funding

issue....On the national level, we have

been to Washington, D.C. four times

to speak with congressional leaders

or their staff about the need for the

reauthorization of transportation leg-

islation and our interests around jobs

and flexible funds.

On immigration reform:

We fought successfully to stop

Arizona-style legislation from coming

to our state; that fight will continue

next year.

We won passage of [state-level]

Dream Act.

On electoral influence:

[Local Congressman] came under

heavy assault by the coal industry

for his position against mountaintop

removal mining. We have two large

chapters in his district that registered,

informed, and mobilized thousands of

voters. He won by 647 votes.

Researchers who have recently

sought to substantiate similar claims

have found them quite credible.

these higher-level arenas, such victo-

ries almost always involve broad coali-

tions of organizations and officials

and are rarely the work of single orga-

nizations or even networks. But these

IBCO organizations have been among

the crucial actors in a variety of im-

portant high-level policy outcomes.

Engaging Political Officials

A strategic component of IBCOs’

work is to engage political officials.

In the last year, 92% of IBCOs had

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).

some IBCOs restrict their organizing

area to a city, most are also engag-

ing political officials beyond the city

level. Eighty-four percent had met

with a state-level official within the

last year and 66% had met with a

national-level official. However, not

all IBCOs have embraced this trend

toward higher level engagement.

Twelve percent of IBCOs had not

engaged any political official be-

yond the city level, and 34% had not

engaged any official beyond the state

level.

Most IBCOs interact with po-

litical officials in order to be more

effective at influencing decisions

in public life. Thus, their meetings

with officials do not always focus

exclusively on winning a particular

issue. Rather, they can also be used

to lay the relational groundwork for

future negotiations or to gain politi-

cal knowledge, etc. IBCO directors

reported several different kinds of

outcomes from their meetings with

political officials.

10% 22% 66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

IBCO

City State National

Political Officials

Through these meetings, IBCOs:

■ built relationships useful for their future political work;

■ increased their understanding of the political dynamics underlying

a particular issue;

■ educated the official about their organization’s position on an is-

sue;

■ informed the official about the organization’s power base in the

local community (or statewide, or

nationally in some cases);

■ held the official accountable for community needs and for the com-

mitments he or she made during

elections;

■ promoted bipartisan cooperation for good of the community;

■ extracted specific commitments to support concrete policy proposals;

■ articulated the moral issues behind particular public policies;

■ provided opportunities for leaders to tell their own stories to power-

ful people;

■ helped their leaders develop a bet- ter understanding of how power

works in public life

Projecting Power in Public Life:

Developing community leaders,

identifying issues, and engaging

political officials are means to an

overall goal of projecting influence

in public life to achieve change in

the issue areas listed above. One

way IBCOs achieve influence is by

turning people out for public actions.

This study assesses this dimension

of power projection via two mea-

sures: each IBCO’s largest turnout

and its total turnout over the last

year. While the attendance figures

reported for the largest public ac-

tion decreased since 1999, the data

suggests that total number of people

mobilized by IBCO increased.

2011, IBCO directors reported over

200,000 people attended at least one

event in the course of a year. The

typical organization-wide public

action drew roughly 600 people, and

the average IBCO reported having

1,000 different people participate in

their events during the past year.

Any organization that reliably turns

out 600 people for focused meetings

on substantive political issues is like-

ly to gain attention in most American

cities. Furthermore, IBCOs have

the potential to generate even larger

turnouts and impact at the polls,

considering that their member insti-

tutions collectively represent over 5

million people.

Overall, the picture of higher-level

issue work and extensive meetings

with state and federal officials, along

with specific issue victories in those

higher arenas, provide evidence of

intensified power projection in the

IBCO field over the last ten years.

That power has been achieved de-

spite a decline in attendance at the

largest public actions, previously the

41. Because of differences in the wording of

questions between the two surveys, the data

regarding the total number of people mobilized in a

year is not strictly comparable.

42. IBCOs vary in the number of people they

can mobilize for their events, and their capacity

often corresponds with the number of member

institutions they have. While the average number

of member institutions per IBCO has declined,

the ability of member institutions to mobilize

their constituents has remained the same. On

average, each member institution tends to mobilize

approximately 30 participants to public events.

When considering an IBCO’s overall ability to

mobilize participants, it can expect, on average,

approximately 60 different people per member

institution to attend at least one of their events per

year. However, the mobilizing ability of a member

institution varies greatly and depends on several

factors, including its size and level of involvement

with the IBCO.

field’s primary tactic for enhancing

its influence. Instead, IBCOs have

developed a wider array of tactics.

They now turn out people for more

events, coordinate organizing efforts

at several levels simultaneously,

and cultivate strategic relationships

with political officials and institu-

tional leaders. Beyond this, they now

systematically use electronic com-

munication technologies, actively

cultivate media coverage, and draw

on policy expertise more broadly and

systematically than in the past.

One way to see these developments

in the field over the last decade is to

compare the ideas of hard power”

and soft power. The older model fo-

cused primarily on creating a “power

organization” through what might

be called hard power,

“organized

people” holding political officials

accountable via the sheer weight of

their numbers. This involved build-

ing power through internal relational

work and then projecting that power

into the political sphere.

Today, the IBCO field has learned

to extend that relational power

externally in more systematic ways

via a wider set of organizing practices

more oriented toward what might

be called soft power, which involves

cultivating relationships with politi-

cal officials and other institutional

leaders, negotiating policies, build-

ing long-term strategic alliances,

and drawing on specialized policy

expertise. Linking these hard and

soft forms of power appears to have

bolstered IBCOs’ public influence.

Political reality is harsh, however.

Severe and rising economic inequal-

ity continues to be the defining

43. The soft power/hard power distinction as used

here is adapted from the international relations

literature; see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S.

Nye, Jr. 1998 "Power and Interdependence in the

Information Age." Foreign Affairs 77:81-94.

reality of American life, and in a

post-Citizens United context, money

flows virtually unrestricted into the

political arena. If IBCOs and their

“organized people” want to lower

economic inequality and counter

the anti-democratic influence of

“organized money,” they will have to

project still greater influence in the

public arena. To do so, IBCOs must

continue cultivating a sophisticated

mix of soft and hard power. Even

as they embrace more relational,

cultural, and negotiation-based

mechanisms for exerting power,

nothing can replace their ability to

turn people out for public action and

contested elections. If they sustain

that balance, they can make a crucial

contribution to renewing American

democracy in the years ahead.

As American society confronts

the challenges it faces in 2012 and

beyond, new sources of democratic

vigor will be required. No easy solu-

tions to our economic, political, or

cultural problems are available, and

no political superhero will rescue us

from them. A movement embody-

ing the democratic will and politi-

cal courage of the American people

must come together with dedicated

leaders in politics, business, labor,

philanthropy, the law, and cultural

and academic institutions. This

movement must craft the reforms

and lead the hard choices that will

address our challenges. That is how

real change has happened before in

American history--and how it will

happen again.

Such movements have typically

been built via “federated structures”

linking local, state, and national-lev-

el organizing capacities: for example,

gaining benefits for military veter-

ans after the Civil War. No single

organization fully provides such a

mobilizing structure today, but as a

field, institution-based community

organizing offers a substantial base

around which such a movement

might coalesce. As documented in

this report, the number of individu-

als represented by IBCO member

institutions exceeds the historic

threshold for wielding such influence,

and in the last ten years the field has

moved a long way towards creating

the federated structure needed for

national change.

IBCOs bridge many of the racial/

ethnic and religious divides that

fracture American society, divides

that constantly stymie serious efforts

to address our challenges. Indeed,

IBCOs bridge those divides extraor-

dinarily well in comparison to other

organizations. The field’s deep ties

to America’s diverse faith traditions,

along with its active incorporation

of spiritual practices into organiz-

ing efforts, allow IBCOs to offer the

moral vision and prophetic voice to

guide democratic reform efforts. The

most effective IBCO practitioners

combine strategic savvy, disciplined

organizing practice, and political

imagination to build effective demo-

cratic capacity at the scale required

for national reform. For the IBCO

field to reach its full potential, this

savvy, discipline, and imagination

must be multiplied throughout the

IBCO sector.

A key challenge facing the field lies

in consistently maximizing its politi-

cal leverage. Practitioners can do so

by coordinating local level organiz-

ing with work at higher political

levels, by judiciously and strategi-

cally expanding into new geographic

settings, through sophisticated use

of new and “old” media, and through

effective collaboration with other

kinds of organizations. Important

progress has been made in these areas

in the last decade, and significant

new initiatives and experimental

forays are occurring in 2012. All these

efforts will require new funding,

new organizing talent, and creative

responses to emerging challenges.

If these efforts create foundations

for future coordination-- within this

sector and beyond--democracy in

America will benefit.

Although the strategic capacity

of the IBCO field today significantly

transcends the state of the field we

analyzed a decade ago, institution-

based community organizing will

not reform American society alone.

Today, no single sector can provide

the mass movement or strategic

capacity necessary for deep societal

reform. Collaborators from other sec-

tors will be crucial co-leaders in this

effort, learning from and teaching

the IBCO sector the arts and skills of

effective democratic reform. Given

the promising current state of the

field, institution-based community

organizing is poised to be a strategic

partner in the coming democratic

renewal of America. Only via such re-

newal will our economics and politics

better reflect the shared aspirations

and hopes of the American people in

all their diversity.

CONCLUSION

www.interfaithfunders.org

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 di-

vide, 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 or-

ganizations 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.

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.

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;

2828

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 develop-

ment;

•$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 dash-

board 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

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.

WHO ARE INTERFAITH FUNDERS?

Interfaith Funders (IF) is a network of faith-based and secular grant makers committed to social change and eco-

nomic 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

Catholic Campaign for Human Development

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s Division

for Church in Society

Maine Initiatives

The McKnight Foundation

Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate

C.S. Mott Foundation

The Needmor Fund

New York Foundation

One Great Hour of Sharing Fund of the Presbyterian

Church (USA)

Sister Fund

Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock

Each IF member also supports a broad range of community organizing groups in low- and moderate-income commu-

nities 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 docu-

mented 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 cur-

rent state and future of the field and other topics of mutual interest, such as the role of IBCO in strengthening congre-

gations.

• 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

Rich Wood (Associate Professor

of Sociology, University of New

Mexico) served as Research Director

for the Interfaith Funders’ State of

the Field Project, as part of his focus

on the cultural and institutional

bases of democratic life. Wood’s

Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and

Democratic Organizing in America

(University of Chicago Press, 2002)

won the 2003 ASA award for out-

standing book in the sociology of

religion. Wood has led major funded

research on religion and politics in

the United States, the Middle East,

and Central America. He is currently

writing Faith and the Fire of Public

Life, on the impact of democratic

engagement on faith communities.

He co-edits the Cambridge Studies

of Social Theory, Religion,

and Politics.

Kathy Partridge (Executive Direc-

tor, Interfaith Funders) served as

the administrative director for the

State of the Field Project, coordi-

nating publications and communi-

cations as well as co-authoring the

report. She has been an organizer in

Mississippi, Europe, and Colorado,

and has led non-profit organizations

in management, development, com-

munications, and volunteer coordi-

nation, from the local to the interna-

tional level. Partridge was Program

Officer with the Needmor Fund for

ten years, where her grantmaking

focused on community organizing

nationwide and in the US South.

Active in philanthropic reform, she

co-authored the National Network

of Grantmakers Common Grant

Application. Partridge holds an

M.A. from Regis University in

Social Justice Philanthropy and

Community Organizing.

Brad Fulton (Ph.D. Candidate in

Sociology, Duke University) served

as the lead researcher for the State

of the Field Project. His research

focuses on social movement orga-

nizations and the intersections of

race, religion and social inequality.

Fulton has recently completed two

projects related to congregations and

social service provision. One study

demonstrates how congregations’

collaborator networks shape their

social service activity and the other

study analyzes the factors influenc-

ing black churches’ responsiveness

to people living with HIV/AIDS.

Fulton also has a forthcoming article

(co-authored with Richard Wood)

on the benefits and challenges of

interfaith organizing, and another

(co-authored with Lisa Keister) on

religion and social stratification.

Rich Wood Kathy Partridge Brad Fulton