The Chinook Fund's Giving Project

My Giving Project cohort

Over the past several months I have been a part of a program called The Giving Project. Run through The Chinook Fund, The Giving Project is a cohort of individuals across Colorado who are diverse across race, gender identity, and class. Each cohort receives training around social justice, race and class, fundraising, and grantmaking.

There are many things I enjoy about The Chinook Fund:

1) it prioritizes funding small nonprofits that focus on community organizing and advocacy, rather than direct service. One of my pastor friends shared a story with me that illustrates why advocacy and organizing are so important:

You live in a village by the river. One day, a baby floats down the river in a basket. Because you and your neighbors are good people, you go get the baby out of the river. The next day, two babies float down the river, so you get them as well. Soon there is a steady stream of babies floating down the river, so you and your neighbors form a 501(c)3 nonprofit in order to raise money to support getting the babies out of the river.

At some point, someone has to ask the question, “Why are these babies being sent down the river?” This leads to folks going upstream to figure out the source of the problem and fix it.

This is the type of work that The Giving Project funds, except that:

2) It prioritizes organizations that are lead by the communities most impacted by the issues they work on. Very often nonprofits approach issues as “saviors”. They are funded and led by folks who, while well-meaning, do not truly understand the realities of the issues in the same way the most impacted people are. The extreme version of this situation are non-profits whose staff live in DC, New York, or San Francisco but fund work in other countries. It is very hard to be in this situation and not be separated from the the impact of the pain. The Chinook Fund addresses this dynamic by prioritizing organizations led by impacted communities.

3) It places race and class as the center of its analyses of problems. Many of the most dire issues facing our country impact people of color, especially those with little generational wealth. Our society is only as strong as those who are most oppressed.

If you are interested in supporting this work, please visit The Chinook Fund’s donation page in order to give. When you see the option “Is this donation for the Giving Project?”, select “Yes” and make sure to type in my name.

Thanks!

What's the Difference? - Organizer, Field Organizer, Canvasser

The 2020 Democratic Presidential primary season has already started, which means that candidates will start hiring staff. Most of the on-the-ground staff will be in the states that are early in the primary calendar, such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Given the number of candidates, it is likely that the titles for positions that are roughly the same will vary considerably.

We’ve seen some overlapping of titles, however, in recent years. The Obama presidential campaigns, especially, made use of the title “organizer” for the people on the ground working most directly with volunteers. This is likely given President Obama’s history as a community organizer, as well as the background of folks who helped President Obama’s campaigns develop their field and training plans, folks like Marshall Ganz and Joy Cushman. These individuals have decades of experience with long-term community organizing.

The title of “organizer” has since been used by more and more candidate’s campaigns, with varying levels of fidelity to the idea of an organizer that Ganz and Cushman had in mind. That idea came from unions, the Civil Rights movement, and other long-term community organizing groups like Faith in Action (formerly PICO). So in order to develop some clear distinctions, I offer the following definitions:

Organizer - This role focuses on building community and developing leaders. This is done through 1:1 conversations, house meetings, trainings, and coaching. The goal is to develop long-lasting organizations, centered around shared values and identity, that can use their growing power for a wide variety of purposes. These purposes can include legislative advocacy, direct action, and elections/civic engagement. The organizer is a thought-partner, agitator, teacher, pastor.

Field Organizer - The field organizer role is more limited than that of an organizer. They are given a plan, a geographic or demographic turf, specific skills, and told to execute the plan. They recruit volunteers to accomplish the plan. They may build up structures that look like those created by an organizer, but the key distinction is that the structures themselves do not determine priorities or goals. The field organizer is an doer and volunteer coordinator.

Canvasser - These folks have one job, which is simply to talk to people at the doors. These conversations are generally of two types: persuasion or Get Out the Vote. There is no true relational component to their work, which is driven purely by numbers. These folks can be truly effective for their given part in a strategy, but that part is very narrow and not up for debate or discussion.

Field organizers and canvassers are key parts of a candidates’ campaigns, but they shouldn’t be confused with the role of organizer as it exists in organizations that build long-term power. Indeed, it is not uncommon for organizations founded by staff from candidate campaigns to use the term organizer, when in fact they do not completely understand its breadth and depth.

Conflating these titles causes confusion within the larger progressive movement. I’ve seen individuals with several campaigns cycles of experience as an “organizer” (field organizer) on candidate campaigns try to move over to long-term community organizing groups, and be completely unequipped for their new role.

So let’s call a spade a spade.

Data and its Usefulness

It is not unusual for me to hear people say that they don't feel like they need to have data, or quantitative information generally, inform their decisions.

Most of me thinks that is unwise. But I also understand their perspective, even if I don't agree with it. Sometimes the evangelists of "big data" promise things they can't deliver. Sometimes they have a misplaced idea of where data should be placed in their decision-making processes. Sometimes they just have a very narrow definition of data that prevents them from preaching its true worth.

My definition of data is "Information, mostly quantitative but sometimes qualitative, that can be organized in a way to see trends, judge performance, increase efficiency, and otherwise aid decision-making."

This is a fairly broad definition. Survey and polling results fall within this definition. So do results of experiments of varying levels of complexity. Self-reported data from employees qualifies. So does website and social media data, fundraising and other financial data, and field contact data. Publicaly available data, of course, qualifies.

I could go on and on.

There are pieces of information, though, that cannot fit easily into this definition, if at all. Some aspects of relationships are not easily categorized or quantified. There is no replacement for expertise or a wide network of contacts. Also, the general zeitgeist is almost impossible to measure.

However, deciding not to use data because it can't give you everything you want is "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." This is especially true when it comes to tracking, and using, data to manage people and improve organizational effectiveness.

For example, tracking one-to-one conversations held by members of the sales team can allow a manager to coach her employees to make the most of potential leads, while halting or limiting time spent on leads that aren't producing sales. 

The manager would be wrong, though, to only look at the numbers and then order the sales rep to halt all work with a lead. It might be that the lead wants to switch suppliers, but has the wait until the current contract runs its course. In this situation, the sales rep is doing the wise thing; maintaining a relationship that will produce sales down the road. The quantitative information prompts the manager to ask questions. It isn't the end of the decision-making process, but the beginning.

This type of process is also useful in community organizing. Managers can see how many one-to-one conversations organizers are having per week. They can see who those people are, and if they have taken any actions (house meetings, legislative visits, phone banks/door-to-door canvassing, etc.) If an organizer if spending a significant amount of time with an individual who is not taking next steps, the manager can ask the organizer what is going on. 

It might be that the potential leader is going through a divorce/death/job transition/etc. They could have all the characteristics of someone who will be great, but life is just getting in the way. In that situation, it might be worth it for the organizer to continue working with the individual even though s/he isn't currently taking action.

However, it could also be that the two have become friends, but that the individual will never do more, and the organizer is blind to it. The manager can then challenge the organizer to spend less time on that relationship.

Regardless of your situation, if you aren't tracking your organizational activities in comprehensive and meaningful ways, you are robbing yourself of valuable information that can be used to make your work more efficient. On the flip side, data can't save you. If you don't know your field, stakeholders, clients, constituents, or customers deeply, or if your organization is deeply dysfunctional, then terabytes of data won't make you successful.

What Does a Data Manager Do?

Recently I was asked to explain exactly what I do. That is an excellent question. I've been trying to come up with an elevator speech since I started with PICO. It is impossible.

PICO National Network is a network of 501(c)3 non-profits that work with faith communities to do social justice advocacy.

What is social justice advocacy? My colleague Edwin has a great analogy: imagine you live in a village on a river. One day, a baby floats down the river in a basket. Because you are a decent human being, you go get the baby. The next day, two babies come down the river. Three babies the day after. You end up organizing your friends and neighbors. You form a 501(c)3, raise funds, hire staff, and try to catch as many babies as possible. 

Eventually, you have to ask the question: where are the babies coming from? What can we do to go upriver and make sure fewer babies come down the river? That's social justice advocacy. PICO and its federations (what we call our affiliate non-profits) ask questions about how the society we live in is causing suffering, and how we can change the system. This means looking at the entire system (government, churches, business community, etc.) and fighting against the forces that cause people to suffer.

I support 11 state federations in their social justice work. These federations are coalitions of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other people of faith who want to go upriver and stop the babies being sent downriver.

My main role is to help the federations think about how to use information to build their power. That includes developing and utilizing systems for tracking volunteers, donors, events, etc. I help them target people to talk to when they do non-partisan election work. I do investigative and explanatory analysis on data, as well as produce data visualizations using proprietary data and public data.

I have experience in politics and non-profit campaigns in several states and across several cultures. I help several federations do strategic planning and outreach planning, host trainings, and network with like-minded organizations. In those situations, I provide another perspective and function as a sounding board.

I also help train, coach, and mentor new staff from a data perspective, but also using my previous experiences doing outreach and campaigns. I often provide support and encouragement in what is emotionally taxing work. 

I love this work because it brings together my faith, community outreach, and data science. I am able to integrate most aspects of my life in ways that couldn't when I was doing partisan work. Also, this work is much more foundational than electoral organizing; we are building a base of people that weren't previously involved and growing them into a force that can speak powerfully and prophetically to the powers that oppress them and their neighbors.

Protection from the Wolves

Fargo spoilers below.

I love the movie and television series, Fargo. The writing is excellent, the cinematography is beautiful, and the acting is top notch. But what I love the most about Fargo is the hidden gems that the writers put into the dialogue. 

The TV series is an anthology. Each season is mostly self-contained, with some random connections to the other seasons and the movie. In the first season, Billy Bob Thornton's character Malvo is a psychopathic (different from sociopathic) contract killer. He is traveling through Bemidji, Minnesota, on a job. His car crashes after hitting a deer, his target flees into the cold (and later dies of hypothermia), and he heads into town to get stitched up. 

While he is in town, Malvo causes severe damage. He murders two people, including the chief of police who is a soon-to-be father. It only takes Malvo a couple of days to turn the town upside down. He is a wolf among sheep.

He eventually heads to Duluth for another job. His actions in Bemidji follow him, though. Two small-town Midwestern police officers, one from Bemidji and one from Duluth, eventually catch Malvo's scent. He doesn't like this, and eventually follows the Duluth officer, a widower and father, to his apartment complex.

This is where one of those hidden gems lies. While Malvo is sitting outside the apartment complex, contemplating his upcoming killings, one of the residents knocks on Malvo's car window. The resident tells Malvo to go away. The apartment complex is a community. It cares for each other and protects each other from danger.

Up to this point, Malvo has terrified everyone he has encountered. However, all his encounters have been people who were alone: the man in a bad marriage, the police officer alone in the night. The apartment resident has the courage to stand up to the wolf because he is a part of a community. He isn't really alone. This minor, 2-scene, everyday guy is the only one in the series to prevent Malvo from creating destruction.

Communities can be dysfunctional. They can be abusive and manipulative, cold, unwelcoming, and harsh. When people don't follow lock-step with the wayward and crooked standards of the community, they are thrown out into the wild for the wolves to devour.

But communities can also be extremely powerful and nurturing. They can provide safety and identity. People who are in genuine, loving community with one another aren't threatened by the wolves. They don't fall easily for charlatans or demagogues.

So I wonder how much of the dysfunction in our world is due to there being too many dysfunctional communities, too many outcasts, and too many wolves. How much of the hurt in our world can be healed by forming the right kind of communities, the ones built on love, trust, and justice tempered with mercy.

It starts with us. In our families, our churches, our schools, our social clubs, and our Facebook groups, how are we treating each other? How are we treating those who are different from us? How about those who disagree with us? How do we treat those who are poor or oppressed? How do we treat those that have made mistakes?

The truth is that communities can transform even wolves. We use wolves as a symbol for wilderness or danger but our dogs, the animals many of us love more than people, were once wolves.

Getting People Involved - Why We Should Party

I had the opportunity yesterday to sit down with Bret Wells and Robert Bishop from the Missional Wisdom Foundation. It was a great conversation overall, but the part where I learned the most had to do with the question "Why do people not get involved?"

This is a problem that ministers, organizers, and politicians all face constantly. Ministers wonder why people don't show up to events outside of Sundays and Wednesdays. Organizers wonder why people who come to meetings don't show up to knock on doors. Politicians (the good ones, of which there are many) wonder why people don't show up to town halls, board meetings, or lobby days.

Bret showed me a framework like the one below. You might be familiar with it, but it was new to me:

The idea here is that the reasons why people don't get involved can be broken down into two main buckets: motivation and ability.

These barriers can be personal, social, or structural. A structural ability barrier would be something like lack of reliable internet. A personal motivation barrier would be individuals' inability to see the value in the activity.

Social motivation interests me. If people lack social circles, in which they are invested, that support taking part in certain activities, then people are much less likely to take part in those activities. This is a "duh" moment for me. This is one of the reasons why we have cliques and "scenes" that hang out in different parts of town, take part in different activities, and generally don't interact with one another. I could be a yuppie who also has an interest in goth-type activities, but since my main social circle is comprised of yuppies, I'm probably not going to go to a goth club.

This is also the reason why young professional groups with a strong socializing component are important for the social justice movement. If young people don't have friends that support their social justice work, they are much less likely to do that work. Young people are particularly needed in this work, but often underrepresented.

Many of us who work in social justice have a level of disdain for including socializing in our programs. There is a limited amount of time, and what seems like an unlimited amount of work to do. We feel the need to use every second to do what we view as the vital work of justice.

In reality, part of that work is to create social groups that value social justice work. If we don't, many talented people will fall between the cracks because they don't feel socially supported to do the work. This is why groups like OFA and PICO make sure to lift up the role of "comfort captain" (aka food provider) as equal to phone bank or canvass captains.

So before you pick up the phone or start printing that walk packet, think about planning a potluck or bar crawl.