Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Findings from 2008 JWJ Strategic Planning Survey
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Findings from 2008 JWJ Strategic Planning Survey

111
views

Published on

These are the findings from the national Jobs with Justice strategic planning process in 2008. These findings are based on a survey of the national network at that time.

These are the findings from the national Jobs with Justice strategic planning process in 2008. These findings are based on a survey of the national network at that time.

Published in: Career

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
111
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 45 JwJ coalitions in the network.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Findings from 2008 StrategicPlanning Information Gathering
    • 2. What Local Coalitions Want to Gain:• CAPACITY TO WIN NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS - We cannot now win or meaningfully contribute to national fights, even on our most core values (e.g. health care for all, EFCA) and our new structure must make that possible• HIGHER PROFILE, MORE CREDIT & CREDIBILITY – both with our partners, and externally in the public eye.• FUNDED BY OUR BASE – All else is moot if we don’t get funded by our own base. We’ll cease to exist. We’ll lose credibility.
    • 3. What Local Coalitions Don’t Want to Lose:• LOCAL AUTONOMY – consistent concern around balancing this with national alignment• DIVERSITY – Sector, age, race/ethnicity, geography• FIGHTING SPIRIT – action orientation, shin-kickers, in the grassroots, in the streets
    • 4. Our Strengths• Play a bridge role among sectors, provide permanent infrastructure for these to move together• The size of our base – our ability to deliver people.• How active our base is• The diversity of that base – Geography (not a beltway org, have a real field) – Race/ethnicity – Sectors – labor, faith, community, student – “Power sharing” – Age – Global connections• Our collaborative approach, non-competitive, help build our partners• National network is seen to strengthen the technical capacity of local coalitions• Very strong sense of shared values among people in the network
    • 5. Our Weaknesses• Low visibility for our accomplishments, don’t claim/get credit• Lack of strategic focus, scattershot in what we take on, “no plan”, “solidarity work not enough”• Our organizational stability too dependent upon external funding – lack of financial commitment from our base.• Geographic disconnection among our base - In interviews, our base in the field could hardly ever name a national victory or a victory of another JwJ coalition, rarely knew we had a national board or who is on it• At times, lack of coherence among local coalitions in how we work – some do/don’t do solidarity work, some do/don’t do independent base building, some do/don’t use the Be There pledge, WIDELY varied capacity, etc• National network is not seen as strengthening local campaigns• No real national decision-making structure
    • 6. Opportunities• Our base is primed, itching for real victories and ready to fight for them• Consistent desire for greater connection among coalitions (horizontal connection), both geographically and around issues• Consistent desire for national victories, capacity to win national fights (vertical alignment)• Consistent desire to define ourselves through our own fights in addition to solidarity mobilization• Openness among partners for new, emerging strategies (e-organizing, and new, emerging organizational alignments (global, independent worker orgs) opp for JwJ to infuse new strategic approaches into field• Potential for major labor law reform through EFCA• Potential for progressive national administration
    • 7. Threats• Our targets are increasingly living outside our communities, “out of arm’s reach” of local coalitions.• Legal attacks – RICO suits• Viewed by some as “unstrategic”, “solidarity-only”• E-activism and police state suppressing old-fashioned “feet in the streets” participation around which JwJ is organized
    • 8. Opportunity or Threat?• Growing resistance to the “solidarity” mobilization part of our mission – both internally and externally – seen as “un-strategic”, “getting dragged into bad fights”, a waste of time and resources, and credibility. Refrain of not understanding the value of tactics we’re asked to pick up• Very mixed response to national “days of action”• Increasing interest in / capacity to do electoral work
    • 9. Snapshot of the Network
    • 10. Jobs with Justice Coalitions
    • 11. Thirty-One Coalitions completed the survey monkey.
    • 12. General Information About JwJ Local CoalitionsGrowth: – Five coalitions were founded in the 80s – 19 were founded in the 90s, and – 8 were founded in 2000 or later. Base: Coalitions reported using databases with a total of 83,182 names and 50,783 addresses. (61% keep Access databases)
    • 13. Member Organizations• Thirty-three coalitions reported Joined on 1003 member organizations. 1988-1993 2007-2008 1994-1998 1% 15% 16%• Coalitions had a median of 25 member organizations each.• 58% of the member 2004-2006 organizations were unions or 32% 1999-2003 union structures (CLCs, 36% Building Trades Councils)
    • 14. Member OrganizationsNumber of Union Locals and affiliates UBC 15 of other national organizations that IUPAT 14 are members of local coalitions: NEA 14 LIUNA 13CWA 58 Ironworkers 12AFSCME 56 AFGE 11SEIU 40 Building Trades 11AFL-CIO 39 IATSE 11IBT 36 ATU 10USW 29 UE 10UFCW 24 ILWU 9IBEW 21 UCC 9UNITE HERE 20 Unitarian9AFT 19 Baptist 7UAW 19 Greens 7
    • 15. Membership OrganizationsIAM 7 IBU 3ACORN 6 Presbyterian 3AFM 6 UNAP 3APWU 6 UWUA 3AFSC 5 ANA 2APRI 5 ARA 2OPEIU 5 BAC 2SMWIA 5 BCTGM 2UA 5 Democrats 2Citizen Action 4 Episcopal 2CLUW 4 IAFF 2IUOE 4 IBB 2Iww 4 IFPTE 2NALC 4 LCLAA 2NOW 4 Roofers 2CBTU 3 SIU 2 All Other 366
    • 16. Dues from Member Organizations DuesCoalitions reported on >$6000dues for 595 member 2% $2000-$5000 $0 5% 10%organizations (several $1000-$1999 10%coalitions did not send $25-$99 19%in dues information). $200-$999 30%The median dues amount is $100-$199 24% $250.
    • 17. Leadership of Local CoalitionsCoalitions reported on 341 leaders and officers from the following organizations:SEIU 22CWA 21 UAW 7UFCW 16 NEA 7AFSCME 15 AFT 7AFL-CIO 12 IBEW 6USW 9 LIUNA 3UNITE HERE 8 IBT 3
    • 18. Leadership of Local CoalitionsThe leaders’ roles in their own organization were most commonly reported as:Staff 33%Activist 21%Other 16%Rank & File Member 8%Executive Director 8%Retiree 8%Volunteer 6%47% of all leaders are female (43% of officers).
    • 19. Leadership Development• 77% of coalitions reported that they do leadership development. Half of coalitions do one-on-ones in order to develop leaders, and 30% do mentoring.• Half of coalitions have done leadership development with fewer than 10 people. 36% 10-50 and 14% more than 50.
    • 20. Committees of Local Coalitions• 62% of coalitions reported that they have committees.• Coalitions reported having an average of 4 committees each.
    • 21. Coalitions reported they have the following 78 committees:• WRB8 • Health Care4• Steering7 • Membership3• Economic Development6 • Outreach3• Immigrant Rights5 • Personnel3• Faith5 • Finance & Fundraising3• Mobilization5 • Fundraising Only2• Direct Organizing5 • Finance Only2• Workers Rights4 • Global Justice2• SLAP4 • Other7
    • 22. Staff of Local Coalitions• 77% of the coalitions have staff.• Coalitions reported on $60-70,000 4% $10-20,000 $50-60,000 66 permanent staff 4% 19% $40-50,000 positions. 25% $20-30,000 12%• 39% are union members. $30-40,000 36%• 71% get benefits.
    • 23. Workers’ Rights Boards• 20 Coalitions reported having WRBs.• Most coalitions reported that their WRB meets as needed. Three coalitions have regular meetings of their WRBs monthly or bi-monthly.• Only two coalitions reported more than one WRB event per year (generally a WRB hearing). Eleven coalitions reported that their coalitions host one WRB event per year and the rest reported very rarely.
    • 24. Students• 24 coalitions reported working with students. Eleven said that a student sits on their executive board and eleven said a student leads on one of their campaigns. Eight have students on staff.• Four coalitions have hosted a GROW in recent years.• Fifteen have participated in the Student Labor Week of Action in recent years.
    • 25. Current Campaigns• Coalitions reported that they are currently involved in 69 ongoing campaigns on a wide range of issues from union organizing campaigns to economic development and direct organizing. – 65% of coalitions reported they are currently working on at least one union campaign. – 42% are working on health care, – 29% immigration, – 23% Economic Development, – 16% voter engagement.• Coalitions were asked to list their 3 most important recent campaigns. – 68% listed at least one union campaign. – 32% listed health care, – 19% listed immigrant rights, – 19% listed economic development. – Other campaigns listed included direct organizing, minimum wage, base building, voter engagement, and trade.
    • 26. Campaigns with non-member allies• 83% of coalitions reported working on at least one campaign with non-member allies. – 9 coalitions worked on economic development campaigns with non-member allies. – 8 coalitions reported working on workers’ rights campaigns – 8 reported working on immigrant rights. – 4 reported they worked on campaigns around racial equality (eg) affirmative action, black-brown dialogue, with non-member allies.
    • 27. Direct Organizing Campaigns• Nearly half of the coalitions reported that they have engaged in direct community organizing campaigns, with 13 coalitions currently engaged.• 42% have engaged in direct worker organizing, with 12 currently engaged.• 58% are currently building an organization of individuals.• They reported working on campaigns that affect African Americans 38%, Latino/a 29%, Caucasian 15%.• 56% of the campaigns primarily affect working class people. 18% living below the poverty line and 18% middle class.• 76% of the campaigns had organized less than 100 people. Five campaigns organized 100-500 people, and one campaign more than 2,000.
    • 28. Mobilization CapacityWith three weeks lead time: – 40% of coalitions reported that they could turn out 25 to 100 people. – 36% could turn out 100 to 500 people, – 20% could turn out up to 25 people, – one could turn out 1000.Half of coalitions reported that the largest mobilization they had done in the last 2 years was between 100-500 people.18% reported it was over 1,000.
    • 29. Communications Tools• E-Activism 81%• Website 71%• Mail 68%• Get Active 58%• Fax 42%• Facebook 35%• Other 32%• Myspace 26%• YouTube 16%• Text Message 13%
    • 30. Media Capacity• 84% of coalitions reported that they keep a media list.• 55% reported that they maintain ongoing relationships with reporters.• Twenty coalitions reported that they track the media they get.• 39% of coalitions said that they produce their own media ranging from newsletters to indymedia stories to producing their own public access TV shows.• Six coalitions reported that they have published writings on JwJ.
    • 31. Communication AssessmentWhat local coalitions want:• More inter-network communications• Media and external communications support.• Messaging and material development connected to campaigns.• Strategically use communication tools to promote the work we are doing and our vision.
    • 32. What Local Coalitions Want to Gain:• CAPACITY TO WIN NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS - We cannot now win or meaningfully contribute to national fights, even on our most core values (e.g. health care for all, EFCA) and our new structure must make that possible• HIGHER PROFILE, MORE CREDIT & CREDIBILITY – both with our partners, and externally in the public eye.• FUNDED BY OUR BASE – All else is moot if we don’t get funded by our own base. We’ll cease to exist. We’ll lose credibility.
    • 33. What Local Coalitions Don’t Want to Lose:• LOCAL AUTONOMY – consistent concern around balancing this with national alignment• DIVERSITY – Sector, age, race/ethnicity, geography• FIGHTING SPIRIT – action orientation, shin-kickers, in the grassroots, in the streets