Approaches to Community Organizing and Their Relationship to Consens.docx

Approaches to Community Organizing and Their Relationship to
Consensus Organizing
Purpose:
This chapter defines community, civic engagement, and social
capital, and their relationship to community organizing. Various
approaches to community organizing, including consensus
organizing, are discussed and compared.
Learning Objectives:
To define and discuss community, civic engagement and social
capital and their relationship to community organizing.
To define and analyze traditional and current approaches to
community organizing.
traditional and current approaches.
To analyze and compare various approaches to community
organizing by applying them to specific circumstances and
issues.
Keywords:
community, civic engagement, social capital, community
organizing, power-based organizing, community building,
locality development/civic organizing, social planning, women-
centered/feminist organizing, consensus organizing
Community, Civic Engagement, and Social Capital
The word “community” can mean different things to different
people. Community can be used to refer to communities of
association (e.g., religious communities), gender, race, or
geography. Cohen (
1985
) defines community as a system of norms, values, and moral
codes that provide a sense of identity for members. Fellin (
2001
) describes a community as a group of people who form a social
unit based on common location (e.g., city or neighborhood),
interest and identification (e.g., ethnicity, culture, social class,
occupation, or age) or some combination of these
characteristics. In many community organizing approaches,

geography is the determining factor for community, including
“... people who live within a geographically defined area and
who have social and psychological ties with each other and with
the place where they live” (
Mattessich, Monsey, & Roy, 1997
, p. 6). This workbook uses a definition of community that
emphasizes geography, including neighborhoods, and
relationships, including social and psychological connections
and networks.
Scholars as far back as Alexis de Tocqueville (
Stone & Mennell, 1980
) have emphasized the engagement of the community as a focal
point of a healthy democracy. More recently, scholars and
researchers have argued that civic engagement and participation
are decreasing, jeopardizing our democratic system. Etzioni (
1993
) warned that declining civic engagement and responsibility
were eroding the fabric of American society. Putnam’s (
2000
)
Bowling Alone
provided statistical evidence of the decline in citizen
participation over the past 50 years and its negative
implications for democratic life. However, Smock (
2004
) argues that a “significant portion of our nation’s population
has always been excluded from meaningful participation in the
democratic arena” (p. 5). Furthermore, genuine political
equality must be built on equal access to voting, as well as
direct participation in public decision making.
Putnam’s (
2000
) solution to the erosion of civic engagement involves
rebuilding the social fabric or social capital of communities.
Social capital is defined as “... the connections among
individuals—social networks and norms of reciprocity and

trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19). Putnam argues
that social capital is important for government effectiveness,
economic health, and community well-being. Social capital and
networks also allow ordinary people to engage in the political
process, work together to solve common problems, improve the
quality of life, and take advantage of opportunities (
Smock, 2004
). Furthermore, the role of social capital in understanding and
strengthening community organizing and development has been
noted by several scholars (
Gittell & Vidal, 1998
;
Hornburg & Lang, 1998
;
Keyes, Schwartz, Vidal, & Bratt, 1996
), including understanding how community organizing
facilitates social capital, developing supportive social networks
for the production of affordable housing, and building
connections that low-income communities may need in the face
of diminishing federal responsibility. Temkin and Rohe (
1998
) found that social capital is a key factor determining
neighborhood stability over time, including the overall sense of
attachment and loyalty among residents, and the capacity of
residents to leverage their relationships and networks into
effective community action.
Table 1.1
summarizes the types and functions of social capital. Putnam
makes an important distinction between two types of social
capital: bonding and bridging (
Putnam, 2000
). Bonding social capital involves dense social networks among
small groups of people that bring them closer together. It is
inward-looking, tends to reinforce exclusive identities and
homogeneous groups, and accumulates in the daily lives of
families and people living in communities through the course of

informal interactions. Bridging social capital is composed of
loosely connected networks of large numbers of individuals
typically linked through indirect ties. It is outward-looking,
connects communities and people to others, and encompasses
people across diverse social groups and/or localities. Temkin
and Rohe (
1998
) also found that both bonding and bridging social capital are
needed to create positive community change.
Table 1.1 Types and Functions of Social Capital
Definition
Example
Types
Putnam (
2000
)
Bonding
Dense social networks among small groups of people linked
through direct, strong ties
Members of a local church
Members of a local block club or organization
Bridging
Loosely connected networks of large numbers of individuals
linked through indirect ties
Metropolitan bank investing in the work of community
development corporation (CDC)
Functions
Smock (
2004
)

Instrumental Ties
Based on the expectation of tangible, material benefits
Residents joining the CDC to develop and secure low-interest
loans or grants for housing rehabilitation
Affective Ties
Based on personal and emotional attachments
Residents joining a block club to attend regular social
gatherings and get to know their neighbors
Normative Ties
Based on a shared sense of values, principles, obligations
Joining a national organization committed to social justice for
the poor and oppressed
Smock (
2004
) further distinguishes social capital and networks by their
substance and function, including instrumental, affective, and
normative ties. Instrumental ties are based on the expectation of
tangible, material benefits; affective ties are based on personal
and emotional attachments; and normative ties are based on a
shared sense of values, principles, and/or obligations.
Community organizing approaches differ in how they facilitate
social capital and networks, the forms they take, and the
functions they serve. However, they share the same goal: to
develop social capital and networks in an attempt to address the
erosion of civic engagement, particularly among those typically
left out of the decision-making process. Community organizing
provides a mechanism for ordinary citizens to impact public
decision making in order to improve their social and economic
conditions.
Community Organizing Approaches
Table 1.2
summarizes the major approaches to community organizing,
including consensus organizing, by synthesizing approaches
defined by Rothman (

1968
, 1996, 2001) and Smock (
2004
). Approaches and models of community organizing have
evolved over the last century; however, initial approaches can
be traced back to Saul Alinsky (
1946
,
1971
), who is seen as the founder of community organizing. His
approach to community organizing, called conflict organizing,
was the dominant form of community organizing practiced over
the past century and it continues to be practiced today (
Eichler, 2007
;
Smock, 2004
). Saul Alinsky (1971) incorporated the idea of self-interest as a
motivating factor for community involvement. The goal of
conflict organizing was empowerment through the development
of People’s Organizations in which regular people with similar
self-interests would come together and confront and make
demands on the power structure to create improvements for the
community (
Eichler, 2007
;
Smock, 2004
).
Table 1.2 Comparing Community Organizing Approaches and
Social Action/Power Based
Social Action/Transformative
Locality Development/Civic Organizing
Social Planning
Community Building
Women-Centered/Feminist

Theory of Change/Goals
Build/shift power; build clout to represent interests
Radically restructure power and institutions
Restore social order/control; social integration
Develop expert solutions to problems
Strengthen the social fabric; connect to outside resources
Link private women/family and public issues
Power creation based on mutual self-interest
Organizing/Change Strategy
Organize residents to confront power structure
Develop broad-based movement for social change
Create informal forums for residents
Solve substantive social/economic problems
Develop legitimacy; build on the assets of the community
Build women’s leadership; make public responsive
Parallel organizing among residents and power structure
Tactics and Techniques
Conflict and confrontation; direct action and negotiation
Popular education, critical thinking, protest, symbolic action
Develop vehicles for informal and formal social control
Gather data about problems and develop solutions
Rebuild community with comprehensive plans/programs;
discussion/dialogue
Shared leadership, decisionmaking, and responsibility; mutual
support
Build relationships and partnerships based on mutual self-
interest
Leadership/Governance
Broad people’s organization run by resident leaders
Resident organizations run by a core group of leaders
Open and unstructured forums run by residents
Formal organizations, not necessarily with residents
Collaborative partnership of neighborhood stakeholders
Highly inclusive, resident-run organizations based on equality
Communityrun organizations; organize power structure as

partner
View of Power
Community lacks power; take power from the public sphere
Power structure disempowers low-income residents; challenge
power
Power structure is a potential partner; share power
Power structure as employers/sponsors, and coordinators
Power structure is a potential partner; share power
Power structure is potential partner; share power
Power structure is potential partner; create and share power
View of Public Sphere
External target of action; oppressors to coerce/pressure
External target of action; alter current framework; conflict
Use official channels to secure services
Power structure initiates change; collaborator
Develop consensual partnerships with the power structure
Interpersonal relationships with power structure
Link selfinterest of public sphere to community
Social Capital/Networks
Bridging social capital based on instrumental ties
Bonding/bridging social capital based on normative ties
Bonding social capitalaffective/instrumental ties
Bridging social capital based on normative ties
Bridging social capital based on normative ties
Mainly bonding, some bridging—affective ties
Bonding and bridging—affective/instrumental ties
Role of the Practitioner
Broker, trainer, advocate, agitator
Trainer, negotiator, advocate
Often no staff; when there is staff, role is a coordinator
Fact gatherer and analyst; program implementer
Coordinator, technically skilled leader, teacher
Enabler, teacher, supporter, problem solver
Facilitator, analyst, strategist, broker, connector
Ultimate Outcomes
Alter balance of power; change distribution of resources

Shift terms of public debate, alter framework of public sphere
Connect residents with government; undermine patronage
system
Creation of solutions to substantive problems
Vehicle for comprehensive planning; impact public priorities
Create familyfocused, resident-run, communitybased programs
Leadership and partnerships developed; tangible results
Social Action
Today’s social action models have their roots in conflict
organizing. Social action approaches assume the existence of an
aggrieved or disadvantaged segment of the population that
needs to be organized to make demands on the larger
community for increased resources or equal treatment
(Rothman, 1995). The goals of social action include making
fundamental changes in the community, such as redistributing
resources and gaining access to decision making for marginal
groups, and changing legislative mandates, policies, and
practices of institutions.
Smock (
2004
) distinguishes between power-based and transformative social
action models (see
Table 1.2
). Power-based organizers believe there is a power imbalance
and they must work to shift or build power. However,
transformative models believe that the power structure/system is
fundamentally flawed, and they work to radically restructure it.
Power-based models emphasize bridging social capital based on
instrumental ties and individual self-interest. Transformative
models facilitate social capital based on normative ties that is
bonding (e.g., among small groups of residents) and bridging
(e.g., with groups of activists and organizations outside their
neighborhood based on a shared ideological vision).
Examples of national organizations using social action
approaches today include the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF),
which was created by Saul Alinsky; ACORN (Association of

Communities Organizations for Reform Now); and the Midwest
Academy. Smock provides examples of organizations that
utilize power-based (e.g., West Ridge Organization of
Neighbors in Chicago) and transformative organizing
approaches (e.g., Justice Action Group). While social action is
the primary form of organizing used by these organizations, it is
important to note that many have adapted their social action
approaches over time. For example, the IAF uses relational
organizing strategies. Chambers (
2003
) explains that under Alinsky, community organizing meant to
“pick a target, mobilize, and hit it” (p. 46). However, under the
modern IAF, the approach is “connect and relate to others” (p.
6). With relational organizing, the organizer builds
relationships and connects to individuals around their interests
first, and then picks targets and mobilizes (
Chambers, 2003
).
Locality Development/Civic Organizing
Another form of community organizing is the locality
development/civic model (see
Table 1.2
). Locality or community development is a neighborhood-based
strategy used to engage a broad range of key stakeholders in
developing goals and taking civic action (
Rothman, 2001
). The goals of locality/community development are to build the
capacity of community residents to solve problems and foster
social integration, including the development of harmonious
relationships among diverse people (
Rothman, 2001
). Community development corporations are examples of
organizations that use locality development. Smock’s (
2004
) civic model of organizing is similar to locality development;
however, the main goal is to restore social order and social

control by creating informal forums for residents to discuss
issues and concerns and partnering with the public sphere to
address those concerns. Civic organizations facilitate bonding
social capital based on affective (e.g., small homogeneous
groups of residents) and instrumental ties (e.g., sense of
collective identity and cooperative action). While self-interest
is the initial motivating factor for involvement, personal
relationships develop as members work together on common
issues that go beyond purely personal concerns. The Chicago
Alternative Policing Strategy is an example of a program that
uses the civic approach to community organizing (
Smock, 2004
).
Social Planning
As seen in
Table 1.2
, social planning is a form of community organizing that focuses
a technical process of problem solving regarding substantive
social problems that utilizes the expertise of professionals (
Rothman, 2001
). The goals of social planning include the design of formal
plans and policy frameworks for delivering goods and services
to people who need them (
Rothman, 2001
). The power structure itself initiates change as employers and
sponsors of comprehensive planning efforts aimed at addressing
substantive social and economic problems. Social planning
facilitates bridging social capital based on normative ties. The
focus is on the interests of participating agencies and the
community at large, rather than the individual self-interest of
residents. Examples of organizations that facilitate social
planning are local community planning departments and United
Way agencies.
Community Building
Another model of community organizing is community building,
which encompasses elements of both locality development and

social planning approaches (see
Table 1.2
). Community building focuses on strengthening the social and
economic fabric of communities by connecting them to outside
resources (
Smock, 2004
). The goal is to build the internal capacity of communities by
focusing on their assets/strengths, and engaging a broad range
of community stakeholders to develop high-quality and
technically sound comprehensive plans (
Smock, 2004
). Community building facilitates bridging social capital by
creating social networks among large numbers of agencies and
institutions based on normative ties (i.e., a shared vision of the
common good of the community). The focus is on the
identifying the common interests of agencies who have a stake
in the neighborhood. An example of a community building
approach is the Asset-Based Community Development Institute
founded by Kretzman and McKnight (
1984
).
Women-Centered/Feminist Organizing
The women-centered/feminist model challenges the traditional
separation between the private lives of women and families and
the public sphere (
Smock, 2004
). Elements of both locality development and social action are
included in this model. The locality development aspects of the
model are encompassed in feminist concepts, including caring
and nurturance, democratic processes, inclusiveness, respect,
and skill/leadership development and utilization (
Rothman, 1996
;
Smock, 2004
). The social action aspects of the model include a desire for
fundamental cultural and political change in the patriarchal

system by making the public sphere more responsible and
creating community-run, family-friendly programs (
Rothman, 1996
;
Smock, 2004
). The goal is to create balanced power relationships through
democratic processes, and relationships are built through
understanding and responsibility rather than individual self-
interest (
Eichler, 2007
). Women-centered models facilitate primarily bonding social
capital (e.g., small social networks of women) based on
affective, intensely personal ties (
Smock, 2004
). Bridging social capital is also developed by fostering bonds
between small networks of women and external institutions and
communities. Smock describes several examples of women-
centered/feminist organizations, including the Templeton
Leadership Circle in Portland, Oregon.
Defining Consensus Organizing and Comparing it with Other
Approaches
The focus of this workbook is on consensus organizing.
Table 1.2
describes the major components of the model. Consensus
organizers believe that power can be created, shared, and
harnessed for the mutual benefit of communities and the
external power structure. Consensus organizing uses a technique
called parallel organizing in which community organizers
mobilize and bring together the interests within the community,
as well as the political, economic, and social power structure
from outside the community (
Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal, 2001
;
Eichler, 2007
). The goal of consensus organizing is the development of deep,
authentic relationships and partnerships among and between

community residents and stakeholders, and members of the
external power structure to facilitate positive and tangible
community change. Eichler argues that consensus organizers
recognize the value and power of engaging honest and dedicated
people from both the community and the power structure.
Consensus organizing encompasses elements of several of the
community organizing approaches described above, but is also
different from these approaches in several ways. Similar to
locality development and community building, consensus
organizing focuses on the community’s assets or resources, and
engages a broad range of stakeholders from the community,
including residents, local faith-based organizations and
businesses, schools, and other organizations. However,
consensus organizers simultaneously identify and engage a core
group of members of the external power structure who could
help and support the community. Consensus organizing
functions like power-based models in its focus on developing
the leadership of a core group of individuals in the community
who are respected, but may not currently hold leadership
positions. However, in contrast to conflict or power-based
models that tend to work primarily through established
organizational networks (e.g., churches) to engage large
numbers of residents, consensus organizers build a core group
of new leaders and organizations with broad representation by
cutting across lines of existing neighborhood interests, leaders,
and organizations (
). Furthermore, consensus organizers seek to establish and build
the capacity of community-controlled local organizations that
cross racial, ethnic, and class lines and bring together residents,
as well as other community stakeholders such as local social
service agencies, businesses, and institutions, including
hospitals and schools (
). Similar to women-centered/feminist models, these local
organizations foster shared leadership, decision making, and

responsibility, and create community-based programs that
improve the quality of life of the community.
Similar to Saul Alinsky and the power-based models, consensus
organizing incorporates the concept of individual self-interest
as motivator for change; however, consensus organizers harness
the individual self-interest of both residents and members of the
power structure for the mutual gain of the community (
Beck & Eichler, 2000
). Furthermore, conflict-based, power-based, or transformative
organizers believe power must be taken, shifted, or restructured
using confrontational, aggressive, in-your-face tactics, while
consensus organizers believe power can be shared and created
through dialogue and the development of strategic partnerships
based on mutual self-interest (
Eichler, 2007
;
Smock, 2004
). Furthermore, the power structure does not have be forced to
act in ways that support community change, but can be engaged
and organized in support of social justice goals (
).
Consensus organizers facilitate both bonding and bridging
social capital based on affective and instrumental ties.
Consensus organizers build both bonds and bridges within low-
income communities, and foster bridges between residents and
other community stakeholders and members of the external
power structure (
). Dense, personal relationships are developed among residents
and other community stakeholders and between residents and
members of the power structure based on mutual self-interest.
Bridges between low-income communities and the external
power structure are intended to go beyond providing charitable
contributions and other types of investment to include technical
and political support for low-income communities (

). Consensus organizers believe the desire for individual gains
and benefits (e.g., self-interest) can be harnessed as a
motivation for improving the community, and therefore
relationships are built on instrumental ties that are both
personal and communal. Thus, the goal of consensus organizing
is to develop and knit together the interests of the “wealthy and
the poor, the powerful and the powerless, the policy maker and
the consumer” (
, p. 93). The deeper and wider the partnership, the greater the
capacity for community change.
Examples of organizations developed through the consensus
organizing model will be discussed throughout this workbook.
One example is the Consensus Organizing Demonstration
Project, a multi-site community organizing effort to form
community development corporations spearheaded by the Local
Initiatives Support Corporation in 1991 (
Chaskin et al., 2001
). Current examples of consensus organizing projects include
the Price Community Builders program, and the Fostering
Community Connections program sponsored by the Consensus
Organizing Center at San Diego State University.
The Conceptual Model for Consensus Organizing
Figure 1.1
illustrates the conceptual model for consensus organizing. At
the heart of the model is the development of social capital and
networks among and between residents and members of the
external power structure, and the creation of opportunities for
positive community change. The activities on the left side of the
model lead to the short-term, intermediate, and long-term
outcomes in the middle and right-hand side of the diagram. The
major activities of the consensus organizer include analyzing
and defining the self-interest and potential contributions of
residents and other community stak-holders, as well as members
of the power structure. They do this mainly through the

community analysis, which will be described in detail in
Section III
of the workbook. Consensus organizers also analyze
information gathered through the community analysis, engage
the community in developing ideas and strategies for improving
their community, and secure their commitment to act on their
ideas. Finally, the consensus organizer’s key role is to build in-
depth relationships among and between residents, stakeholders,
and members of the external power structure through deliberate
dialogue and collaboration. The consensus organizer is the
initial bridge between the community and external resources,
building connections based on mutual self-interest, ideas, and
energy.
Figure 1.1 The Consensus Organizing Model
The short-term and intermediate outcomes of consensus
organizing include trust, confidence, and awareness of
community strengths and assets among residents and external
resources, developed through mutual self-interest and
awareness. A resident-driven agenda also emerges that both
residents and members of the external power structure can
embrace and support. The long-term outcomes of consensus
organizing include the development of leadership among
residents, stakeholders, and members of the external power
structure, and the creation and sharing of power and
partnerships based on mutual self-interest and consensus. A
major outcome of consensus organizing is that real community
change occurs, producing tangible economic, physical, and/or
social changes in poor communities. In summary, consensus
organizing builds on, extends, and goes beyond other models of
organizing to build dynamic partnerships among both residents
and power brokers to create tangible community change that can
be owned and celebrated by everyone involved.
Discussion Questions
1.
What are some examples of bridging and bonding social capital
from your everyday experiences? How is an understanding of

bridging and bonding social capital helpful in understanding
social networks? How would you explain social capital to
someone else?
2.
Which of the community organizing approaches explained in
this chapter appeals the most to you? Which one would you be
more likely to use and why?
3.
Briefly explain the main differences between consensus
organizing and the community organizing models presented in
this chapter. What are the main similarities?
4.
How might you utilize consensus organizing in solving
problems and issues that you are aware of through your own
experiences (e.g., personal, work, volunteer)?
5.
What are the main activities involved in consensus organizing?
What experiences have you had in carrying out similar types of
activities? What outcomes resulted from your activities? How
were your outcomes similar to and/or different from the
outcomes of consensus organizing?
Case Study Exercises
Instructions:
The following case studies present actual community
organizing projects developed using social action/power-based
and consensus organizing models. The purpose of this exercise
is to analyze the major goals, strategies, tactics, and
components of each of these models. Break into small groups to
read each case study and answer the questions that follow.
Afterwards, have a large group discussion about your answers.
Case Study A: Social Action/Power-Based Organizing:
ACORN—Organizing Workfare Workers in Los Angeles, CA
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN) is a national social action group made up of low- and
moderate-income families working to promote strong
communities and social justice issues, including housing,

schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions, and
more. It was founded in 1970 and currently works in 75 cities in
the United States, Canada, the Dominican Republic, and Peru
(ACORN, n.d.).
After the passage of welfare reform in 1996 (Personal
Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
[PRWORA]), ACORN organized workfare workers in Los
Angeles from 1996 to 1998, using both labor and community
organizing strategies to build an organization called the
Workforce Workers Organizing Committee (WWOC;
Brooks, 2001
). Labor strategies included going to work sites and recruiting
members, and asking them to sign cards authorizing
ACORN/WWOC to represent them in labor negotiations with
the local Department of Public Social Services (DPSS;
Brooks, 2001
). The community organizing strategies involved planning
meetings, large membership meetings and direct actions on
targets to make demands (
Brooks, 2001
).
ACORN was actually formed out of the National Welfare Rights
Organization, so organizing around workfare and welfare issues
brought ACORN’s organizers back to their roots in developing
campaigns to address welfare issues (
Brooks, 2001
). ACORN organizers were concerned about how PRWORA
would affect individuals receiving welfare because they felt
POWRA was exploitative of low-income workers, and that the
work requirements could create a pool of free labor displacing
full-time workers (
Brooks, 2001
). The time limits and work requirements imposed by PRWORA
could also become mandated for General Assistance and other
workfare programs. Workfare workers interviewed during the
recruitment felt that work-fare had a stigma attached to it, their

wages were often two to three times lower than those of other
workers doing the same work, and workfare didn’t help them
get wage-based employment. Furthermore, workfare workers
faced health and safety issues on the job, inadequate training
and equipment, and lack of support services (
Brooks, 2001
).
ACORN organizers visited 500 workfare sites to interview
workers about their concerns and recruit them into WWOC (
Brooks, 2001
). Then these workers were invited to attend the WWOC
meetings and events to discuss the issues, strategies, tactics,
and targets. After this, a meeting was held to elect the officers
of WWOC and develop an action plan to address the issues of
concern about workfare. Within a week of this meeting, a direct
action event was held, which targeted workfare supervisors at a
local hospital, resulting in a series of demands being met by the
supervisors (i.e., workfare workers would have the same
uniforms, bathrooms, and cafeteria discount as other workers) (
Brooks, 2001
). Over the course of the year and a half, WWOC held weekly
planning meetings, monthly membership meetings, and direct
actions. A democratic structure was used where members
participated “in all activities and decisions made by and for the
organization” (
Brooks, 2001
, p. 81). In addition, members also participated in leadership
training.
ACORN and WWOC also engaged allies for the effort,
including clergy, churches, civil and immigrant rights
organizations, labor unions, legal and community organizations,
and some Hollywood celebrities (
Brooks, 2001
). This was important because of the political climate
surrounding PRWORA, which was primarily anti-welfare-
focused, and the nature of the targeted constituency, who were

mostly able-bodied males without dependents. These allies
supported the campaign by endorsing it, assisting with research,
speaking at actions, and getting other people to turn out for
events (
Brooks, 2001
).
Multiple groups were targeted as part of the campaign, given
the bureaucratic and political nature of the issue (
Brooks, 2001
). The targets included: workfare employers/sites, DPSS offices
(personal target was the director of the local office), and the LA
Board of Supervisors (e.g., who controlled DPSS budgets,
priorities, and appointments of directors). The tactics at the
direct actions included making demands, chants and songs,
street theater and props, disturbing business as usual, displaying
banners, signs, and flyers, and meeting with the press (
Brooks, 2001
). More than 30 direct actions were held, which won
ACORN/WWOC a seat at the table for negotiating sessions
about workfare conditions and policy decisions.
The campaign led to several substantive changes in the
workforce/General Relief polices in Los Angeles, including a
grievance procedure, a brochure listing clients’ rights and
responsibilities, improved health and safety regulations, more
equitable treatment at workfare sites, and priority hiring lists
for workfare workers by private and public employers (
Brooks, 2001
). In addition, the General Relief workfare program was
changed into a new program similar to other welfare programs
(e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF) and
offered assistance with job search, education, training, and/or
workfare (
Brooks, 2001
). The following factors were considered key to their success:
“(1) the depth and breadth of the membership,” “(2) winning the
moral high ground” (e.g., getting support of clergy and other

community leaders), “(3) persistence,” and “(4) the combination
of labor and community organizing tactics” (
Brooks, 2001
, p. 78).
Questions About the ACORN Case Study
1.
What were the goals of ACORN’s organizing campaign?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
2.
How were members of the external power structure viewed? Did
these views change during the course of the campaign?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
3.
What was the problem? What were the strategies and tactics
used to solve the problem?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________

_____________________
4.
Do you think that social capital/networks were developed as a
result of this organizing campaign? If so, explain.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
5.
What were the outcomes of this organizing campaign?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
6.
What other issues would be suitable for a social action/power-
based organizing approach? Please give one example and
explain why.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
Case Study B: The Evolution of Consensus Organizing: Perry
Hilltop Citizens Council, Pittsburgh, PA

Mike Eichler, the founder of consensus organizing, developed
the model while working as a Volunteers in Service to America
(VISTA) volunteer in the Perry Hilltop neighborhood in
Pittsburgh in the mid-1970s (
Eichler, 2007
). The neighborhood association was concerned about the
activities of local real estate companies, which were trying to
generate commissions in the neighborhood by engaging in
“blockbusting.” This practice involved destabilizing the
neighborhood and encouraging resident turnover by stirring up
fears that the racial balance would change and property values
would plummet. Eichler, who was trained in conflict organizing
through the Industrial Areas Foundation, responded the way
conflict organizers are trained to respond: He organized
residents to direct their hostility and put pressure on the real
estate company responsible for the blockbusting.
Black and White neighborhood residents were trained as
“testers” in order to prove that the blockbusting was occurring (
). The testers went separately to the blockbusting real estate
company to say they were looking for a home, giving the agent
the same information about their income, savings, credit rating,
family size, and housing desires (
Eichler, 2007
). White testers were steered to suburbs that were virtually all
White, and when they asked about seeing a home in Perry
Hilltop, the agent steered them away from the neighborhood.
The agent steered the Black testers away from the suburbs and
encouraged them to look at homes in Perry Hilltop (
Eichler, 2007
). With this disparaging information, residents picketed the real
estate broker, sued the company, and eventually won the lawsuit
(
). The company was sued for $5,000; however, their sales in the
neighborhood had grown significantly during this time, making

the $5,000 a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue they
gained from increased sales (
).
Eichler realized that if the residents wanted to make real
changes in their neighborhood, they would need a new approach
(
;
Eichler, 2007
). His solution, which was to get residents involved in selling
real estate, energized the residents. With their special
knowledge of the neighborhood and their neighbors, the
residents would have a natural advantage in the marketplace,
and they could use their status as realtors to dispel the cloud of
suspicion and fear that made blockbusting possible. However,
they discovered that real estate agents couldn’t operate without
a broker who had held a license for three years (
). Eichler assisted the residents in developing several lists that
they used to negotiate with potential brokers, which included
the neighborhood’s self-interests and strengths, and the broker’s
self-interests, noting areas of overlap (
). They approached the biggest brokerage in the area and
presented the proposal; however, the owner felt that property
values in the neighborhood had not bottomed out yet (
Eichler, 2007
). The owner of the brokerage said he wanted to wait at least
three years until property values in the neighborhood had
bottomed out. After that, he said he would help sell the
properties very cheaply to yuppies, who could then gentrify the
neighborhood. While the residents were clearly disappointed,
the owner’s response energized them and made them realize
they now had to do something to prevent this scenario from
happening. Having at least been treated with the blunt honesty

appropriate among businesspeople discussing a serious business
proposal, the residents were ready to try again.
The next brokerage that the residents approached accepted their
proposal (
Eichler, 2007
). This broker was smaller and had more modest goals than the
first one, and felt he could make money by working with the
residents. Residents documented their efforts in the
neighborhood newsletter, and everyone got involved in helping
the four residents who agreed to become real estate agents. The
four residents studied for and passed the real estate exam the
first time even though the average failure rate was 75% (
). The brokerage opened an office in a renovated building in the
neighborhood, with the four resident brokers as staff. People in
the neighborhood helped the agents get business by keeping
their ears open for families who were planning to leave the
neighborhood for normal versus racial reasons. Because the
agents were residents themselves, their credibility also helped
instill confidence in potential buyers. However, the lenders
were reluctant to lend because they were worried about the
stability of the neighborhood. In addition, the appraisers were
assigning much lower values to the homes than the asking
prices.
Discovering that local banks consistently refused to lend funds
to prospective buyers, the owner of the brokerage was angry and
worked with the neighborhood brokers to address this issue (
). They decided to approach the appraisers from a position of
strength, letting them know about the value of the improvements
neighborhood residents had recently made to their homes (
Eichler, 2007
). As a result, the appraiser concluded that the true values of the
property were above the loan amounts, and the bank began
making loans. The resident real estate agents also worked to end
the blockbusting-induced panic by spreading the word of their

own successes. As neighborhood homes sold at respectable
prices, the fears of other residents about the value of their own
properties diminished. In the end, the neighborhood stabilized
and the blockbusting ended. The neighborhood remains racially
mixed and a pleasant place to live to this day. Twenty years
later, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette highlighted Perry Hilltop as
one of the best racially mixed neighborhoods in the city (
Eichler, 2007
).
Questions About the Consensus Organizing Case Study
1.
What were the initial goals in solving the “blockbusting”
problem in Perry Hilltop? How similar and/or different were
these goals after the lawsuit was successfully won?
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
2.
How were power and members of the external power structure
viewed initially? After the lawsuit?
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
3.
What was the problem? What were the initial strategies and
tactics used to solve the problem? How did the definition of the

problem and the initial strategies and tactics change after the
lawsuit?
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
4.
What social capital/networks were developed using the initial
strategies to solve the blockbusting problem? What social
capital/networks were developed later using consensus
organizing strategies?
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
5.
What were the outcomes of the initial campaign to solve the
blockbusting problem? How did these outcomes differ from the
outcomes achieved using consensus organizing strategies?
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
6.

What other issues would be suitable for a consensus organizing
approach? Please give one example and explain why.
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
Field Exercise
Instructions:
Choose one of the following exercises to conduct in the field.
You will build on and continue this exercise in the next two
chapters of the workbook. Please answer the questions that
follow for the field exercise you have chosen.
Interview a community resident to find out about their
community and an issue or challenge their community is
currently facing. Choose an appropriate community organizing
approach that you believe would be most helpful in intervening
to address this problem or issue and describe why.
Find an article from your local newspaper on a problem in a
poor neighborhood. Choose an appropriate community
organizing approach that you believe would be most helpful in
intervening to address this problem or issue in this
neighborhood and describe why.
Answer the following questions to guide you in completing this
exercise:
1.
What issue, challenge, or problem did you discover?
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________

_____________________________________________________
____________________
2.
What has been done so far to address this issue? How do the
efforts used to address this problem so far fit with the
community organizing models you’ve learned about in this
chapter? For example, are the strategies being used similar to
any of the strategies that might be used by any of the models?
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
3.
What community organizing approach would you use to address
this problem? Is it different that what is being done now? If so,
how? Why would you use this strategy?
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________
Web Resources
Center for Third World Organizing:
http://www.ctwo.org
Civic Engagement and Social Capital: Saguaro Seminar: Civic
Engagement in America:
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/saguaro/putnam.html
Consensus Organizing: Consensus Organizing Center:
http://www.consensus.sdsu.edu

Community Building: Asset-Based Community Development
Institute:
http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/abcd.html
Locality Development/Civic Organizing: Chicago Alternative
Policing Strategy (CAPS):
http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/policing.html
Social Action Organizing (power-based and transformative):
ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now):
http://www.acorn.org/
Industrial Areas Foundation:
http://www.industrialareasfoundation.org/
Midwest Academy:
http://www.midwestacademy.com/
Instituto Paolo Friere:
http://www.paulofreire.org/
Social Planning: United Way of America:
http://national.unitedway.org/
References
ACORN. (n.d.). “Who Is ACORN.” Retrieved August 2, 2006,
from:
http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=2703
.
Alinsky, S. (1946).
Reveille for radicals.
New York: Vintage Books.
Alinksy, S. (1971).
Rules for radicals.
New York: Random House.
Beck, E. L., & Eichler, M. (2000). Consensus organizing: A
practice model for community building.
Journal of Community Practice, 8
(1), 87–102.
Brooks, F. (2001). Innovative organizing practices: ACORN’s
campaign in Los Angeles organizing workfare workers.
Journal of Community Practice, (9)

4, 65–85.
Chambers, E., with Cowan, M. (2003).
Roots for radicals: Organizing for power, action, and justice.
New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., and Vidal, A. (2001).
Building community capacity.
New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Cohen, A. P. (1985).
The symbolic construction of community.
New York: Tavistock Publications and Ellis Horwood Limited.
Eichler, M. (2007).
Consensus organizing: Building communities of mutual self-
interest.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Etzioni, A. (1993).
The spirit of community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fellin, P. (2001).
The community and the social worker
(3rd ed.). Itasca, IL:F. E. Peacock Publishers.
Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998).
Community organizing: Building social capital as a
development strategy.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hornburg, S. P., & Lang, R. E. (1998). What is social capital
and why is it important to public policy?
Housing Policy Debate, 9
(1), 1–16.
Keyes, L., Schwartz, A., Vidal, A., & Bratt, R. (1996).
Networks and nonprofits: Opportunities and challenges in an era
of federal devolution.
(2), 21–28.
Kretzman, J., & McKnight, J. (1984). Community organizing in
the 80s: Toward a post-Alinsky agenda.
Social Policy (Winter),

15–17.
Mattessich, P., Monsey, B., & Roy, C. (1997).
Community building: What makes it work: A review of the
factors influencing successful community building.
St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Putnam, R. D. (2000).
Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rothman, J. (1996). The interweaving of community
intervention approaches.
Journal of Community Practice, 3
(3/4), 69–99.
Rothman, J., (2001). Approaches to community intervention. In
J. Rothman, J. Erlich, & J. Tropman (Eds.),
Strategies of community intervention: Macro practice
pp. 27-64 (6th ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.
Rothman, J. (1968). Three models of community organization
practice.
National conference on social Welfare, social work practice,
1968.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Smock, K. (2004).
Democracy in action: Community organizing and urban change.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Stone, J., & Mennell, S. (Eds.). (1980).
Alexis de Tocqueville on democracy, revolution, and society:
Selected writings.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Temkin, K., & Rohe, W. (1998). Social capital and
neighborhood stability: An empirical investigation.
(1), 61–88.
Consensus Organizing: A Community Development Workbook.
A Comprehensive Guide to Designing, Implementing, and
Evaluating Community Change Initiatives

Chapter 1: Approaches to Community Organizing and Their
Relationship to Consensus Organizing
ISBN: 9781412939836 Authors: Mary L. Ohmer, Karen DeMasi
Copyright © Sage Publications (2009)
To define and analyze the consensus organizing approach to
community organizing and compare it with
Purpose:
It is important for community organizers to understand the “big
picture” in order to make sense of what is happening locally in
communities. Understanding the big picture involves analyzing
current political, economic, and social trends and their potential
impact on low-income communities. This chapter discusses
overall trends that we believe have influenced low-income
communities in recent years, and provides participants with
tools they can use to conduct research on current trends. In
addition, three specific issues are discussed and analyzed in
more detail through a series of case studies at the end of the
chapter, including: (1) increasing income inequality; (2)
changes in federal low-income housing policy; and (3)
gentrification. Participants will analyze these three issues and
their impact on low-income communities, and identify one or
more community organizing approaches they feel are
appropriate given the specific economic, political, and/or social
issues described.
Learning Objectives:
To understand the importance of the political, economic, and
social context and its effect on low-income communities and
community organizing strategies.
To describe recent overall political, economic, and social trends
and their impact on low-income communities.
To analyze three specific issues and their impact on low-income
communities, and identify appropriate organizing strategies
given this analysis.

Keywords:
globalization, de-industrialization, political climate,
devolution, social capital, ethnic/race relations
Why Context is Important to Community Organizing
Community organizing is essentially a political activity that is
affected by context (
Fisher, 1994
). Saul Alinsky (1971) argued that the world was relative and
changing; therefore, community organizers should be able to
view the world as it is and be sensitive and inquisitive about the
changes occurring around them. Community organizers should
not have a fixed truth. They should be cognizant of the changes
occurring in the world around them and learn to adapt their
strategies accordingly. Eichler (
1998
) argues that “a community organizer who sees the world in
terms of absolutes is doomed” (p. 25). Furthermore, because the
world has become more complicated since the early days of
community organizing, it is even more critical that organizers
accurately analyze the economic, political, and social factors
impacting a given situation and/or issue, and select an
organizing approach that will have the greatest chance of
success based on the analysis.
Therefore, community organizers first need to understand the
big picture to make sense of what is happening locally. For
example, changes in federal housing policy have impacted
affordable housing in low-income communities. Over the past
decade, the federal government’s policies regarding public
housing have shifted dramatically, focusing on demolishing old
public housing communities and replacing them with mixed-
income housing. In many communities, these changes resulted
in substantially less affordable housing for the very poor. On
the other hand, these policies helped to de-concentrate poverty
that was pervasive in public housing communities. The state of
the national economy can also affect local communities, leading

to increased or decreased job opportunities for low- and
moderate-income individuals as the economy expands and
contracts. In addition, social trends are important. For example,
the increasing numbers of immigrants in the U.S. has increased
the demand for social services, affordable housing, and
education in local communities.
In your everyday work as a consensus organizer, you will
probably find that the biggest variables in your work will be the
local economic, political, and social contexts. For example,
zoning changes that impact development in low-income
communities and relationships with local politicians will
undoubtedly influence local communities and the organizing
strategies you develop. In
Section III
of this workbook, you’ll learn more about how to analyze the
local context in communities. However, community organizers
also need to look at the big picture and understand the larger
systems and how they impact the local community. Have you
heard the phrase “think globally, act locally”? The basic
argument is that you must understand, analyze, and consider
what is happening globally and nationally before you can
determine how to act locally. This chapter focuses on how you
can think more globally about larger issues that may influence
low-income communities and your work as a community
organizer.
Overall Economic, Political, and Social Trends and Their
Influence on Low-Income Communities
Low-income communities today are faced with extraordinary
challenges in dealing with recent political, economic, and social
trends, including diminishing federal responsibility and the
transfer of power over social programs and human services to
states and localities, the globalization of the economy, and the
decline of democratic participation (
Weil, 1996
). The continuing devolution of social programs to the state and
local levels is due in part to a backlash against poor people and

immigrant groups (
Weil, 1996
). There is also a growing assumption that private nonprofit
organizations can respond better, and more cheaply, to social
problems in low-income communities than public services can.
Weil points out that this shift of responsibility from the federal
government to state and local governments and nonprofits has
resulted in decreased public funding for social and human
services, the growth of managed care, and outsourcing to for-
profit organizations. These changes have often translated into
declining resources for low-income communities and
individuals. The challenge for community organizers is finding
new ways to access resources for projects developed by
residents to address issues in their communities. In addition,
community organizers need to accurately assess the national and
local political climate and how it impacts the local community.
A good example is the welfare reform movement that occurred
in the early 1990s under President Bill Clinton, who vowed to
“end welfare as we know it.” This federal policy fundamentally
changed the way welfare benefits were distributed and, more
important, put time limits on eligibility for welfare. While this
move at the federal level gave local government more freedom
in how to use federal dollars, it also meant that states had to
respond quickly to demonstrate their commitment to welfare
reform. Local jurisdictions that did not embrace the federal
policy risked the loss of federal funding to their communities.
Community organizers working during this time period often
talked about the challenge of engaging residents around these
very real time limits for benefits, while at the same time helping
welfare leavers achieve economic self-sufficiency.
Economic Forces Impacting Communities
Economic forces can also have a tremendous impact on
communities. The globalization of the economy has
significantly changed economic conditions in local
communities, specifically the shifting of jobs overseas to lower-
cost labor markets, and corporate downsizing, job loss, and

displacement (
Weil, 1996
). The globalization of the economy involves the expansion of
the capitalistic market system as the organizational economic
model for a majority of rich and poor economies (Public
Broadcasting System [PBS], 2003). Proponents argue that
globalization has helped to decrease absolute poverty
worldwide, and contributed to improved social indicators,
including decreased infant mortality and child malnourishment,
and increased school enrollment. Opponents argue that
globalization has contributed to growing inequality, social and
economic exclusion and marginalization, and deindustrialization
(
PBS, 2003
).
In the U.S., deindustrialization and the loss of well-paying
manufacturing jobs have affected many communities. White-
collar jobs, as well as traditional blue-collar manufacturing
jobs, are being lost overseas due to outsourcing. American
companies have moved their plants to developing countries
partly because of lower expenses, including the cost of labor.
Individuals living in low-income communities benefited from
having manufacturing jobs close to their communities because
they required less education and training and were generally
well-paying jobs with benefits. Many communities thrived
because of the presence of these manufacturing plants, which
provided jobs to thousands and created a market for other goods
and services that workers nearby would utilize, such as
restaurants, markets, and small retail establishments. It has now
become much more difficult for low-income individuals with
low skills and education to find well-paying jobs. When jobs
leave a community, many of the other services leave as well.
Community organizers need to understand how globalization
and de-industrialization have impacted the communities they
work with, and the types of jobs currently available to low-
income individuals in today’s global market economy.

The Impact of Concentrated Poverty
Research has also demonstrated that the changes in the economy
have resulted in economic insecurity, particularly for poor and
vulnerable populations and residents of low-income
communities. Wilson’s (
1987
) research revealed that the base of stable working- and middle-
class families in low-income communities eroded throughout
the mid- to late-20th century, resulting in weaker local
institutions (e.g., churches, businesses, schools), and social
disorganization (e.g., lack of norms, shared values, and sense of
community). Disinvestment has occurred in many inner-city
communities, leaving behind blighted properties, a declining tax
base, and diminished public services (
Walker, 2002
). Areas of concentrated poverty (e.g., census tracts where 40%
or more of the residents are poor) have become particularly
difficult places to live (
Bishaw, 2005
). The concentration of poverty has left many poor communities
isolated, making it difficult for them to take advantage of
mainstream social and economic opportunities (
Walker, 2002
). Furthermore, residents in areas of concentrated poverty face
many challenging problems, including poor education, mental
health, and increased teen pregnancy, delinquency, and crime
(Levanthal &
Brooks-Gunn, 2000
).
The Impact of Gentrification
While metropolitan areas with declining populations are dealing
with the effects of concentrated poverty, areas with rapidly
growing populations are dealing with the challenges of
gentrification, or the movement of middle- and higher-income
individuals back into low- and moderate-income areas in the
cities. Gentrification is a phenomenon in which low-income,

often disinvested communities undergo physical renovation that
results in an increase in property values. Often this increase is
so extreme that current residents can no longer afford to live
there because of escalating rents and property taxes (Wikipedia,
n.d.). While some see gentrification as a good thing, the fact
remains that gentrification is often a process of class
transformation in which working-class families are displaced by
middle- and upper-class families (
Newman & Wyly, 2005
).
Gentrification is the reversal of the white flight movement of
the 1960s. While scores of white residents fled urban
communities during the turbulent 1960s, many are now
returning to those areas as they are revitalized and renovated. A
good example is in New York City, where neighborhoods that
have been devastated for decades are rapidly gentrifying (
Newman & Wyly, 2005
). In central Harlem, many of the community’s brownstones
have gone from low-cost rental housing to homeownership and
high-cost apartments. Landlords anxious to capture the higher
rents due to demand often push out tenants who may have
rented there for years. Many of these tenants should have some
protection under landlord–tenant laws, or in the case of New
York City, rent control; however, their rights are not always
guaranteed. A variety of community organizers in New York
City have worked hard to see that gentrification happens more
equitably (
Newman & Wyly, 2005
).
The rapid gentrification of neighborhoods in New York City has
even “outpriced” much of the professional middle class. These
housing pressures in the city have forced more and more
professionals to look for housing in nearby boroughs such as
Brooklyn, which have appealing housing stock and excellent
transportation access to Manhattan. Neighborhoods can be
revitalized without totally displacing the current population if

there is commitment and political will to do so. For example,
ACORN organizers in Brooklyn have actively worked over the
last few years to limit gentrification in Brooklyn by expanding
the overall number of both market-rate and subsidized housing
units to ensure that economic diversity exists and poor families
are not forced out (
Atlas, 2005
). At the end of this chapter you will read a case study about the
Wright-Dunbar neighborhood in Dayton, Ohio, that underwent
an extensive renovation that included plans to help current
residents, many elderly and poor, remain in the community of
their birth.
The Decline of Democratic Participation and Civic Engagement
Democratic participation in America is also declining along
with the above political, economic, and social trends (
Weil, 1996
). As pointed out in
Chapter 1
, Putnam (
1995
) documented the decline of social capital, which is part of our
social life and includes the networks, norms, and trust that
enable participants to act together to pursue shared objectives.
A key component of social capital is civic engagement, which is
the degree to which citizens participate in activities that affect
the political decision-making process at all levels, including
membership in neighborhood or political groups (
Temkin & Rohe, 1998
). Gardner (
1994
) also argues that increased mobility has chipped away social
anchors, including a sense of continuity and identity, and shared
values.
How Can Community Organizers Respond to These Trends?
Weil (
1996

) argues that the “nation needs strategies and interventions at all
levels to build viable communities that meet the basic needs of
their members,” and “result in civil societies that develop and
continually reshape effective infrastructures and mediating
institutions” (p. 482). Berger and Neuhaus (
1991
) argue that strong, viable communities can provide a stimulus
for individual identity, and create a sense of belonging and
security. It is increasingly important, therefore, that community
organizers develop effective and appropriate organizing
strategies based on an accurate assessment of both overall and
community-specific political, economic, and social trends.
Today there are multiple sources from which to gather
information on current global and national trends.
Table 2.1
provides some of the key methods organizers can use to
conduct research on political, economic, and social trends. At
the end of this chapter there is also a list of resources and Web
sites for gathering information about national economic,
political, and social conditions, issues, and policies.
Table 2.2
provides some overall questions that organizers can use to
assess economic, political, and social trends and their potential
influence on low-income communities. In addition, the case
studies in this chapter analyze three specific issues that we
believe have greatly impacted low-income communities.
Finally,
Section III
of this workbook provides more in-depth information on how to
analyze the local context and issues affecting low-income
communities.
Table 2.1 Methods for Conducting Research on Political,
Economic, and Social Trends
Mass Media
Local and national newspapers (e.g., neighborhood newspapers,
the local newspaper, business-oriented newspapers,

The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington
Post
)
Radio: Local and national, as well as private and public radio
stations (e.g., National Public Radio, AM and FM radio talk
shows)
Television: Private and public television (e.g., local and
national news)
Library Resources/Databases
Books (e.g., on the local area, as well as economic, political,
and social conditions at the national level)
Journal articles (e.g., analyzing how economic, political, and
social conditions impact low-income communities)
Internet
Local, state, and federal agency Web sites
Web sites for local, state, and federal nonprofits, foundations,
and organizations focusing on low-income communities
Web sites for think tanks and other research organizations
(Note: See the list of Web resources for the above areas at the
end of this chapter.)
Table 2.2 Key Questions for Assessing Current Economic,
Political, and Social Conditions
Area of Focus
Key Questions
I. Economic Trends
Overall Economic Trends
What is the current state of the national and local economy? Is
the economy growing? Is there a recession? What are the
projections for economic growth? Is the condition of the local
economy similar to that of the national economy? Is the local
economy growing or shrinking?
What is the overall economic state of low-income communities?
How are they being affected by local and/or national economic
conditions?
Employment and Industry

What is the national and local unemployment rate? What is the
unemployment rate in the low-income community you are
working in?
What are the major industries in the U.S.? Are they owned by
U.S. or foreign companies? Are the major industries located in
specific parts of the country? If so, where? Which, if any, of
these industries are located in the community you are working
in? Are residents employed in these companies? What are the
qualifications for these jobs? How well do they pay? How
secure are they?
Who are the major local employers? Are they headquartered
locally? If not, where are their headquarters?
Where do the majority of residents living in low-income
communities work? In what type of industry? What is the pay
scale? What type of education do these types of jobs require?
Other
What is the current rate of inflation?
What is the Federal Reserve’s current monetary policy? What is
the current prime rate for lending?
How is the local economy being affected by national monetary
policy, including inflation and lending rates? How have low-
income communities been affected? Do residents in the local
community have access to fair lending opportunities? Or, have
they been affected by unfair lending practices (e.g., the
subprime lending market)?
What other lending policies and/or practices are impacting low-
income communities? How?
II. Political Trends
Overall Political Climate
What major political parties are currently in power at the
national level (e.g., U.S. Congress and president)? State level?
And, local level?
Is the political climate conservative, liberal, and/or moderate at
the national level? What about the state and local level?
How has the political climate affected the local community

(e.g., what is the attitude toward low-income communities, what
resources are being provided to them, and how)?
Policies Impacting Low-Income Individuals and Communities
How do current federal and state policies impact the low-
income communities you are working with (e.g., housing and
community development, economic development, welfare, food
stamps, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credit, and the
Community Reinvestment Act)? What, if any, changes have
occurred regarding federal and/or state policies affecting low-
income communities?
What federal and state resources are currently available to the
local community for the problems and issues they have
identified?
Political Participation
How active are political parties in the community overall?
How active are political parties in the low-income communities
you are working with?
What are the voter registration and turnout rates in the low-
income communities you are working in? How politically active
are residents?
How active are federal, state, and local elected officials in the
low-income communities you are working with? How
responsive are they to local needs and issues?
III. Social Trends
Overall Social Trends
How isolated and/or connected are the low-income communities
you are working with? What is the nature of the interaction
between these communities and the wider community?
How connected are individuals within low-income
communities? What is the nature of their social networks?
Class and Race Issues
What is the nature of class and/or ethnic/racial relations
between low-income communities and the wider community?
What is the nature of class and/or racial relations within low-
income communities?

How have immigration issues and/or policies impacted the low-
income communities you are working with?
Natural Disasters and Other Issues
What effect, if any, have natural disasters (e.g., floods,
hurricanes, tornadoes) had on the low-income communities you
are working with?
What other social issues (e.g., education, health care, and so on)
have impacted the low-income communities you are working
with? How?
In summary, understanding the big picture can often help
organizers better understand what is happening locally in
communities, and can influence the strategies organizers
develop to address local issues. The material in this chapter was
not meant to provide an exhaustive analysis of all the global
changes affecting low-income communities, but to examine
several overall trends that have impacted the organizing work
the authors have done in local communities. We strongly urge
you to do your own analysis of the current big picture issues
that are affecting the communities you work in and your work
as a community organizer.
Discussion Questions
1.
Why do you think it is important for community organizers to
understand the big picture? How and why do you think overall
trends and issues (for example, changes in the economy or
federal policies) might affect your work locally as an organizer?
2.
Describe one example of a current economic, political, and/or
social trend, issue, and/or policy and how you believe it
influences low-income communities.
3.
Why do you think it’s important to use multiple sources to
gather information on current conditions? Using
Table 2.1
, describe several specific data sources you might use to gather
information on current trends and issues. How would you go

about getting this information? How helpful do you think it
would be in understanding low-income communities?
4.
Using
Table 2.2
, select one question in each category (e.g., economic, political,
and social conditions) and describe how you might find the
answer to the question, why you think it is important to
understanding low-income communities, and how it might
impact community organizing activities at the local level.
Case Study Exercises
Instructions:
The following case studies describe three specific issues
impacting low-income communities today. Read each case study
carefully. Identify the economic, political, and/or social trends,
issues, and/or policies presented in the case study and answer
the questions that follow. Break into small groups to complete
these exercises, and then have a large group discussion to share
your answers.
Case Study A: Increasing Inequality and Its Impact on Low-
Income Communities
The U.S. Census Bureau has been collecting data on income
inequality since 1947 through the annual demographic
supplement to the Current Population Survey (
Jones & Weinberg, 2000
). One way to measure income inequality is by examining
income quintiles. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (
2005
), the poorest one fifth of all households now receive only 3.4%
of all family personal income, while the wealthiest (top one
fifth) now receive 50.1%. The most commonly used measure of
income inequality is the Gini coefficient or index, which
measures family income inequality. If everyone were equally
well-off, the Gini index would be zero, and if the richest person
had everything and everyone else had nothing, the index would
be 1.00. The Census Bureau (2000) reports that income

inequality decreased overall from 1947 to 1968 by 7.5%;
however, between 1968 and 1998 this trend reversed. In 1967
the Gini index was 0.34, while in 1998 it rose to 0.39. Since
1998, the Gini index for the United States has risen to 0.47, the
worst among industrialized nations, as illustrated below (United
Nations [UN], 2004):
Denmark: 0.25
Japan: 0.25
Sweden: 0.25
Germany: 0.28
France: 0.33
Australia: 0.36
United Kingdom: 0.36
United States: 0.47
Jones and Weinberg (
2000
) state that increasing income inequality has resulted from
changes in the U.S. labor market and household composition:
More highly-skilled, trained, and educated workers at the top
are experiencing real wage gains, while those at the bottom are
experiencing real wage losses making the wage distribution
considerably more unequal. Changes in the labor market in the
1980s included a shift from goods-producing industries (that
had proportionately provided high-wage opportunities to low-
skilled workers) to technical service industries (that
disproportionately employ college graduates) and low wage
industries, such as retail trade.... Other factors related to the
downward trend in wages of less educated workers include
intensifying global competition and immigration, the decline of
the proportion of workers belonging to unions, the decline in
the real value of the minimum wage, the increasing need for
computer skills, and the increasing use of temporary workers.
At the same time, changes in living arrangements have occurred
that tend to exacerbate differences in household income. For
example, increases in divorce and separation, increases in births
out of wedlock, and the increasing age at first marriage have all

led to a shift away from traditionally higher-income married
couple households toward typically lower-income single-parent
and nonfamily households. (p. 10)
The United Nations Human Development Report (
2005
) states that increasing inequality within and among countries
matters because it reflects unequal opportunity based on gender,
identity, wealth, or location. One’s life chances are diminished
greatly by being born into a poor household. For example, in the
U.S., the world’s richest country, health outcomes reflect
inequities based on wealth and race. The UN argues that more
equitable income distribution would contribute strongly to the
reduction of poverty globally and in specific countries. If
people in poverty captured more of the growth in national
income than they do currently, there would be less poverty.
Income inequality, along with its economic and social causes,
translates into decreased life chances and opportunities for
individuals living in low-income communities in the U.S. For
example, if the incomes of poor households are not growing
they can’t afford to save money to build assets that contribute
to wealth. These families often struggle with saving money to
purchase their own homes, send their children to college, or
retire. Low-income children don’t have the same opportunities
to compete for higher-paying jobs requiring a college education,
and often end up in lower-skilled, low-wage jobs. Moreover, it
is often more difficult to establish families and keep them
together with limited resources and opportunities.
So, what does all this have to do with community organizing?
While it’s difficult for community organizers to directly impact
the Gini index, they can help residents understand the economic
forces that are impacting income inequality in their
communities and develop strategies for dealing with them. For
example, organizers can help increase economic opportunities
for residents to help them purchase their own homes, access
resources for further education and training, and support local
economic development agencies attempting to secure better-

paying and more stable jobs for all residents. They can also
work with residents to advocate for federal policy changes to
address income inequality and its effects, including federal tax
reform and programs that provide resources for poor children to
go to college.
Questions on the Case Study on Inequality
1.
Why do you think income inequality is increasing in the United
States? How has income inequality (and its causes) impacted
your community? Do you know anyone who has been affected
by income inequality? Explain.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
2.
Why do you think it is important for community organizers to
understand the growing issue of income inequality?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
3.
Assume you are a community organizer working in a low-
income community that has experienced the challenges
presented by the globalization of the economy and income
inequality. Following a national trend, a large auto
manufacturer has moved high-paying manufacturing jobs to

plants in developing countries. Residents who previously
worked for these companies were given resources for retraining.
There are jobs in the retail trade industry; however, the pay is
low and wages have not risen over the years. In addition, the
economic development agency is developing a plan to find new
uses for the former auto plant. What else would you want to
know about the impact of these changes and what is being done
to address them? Who would you talk to? What would you ask
them?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
How would you help residents in the low-income community
deal with the changes described above? What community
organizing approach or approaches would be appropriate? Why?
(Note: See
Chapter 1
for a description of community organizing approaches.)
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
Case Study B: Federal Housing Policies Impacting Low-Income
Communities
In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed a new federal housing policy
called the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act
(

Karger & Stoesz, 2005
). The overall goals of the new law were to
decentralize federal housing policy;
use nonprofit sponsors to help develop and implement housing
services (community housing development organizations);
link housing assistance more closely with social services;
facilitate home ownership for low- and moderate-income
households;
preserve existing federally subsidized housing; and
initiate cost sharing among federal, state, and local government
and nonprofits.
The law created block grants for state and local governments
through two programs called Home Opportunities Made Equal
(HOME) and Homeownership and Opportunity for People
Everywhere (HOPE).
The goal of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program was to
increase the supply of affordable housing units, targeting low-
income households. The law required that 15% of funds be used
for projects sponsored by community housing development
organizations (which are similar to community development
corporations). Funds could be used for tenant-based rental
assistance, property acquisition or rehabilitation, or new
construction (for more information on HOME, see
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/index.cfm
).
The HOPE program. One of the programs, HOPE VI, aimed to
improve neighborhood conditions by revitalizing distressed
public housing communities (creating mixed income
communities in their place), and assisting residents with moving
to better housing in less distressed neighborhoods through the
use of Section 8 housing vouchers (for more information on
HOPE VI, see
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/about/
).
One of the more controversial components of the new law was
HOPE VI and its provision to tear down existing public housing

communities and replace them with mixed-income communities.
One of the main reasons for instituting this policy change was
the argument that many federally subsidized rental units had
been clustered in poor inner-city neighborhoods, which actually
raised their rates of poverty and accompanying problems (Urban
Institute, n.d.). Research by William Julius Wilson (
1987
) and others also demonstrated the negative impact of living in
poor communities, including poor educational and mental health
outcomes, and increased teen pregnancy, delinquency, and
crime (Levanthal &
Brooks-Gunn, 2000
). For example, Brooks-Gunn and colleagues (
1993
) found that children growing up in low-income neighborhoods
had lower IQs, more teenage births, and higher school dropout
rates than children growing up in affluent neighborhoods, even
when family-level differences were controlled. Furthermore,
research showed that black and white adolescents living in the
worst neighborhoods in large cities experienced a sharply
higher risk of dropping out of school, even after controlling for
individual characteristics (
Crane, 1991
). Several national and regional studies also found that residing
in low-income neighborhoods was associated with higher rates
of criminal and delinquent behavior (
Sampson & Groves, 1989
;
Simons, Johnson, Beaman, Conger, & Whitbeck, 1996
).
As of 2005, the HOPE IV program had spent $5 billion to
replace public housing projects with mixed-income housing,
including awarding 446 grants since 1992 to 166 cities (Urban
Institute, n.d.). Approximately 63,100 severely distressed units
had been demolished, and 20,300 were slated for
redevelopment. The program was successful in leveraging

billions of dollars in other public, private, and philanthropic
investments. Many HOPE IV projects offer high-quality, mixed-
income living environments and contribute to the health and
vitality of surrounding neighborhoods (Urban Institute, n.d.).
However, there have been mixed results regarding what happens
to former residents of demolished public housing projects. A
HOPE VI panel study conducted by the Urban Institute (n.d.) in
five public housing developments in Atlantic City, Chicago,
Durham, Richmond, and Washington, DC found that:
The vast majority of working-age former public housing
recipients were still living far below the poverty line for a
family of three.
Residents who were employed had slightly increased incomes.
Welfare use among residents had declined (most likely as a
result of welfare reform).
Overall employment rates did not change.
Residents in the study reported high rates of material hardship,
including late rent and utility payments and difficulty paying
for food.
The reaction from public housing residents to HOPE IV was
also mixed, ranging from a desire to improve their communities
and rid their neighborhoods of blight, to a sense of uncertainty
and fears over losing their affordable homes, as well as
connections to their communities. Some residents had lived in
their homes and their communities most of their lives and didn’t
want to leave. Others felt that change was needed, but they were
uncertain about their future, including if they would be able to
return to the new mixed-income community replacing their
former homes. In some communities, residents were very
engaged in developing HOPE IV proposals and projects, while
in others they were disengaged and ill-informed.
Questions About the Housing Case Study
1.
Assume you are a community organizer who has been assigned
to a community that is about to develop and implement a HOPE
IV project. Your job is to work with existing public housing

residents to engage them in the HOPE IV process, including
developing a plan to demolish existing units and rebuild mixed-
income housing in their place. Thinking about your role, what
do you believe are the most important economic, political,
and/or social issues impacting the community and your work
with residents? What do you know? What else do you need to
learn? How would you go about gathering more information?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
2.
Based on your analysis, which community organizing approach
or approaches would you use? Why?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
3.
Describe the sources of external power important to this issue,
and how you would view and approach them.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________

_____________________
4.
Describe the ultimate outcomes of your organizing work, based
on the approach you selected.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
Case Study C: Revitalization Without Gentrification: One
Community’s Story—Wright-Dunbar Village, Dayton, Ohio
For four decades, residents watched the neighborhood that
nurtured the genius of the Wright Brothers and poet Paul
Laurence Dunbar and later a thriving African American
community become devastated by highway construction, civil
disturbances, insurance redlining, disinvestment, and
abandonment. The operating urban renewal philosophy as late
as 1988 favored demolition and clearance over historic
preservation (
City of Dayton, 2003
). Over the years, African American neighborhood activists
tried to get funding to revitalize their neighborhood. Various
plans and studies were conducted, but nothing was done. Some
would say that prior to 1995 the Inner West Dayton area had too
much planning and not much to show for it. The turning point
began in 1993, when a historical architecture study of the area
began to demonstrate the potential of the neighborhood. At the
same time, another plan was developed by a group of people,
mostly Caucasian, who were interested in preserving Dayton’s
aviation history. The group’s overall goal was to establish a
national park in the Wright-Dunbar neighborhood. They were
extremely vocal and organized protests against the city to
prevent historic buildings from being torn down. These two

groups began to see the value of working together to develop a
plan that would preserve Dayton’s history while also rebuilding
a neighborhood (Gaytko, personal communication, July 2007).
The city hired McCormack Baron, a St. Louis–based firm, to
look into redevelopment options for the neighborhood.
McCormack Baron’s philosophy was to demolish the majority of
existing housing and initially start new development with rental
housing to stabilize the area, and build owner-occupied housing
later. When McCormack Baron presented their proposal to clear
the area and build townhouses and garden apartments, it was
met with fierce community opposition. A significant proportion
of long-term property owners in Wright-Dunbar Village did not
want to move, and the McCormack Baron plan would have
required that. In addition, city staff found the cost of their
proposal economically unfeasible because it required large
public subsidies. The determination of local residents to stay in
the area had a major impact on the city’s decision to rethink its
traditional approach to urban renewal in West Dayton.
Residents of Inner West Dayton had been actively engaged in
the planning, preservation, and redevelopment of their
community. The two neighborhood associations in the area, the
historic preservation groups, and the national park advocates all
voiced opposition to the mayor and city commission because the
proposed project did not reflect the community’s historic past
and would likely displace many older African American
homeowners who had lived in the neighborhood for years.
Several city commissioners, including Commissioner Dean
Lovelace, a longtime community activist and leader in the
African American community, convinced their colleagues that a
better plan could be developed that preserved the historic
features of the neighborhood. The mayor saw that the
alternative scenarios being presented were rational. He stepped
in and directed the city manager and his staff to work with the
neighborhood and the various stakeholders to develop a new
plan, including developing consensus among the various
stakeholder groups about the project’s goals and objectives. The

city staff and community stakeholders created the Wright-
Dunbar Village Urban Renewal Plan, which called for
preservation and historic development in the neighborhood
rather than demolition. The plan was significant because it
suggested that economic development could be achieved
through historic renovation, a major policy shift for the city.
Their overall goal was to redevelop the Wright-Dunbar Village
neighborhood to create a vibrant and diverse community with a
turn-of-the-20th-century ambience, including
retaining residents of existing owner-occupied housing units,
focusing on home ownership,
assuring significant minority contractor participation,
incorporating historic ties to Dayton’s aviation history and
African American heritage,
developing and maintaining neighborhood resident involvement
and input, and
developing and maintaining partnerships to achieve a
comprehensive redevelopment effort.
City officials publicly stated that they would not gentrify the
neighborhood, and created the Wright-Dunbar Owner Occupied
Rehabilitation Program, which provided funds for improving
existing homeowner housing, while providing tax abatement so
that as property values rose, older retired residents would not be
forced to move. The program offered a variety of incentives to
encourage existing homeowners to stay, such as: grants to cover
the cost of rehabilitation and renovation; the services of a case
manager to address social service needs; and one-on-one
technical assistance through the rehabilitation and tax
abatement process. The city used a combination of federal
HOME funds and debt finance capital from bond sale proceeds
to implement the program (37 residents received this
assistance). Community Development Block Grant funds paid
for new infrastructure to support the development of new
housing. Because of these efforts, long-term homeowners could
afford to remain in the neighborhood and continue to enrich
their community (

R. Gaytko, personal communication, July 2007
).
The city brokered an unprecedented partnership between the
Home Builders Association (HBA), minority contractors, and
tradespeople to rebuild the Wright-Dunbar Village. The city
contracted with ProjDel Corporation, a minority-owned firm
from Cincinnati, to act as project manager in this aggressive
undertaking. The Home Builders Association, most known for
its suburban building experience, became an active partner in
the development of the project and the staging of a CitiRama
event to showcase Wright-Dunbar Village when it was done.
The city and the HBA reached out to another nontraditional
partner, the Improved
Solution
s for Urban Systems (ISUS) Institute of Construction
Technology, a charter high school in Dayton, Ohio, and the
nation’s largest Youth Build program. ISUS serves low-income
youth ages 16–21 who have dropped out of other schools.
Students enrolled in the ISUS School can earn a high school
diploma, a certification in construction skills, and community
service credit by constructing new homes for lower-income
families. ISUS students built a near replica of the original
Wright Brothers home as part of the CitiRama event and later
went on to construct an additional 60 homes in the nearby Wolf
Creek neighborhood. (ISUS, n.d.)
The decision of the city to work

with
the neighborhood and the unwavering commitment of ordinary
citizens became the catalysts for the most aggressive urban
revitalization effort to occur in Dayton’s African American
community in the previous 50 years (
City of Dayton, 2004
). Since 1992, more than $75 million was leveraged in public,
private, and philanthropic investments in and around the
Wright-Dunbar neighborhood. Today it contains three National
Registered Historic Districts, two primarily residential and the
other commercial. The Dunbar District extends along Paul
Lawrence Dunbar Street and is the site of a National Historic
Landmark, the Paul Laurence Dunbar House. The Wright-
Dunbar Historic District is the site of the Wright Cycle
Company and Wright Printing offices and the Hoover Block
Building. All these landmarks are located in the recently created
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park in the
revitalized Wright-Dunbar Village. The presence of a National
Park creates a permanent anchor and additional inventive for
preservation and investment in the Wright-Dunbar Village. (
R. Gaytko, personal communication, July 2007
).
Questions About the Case Study on Gentrification
1.
Explain how the issue of gentrification affected the residents of

the Wright-Dunbar neighborhood. Why were they facing this
issue? Why was it important to them?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
2.
In this case study, one could argue that the city’s plans to help
Wright-Dunbar residents remain in their homes came about only
because of political pressure by various advocacy groups. What
other motivation could the city have had? Why was it the
right
thing to do?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________

Approaches to Community Organizing and Their Relationship to Consens.docx

Approaches to Community Organizing and Their Relationship to Consens.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Approaches to Community Organizing and Their Relationship to Consens.docx

Similar to Approaches to Community Organizing and Their Relationship to Consens.docx (20)

More from alfredai53p

More from alfredai53p (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Approaches to Community Organizing and Their Relationship to Consens.docx