W.K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION

Grassroots LeadershipDevelopment:

A Guide for Grassroots Leaders,Support Organizations, and Funders

Introduction

1

The W. K. Kellogg Foundation invites and encourages you to read, use, and pass on the Grassroots Leadership Development Guide for Grassroots Leaders,Support Organizations, and Funders. The guide was written because of a strong belief that nurturing and supporting grassroots leaders and their organizations iscentral to sustaining our democracy and to encouraging healthy, vibrant communities throughout the world.

The Kellogg Foundation has a long, rich history of involvement with grassroots leadership, its issues, and organizations. Approximately nine years ago,the Foundation funded a cluster of projects designed to strengthen grassroots leadership in the United States. The essential logic underlying this strategywas that grassroots leadership will grow through Foundation-supported programs that help find and nurture hidden talent, build trust, and encourage coopera-tion among potential citizen leaders. Such programs seek to improve the capacity of participants to solve broad problems facing society and to deliver betterhuman services to social and cultural groups in local communities. For example, the Foundation might support a program that organizes and trainsyoung parents to help local school officials address the problems of youth in a decaying urban environment. This approach would also lead to strongcollaborations and networking.

All programs in this area would seek to:

• Heighten the sense of public responsibility for individual citizens and improve their understanding of creativityas applied to their activities;

• Foster collaboration and cooperation between various sectors within communities;

• Enhance the leadership skills and capacity of individuals who are, or will be, active in the civic life of theircommunities; and

• Focus on grassroots leadership needs for traditionally underrepresented groups in inner-city neighborhoodsand rural communities.

In order to learn from its investment and share it widely, the Foundation contracted with Dr. Jeanne L. Campbell of St. Paul, Minnesota, to lead the field researchevaluation project. Dr. Campbell visited the 23 grantees and collected information about their work from leaders and staff. The Campbell Report contains fivesummarized findings and offers new information and insights into the field of practice. It is a rich compilation of information and lessons organized for threedistinct audiences central to grassroots leadership development—current and aspiring grassroots leaders, funders, and support organizations that provide skillstraining and capacity building techniques to grassroots leaders and organizations. A separate workbook specifically targets current and aspiring grassrootsleaders and poses questions designed to encourage their development.

Regardless of what this exciting and growing body of work is called, the evaluation research found that an effective grassroots leadership development strategy isan essential component of any community. This guide provides an overview of the research findings and information designed to elicit a thoughtful discussion ofgrassroots leadership skills.

As this guide points out, the number of people involved with grassroots leadership development is growing. The involved organizations vary widely in size andscope. They include schools, community leadership programs, intermediary organizations fostering community organizing and/or community development,issue coalitions, and local colleges and human service agencies.

Grassroots leaders affect many arenas. Support organizations and funders offer encouragement, training, and technical experience in many different ways.The Kellogg Foundation’s intention is to add to the field’s body of knowledge and to encourage discussions and learning that help all of us as citizens and leadersto be more deliberate about our efforts to develop grassroots leadership. A quick scan of any community—urban, rural, or suburban—discloses the urgent needfor this type of focus.

Read, increase your awareness and appreciation, share your thoughts with colleagues, and keep us informed. These lessons challenge all of us to look moreclosely at the many contributions of grassroots leaders. The ultimate question is, are we all willing to support this critical movement that helps to keepdemocracy alive and well in all of our communities?

Velma Monteiro-TribbleExecutive Liaison to Programs and Program Director

Acknowledgements

2

Leaders and staff of 23 organizations participated in the grassroots leadership study. Their passion, commitment, and innovations have made this workpossible. Without their involvement and leadership, there would be no lessons. Many thanks to them and those who are following them.

Similarly, WKKF is indebted to the dedication and professional talents of Jeanne Campbell and her team of researchers. They have broken new groundthrough their thorough review, field visits, and discussion with grassroots leaders and support organization staff that work with them.

The Foundation staff added a rich beginning and context for this work. A special thanks to program directors Freddye Webb-Petett, John Burkhardt,Betty J. Overton-Adkins, Ali Webb and others.

Many colleagues from other foundations and organizations contributed to the essays that follow and to the many rich examples. Thanks to them and all whoprovided us advice as we shaped this work—they include a sounding board group (Mario Acosta, Robin Epstein, Sara Gould, Jeff Malachowsky, DeloresParker, and Angie Woodward).

Our final thanks go to our editor, Tom Adams, who produced the draft manuscript, and Kathleen Schafer, who worked to make this Guide useful and readablealong with graphic designer Terri Haas-Wittmann.

Table of ContentsOverview of the Five Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Why Invest in Grassroots Leadership Development? Sarah Gould and Jeff Malachowsky . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Finding 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Developing Grassroots Leaders: What’s Different? A Funder/Practitioner View. Cheryl Casciani . . . . . . . 12

Finding 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Grassroots Leadership Development: An Essential Strategy for Changing Communities. Rinku Sen . . . . 16

Finding 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19The Triple Focus. Tom Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Finding 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Finding 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Findings Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27The Cross-cutting of the Grassroots Leadership Strategy. Regina McGraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

The Importance of Support Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31No One Goes It Alone: Types and Roles of Intermediary and Support Organizations. Seth Borges . . . . . 34Creative Capacity Building: Developing and Supporting Effective Grassroots Organizations. George Knight . . 36

Why Support Organizations are Growing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Diamonds in the Rough: Funding Grassroots Work. Terri Langston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Appreciating Diversity and Building Effective Bridges: The Grassroots Leader’s Challenge. Rinku Sen . . . 42Making the Case–Supporting Grassroots Leadership Development. Spence Limbocker . . . . . . . . . . 45

Practices that Work: The Triple Focus in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Challenges We Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3

Joan Robinett was a stay-at-homemom focused on her family and herinfant child’s life-threatening stomachillness. While seeking help for herson, she discovered that a nearbychemical plant was polluting herdrinking water and worsening herson’s condition. Joan’s passion forserving her family grew, as shebecame a leader in her communityand eventually throughout other areasof Eastern Kentucky. After a seven-year research and organizing effort,Joan and a coalition she helpedorganize succeeded in cleaning up thewater. Joan used what she had learnedand turned her attention to otherissues in her own and neighboringcounties. County officials told her andher neighbors that there were noillegal trash dumps. Her organizationfound and documented 230 suchdumps. Joan didn’t plan to work onillegal dumping. She didn’t plan tostart organizations or to become amentor to other new grassroots leadersacross Kentucky. But she did.

Thomas James is a retired mailmanwho has always been active in hisneighborhood association in theBarton Heights neighborhood ofRichmond. His part of the neighbor-hood was well maintained with agreat deal of pride. Nearby blockswere deteriorating, however, and moreand more homes were abandoned.Mr. James got involved with anonprofit neighborhood developmentorganization working in his commu-nity. It was in trouble. Mr. Jamesrecruited new board members,surveyed his neighbors about theirpriorities, and was a leader inturning around the organizationand the neighborhood. He hadn’tenvisioned this work as part ofhis retirement plan.

4

Claudia Ortega worked at a univer-sity in Reno, NV. She was invited toa meeting with other Latinos after aLatino candidate lost a local election.Those present decided somethinghad to change, and they organizedthe Latinos for Political Education.She quickly saw how difficult it wasto help new Latino immigrants seethemselves as U.S. citizens. Shelearned how to distinguish thereasons for their reluctance to becomeinvolved: indifference, lack of infor-mation, and fear based on experiencewith the government in a formerhomeland. Claudia’s goal wasn’t tobecome the first staff member ofLatinos for Political Education. Shedid so because she believed deeplyin what she was doing. “I’m socommitted to the cause, and in it sodeep, I can’t get out. I’d keep workingon political education even if itwasn’t my job.”

Getting involved with a youth organi-zation wasn’t an accident for MalikaSanders. Her parents were civilrights activists, and she was on thepicket line in her mother’s womb. Atage 12, she had a spiritual experiencethat convinced her that involvement inissues of social justice was her life’swork. “I had to do it to be at peace.”Her path has led her from being aparticipant in a youth leadership campof Youth for the Twenty-First Centuryto becoming the organization’sexecutive director several years later.She served on the founding commit-tee for the Southern Partners Fund, anew foundation focused on grassrootsleadership and social justice issues inthe South. She is actively involved incivic activities in her hometown ofSelma, AL. Malika doesn’t knowexactly where her path will take herbut it most likely will involve leader-ship for social change. It’s a callingshe’s choosing to follow.

What do these four leaders have

in common? They come from

different parts of the country,

different family and ethnic

backgrounds, and are concerned

about different kinds of issues.

What they share is an identity

as a grassroots leader. But

unlike many grassroots leaders

who struggle in isolation

without support, these leaders

and their communities benefited

from a deliberate strategy

designed to identify and nurture

grassroots leaders. While

teaching leadership skills and

building confidence in their

abilities, this approach added

two additional dimensions to

leadership skill building. In

each case, there was support

to help these emerging leaders

to build and strengthen their

local organizations and to focus

their efforts on specific, concrete

outcomes in the community.

5

GThe four leaders on the preceding pagesrepresent a few of the thousands ofleaders involved at the grassroots levelevery day. They and their stories are partof what the W.K. Kellogg Foundationdiscovered when it undertook anevaluation of its work in support ofgrassroots leadership. Over a four-yearperiod, the Foundation invested morethan $20 million in grants to 23 local,regional, and national organizationsinvolved in grassroots leadershipdevelopment. Dr. Jeanne Campbell,a Minnesota-based research consultant,was retained to lead the research on thisproject. Her charge was to visit these23 organizations and capture what theyhad learned about grassroots leadership.Largely based on the Campbell Report,this guide provides new insights thatsharpen and clarify assumptions aboutgrassroots leadership and its power.

Healthy communities need involvedcitizens. A civil society depends oncitizen concern and citizen action as itslifeblood. How we sustain and strengthencommunities is an enduring question.These grassroots leaders’ experiencesoffer practical, proven suggestions onhow to strengthen and build healthycommunities.

Whether you are interested in solving aproblem in your community, involvingmore of your neighbors in your cause,or being more effective as a supportorganization or funder of grassrootsleadership, you’ll find something ofvalue to your work in these findings.Some of the findings give weight andcredibility to the obvious or assumed.Others break new ground and point toapproaches that can help all of us getmore results from grassrootsleadership efforts.

What follows are the five main findingsfrom this research and related work bythe W.K. Kellogg Foundation.Thesefindings have particular value for threespecific audiences: grassroots leaders,support organizations, and funders. Anoverview of how the lessons apply tothese audiences follows.

rassroots leadership development is both art and science. In few places are the five findings practiced in any comprehensive or ideal way. These are hindsight interpretations by observers of efforts in 23 organizations. At their best, they represent an invitation and challenge to an ongoing conversation. Collectively,

these lessons offer a vision to be shaped and refined by grassroots leaders and by those whowork with them. Our goal is to nurture a growing appreciation for the contribution grassrootsleaders make, and to motivate communities to support grassroots leadership development asa deliberate strategy.

OVERVIEW OF THE FIVE KEY FINDINGS

While the challenge of visiting and exploring 23 organizations working with grassrootsleaders was great, it uncovered some startling similarities. Each organization was different,yet there was a striking pattern that developed throughout the interviews that led us tofive key findings.

The Campbell study upon which the findings are based concluded:

“During the past five years, … we have found that the strategy of (grassroots)leadership development has come to be viewed quite widely as the mosteffective mechanism to address the outcomes of healthy communities.”

The five key findings are listed below.

1) Grassroots leaders have different motivations and needs than those oftraditional “ positional” leaders.

2) Investing in grassroots leadership development leads to increasedcommunity well-being and encourages long-term problem-solving.

3) In developing grassroots leaders, the best results are achieved by usinga triple focus on the individual leaders, the involved organization, andthe community or issue of concern.

4) Grassroots leadership works best when the decision to invest indeveloping grassroots leaders is a deliberate strategy, i.e., intentional,proactive, and consistent.

5) Grassroots leaders encourage funders and support organizations to takeactions that support the efforts of grassroots leadership.

6

7

EXPLORING THE FIVE FINDINGS

Getting to our Findings - Research Methodology

The Foundation contracted with Campbell & Associates in 1993 to conduct an evaluation ofgrassroots leadership. The sample was selected from over 30 organizations the Foundation hadfunded to carry out leadership projects aimed at grassroots community change. Fifteenorganizations were initially selected; eight others were added at their request and after theirparticipation in a networking meeting hosted by the Foundation.

The geographically diverse projects were funded at various times, and at varying levels, andwere of different sizes, focuses, and lengths. The common elements that made the group acluster were: their focus on community social change; their specific orientation to grassrootsparticipants; and their use of leadership development as a strategy to achieve communitychange.

All of the projects targeted their initial work on leadership development for individuals. As workat the individual level progressed, some projects recognized the need to provide organizationaldevelopment and capacity building to participants’ home organizations. The theory was that theultimate outcome of stronger and healthier communities would be achieved through leadershipdevelopment at both the individual and organizational levels. Based on this premise, the clusterevaluation, together with the projects, identified three primary outcome areas to study:

1) Change at the individual (participant) level;2) Change at the organizational level (participant’s home organization); and3) Change at the community level (participant’s individual communities).

A five-member cluster evaluation team was selected, providing for ethnic, geographic, andprofessional diversity, thereby enriching both the data collection and analysis. A set of 12questions were developed as the basis for the evaluation and covered the following five areas:1) Outcomes; 2) Lessons; 3) Policy Analysis; 4) Spin-Off Effects; and 5) Other Policy Issues.Questions included:

What strategies of leadership development work best in the various community settings?What changes are occurring in communities as a result of trained leaders?Who are the beneficiaries of the projects?What lessons were learned that will enhance grassroots leadership development, andwhat factors contribute to or constrain such efforts?What implications do the lessons learned have for future grantmaking?

The data collection methods included site visits, interviews, and focus groups. Networkingconferences of the participants added another important vehicle for obtaining information andfor shaping ideas and consensus with staff and leaders of the participating organizations. Thisinvestment in networking proved to be especially useful and highly valuable to the projects andthe cluster evaluation.

In addition to posing questions and analyzing the findings of the Campbell study, this Guideincludes pertinent articles on related issues by practitioners and experts in the field ofgrassroots leadership development. In the first such article, Sara Gould and Jeff Malachowskydiscuss the underlying reasons for investment in this particular type of leadership development.

7

Why Invest inGrassroots LeadershipDevelopment?By Sara Gould, Executive Vice President, Ms. Foundation for Women, andJeff Malachowsky, former director, Western States Center

First, data from the Kellogg Founda-tion study identify grassroots leadershipas a distinct and recognizable form ofleadership. Grassroots leaders shareidentifiable characteristics, work withindefinable structures, and regularly affectunique and quantifiable change in theircommunities and among their followers.

What motivates grassroots leaders?They are motivated and rewarded, by faith,a commitment to service or specificissues, and/or a broader commitment tojustice and change. Knowing this helpsus think about the design of leadershipsupport programs. The Kellogg Founda-tion study identified a “triple focus” foreffective programs. They must reach lead-ers at three levels:

• Personal change – helping themdevelop necessary skills;

• Organizational change – affectingthe organizations within andthrough which they exertleadership; and

•Issue or community change –addressing the civic goals andvalues that drive leaders forward.

Not surprisingly, the most effectiveprograms are ongoing and based on deep-ening relationships of trust and respect,rather than time-limited and based solelyon discrete workshops or classes thatisolate leaders from their daily lives.

The data holds even better news forphilanthropy by confirming that specificstrategies consistently yield measurableresults—new and stronger leaders,organizational and societal change.

Philanthropy can play a vital role bysupporting community-based programsdedicated to developing grassrootsleadership. Disadvantaged, disenfran-

chised, underrepresented and overlookedconstituencies that most need grassrootsleadership generally lack access toappropriate programs to develop theirleaders’ skills or encourage their growthand success. This makes sense—mostleadership programs are aimed at estab-lished constituencies making a contribu-tion to mainstream institutions—academ-ics, business leaders, public officials, non-profit executives. Specifically targeted andappropriate leadership programs, offeredby training intermediaries or othersupport organizations, are crucial todeveloping grassroots leadership.

The Kellogg Foundation study alsoreveals that resources from outside lead-ers’ communities are vital to the successof leadership programs, and they mustreinforce good program design. Fundersentering new regions must be sensitiveto the particular needs of grassroots lead-ers relative to other kinds of leaders. Theymust be willing to provide multi-yearfunding and to provide a level of supportsufficient to sustain the program’s triplefocus while retaining the trust andvaluing the experience of grassroots leaders.

What about that link between ourfunding institutions’ priority issues andgrassroots leadership? The great news isthat supporting grassroots leadership holdsthe potential to create new and excitingopportunities across all of our issueagendas. Consider these examples:

•Environmental victories like landuse planning or wildlife protectionneed a political constituency todefend them—built and sustainedby grassroots leaders. Who elseknows the ground, and can leadconversations about communityvalues, benefits and tradeoffs?

Hidden between the pages of our grantapplications and between the lines indockets is a potent force for change.While it is dynamic, and at the same timesteady, we in philanthropy may not easilyrecognize or understand its relationshipto the issues we care so deeply about.

The force is grassroots leadership.

Yes, we often look for “communityparticipation.” And we know that changemust take place “at the community level.”

But how does that happen? Who arethe real agents for change? In fact,grassroots leaders are key. Grassroots lead-ers connect disadvantaged constituencieswith the institutions of our society.Whether large or small; government,business or non-profit; local or national;urban or rural; institutions are unable tomeet the social and economic challengesof disadvantaged communities withoutthe participation of community membersand their grassroots leaders. On this score,the evidence is in.

What roles can we play and whatactions can we take to generate andsupport growing numbers of effectiveleaders at the grassroots level? A five-year initiative of the W.K. KelloggFoundation, reinforced by the experienceof hundreds of funders, provides someanswers. The study reveals lessons aboutdefining grassroots leadership and design-ing grassroots leadership programs. Itsfindings can help us within philanthropylink the power of grassroots leadershipto our issues and the changes that we seek.And it offers us assistance in designingstrategies that bring the resources of ourinstitutions to bear on the baseline tasksof building and supporting grassrootsleadership.

8

•Real economic development takesthe benefits of economic growthinto communities lacking traditionaldevelopment resources and deeplyimpacted by years of disinvestment.Local organizations play a vitalrole in creating new economicopportunity—but they cannotaccomplish it without grassrootsleaders.

•Renewing and building civicparticipation doesn’t really happenthrough one more direct mail pieceor a better television commercial.It requires person-to-personconnections, leading to positiveexperiences within a supportivecommunity addressing personallyfelt issues. Effective grassrootsleaders are active at the heart ofthese endeavors.

To reap the benefits of grassroots lead-ership, you probably don’t need to createa new program area or necessarily re-allocate funds. But once you recognizethe role of grassroots leadership in bring-ing about and sustaining change, you willwant to begin to design a strategy foryour institution.

This booklet puts forward many specificand practical ideas for you to consider (orto help you). For example:

•Examine your priorities, issue areas,and portfolio of grantee organiza-tions with a watchful eye to the roleof grassroots leadership in bringingabout the changes you seek. Howcan your guidelines be changed toreflect your new understanding? Doyou have opportunities to supportgrassroots leadership programs orkey intermediary organizations inyour fields?

•Look for evidence that grassrootsleaders of your grantee organiza-tions are benefiting from participa-tion in well-designed leader supportprograms and respectful relation-ships with intermediary organiza-tions. Can you bolster theseprograms or intermediaries, or getyour grantees connected to them?

•Train yourself and your staff in thebest ways to work collaborativelywith grassroots leaders. Learn howto build and grow relationships andhow to communicate effectively,

taking into account the differencesin culture, resources, and experienceof funders, and grassroots leaders.Consider techniques for evaluatingproposals from grassroots organiza-tions that can give you new insightinto what they will do and howthey will do it.

As we enter the new century, philan-thropy faces a deeply troubling landscape.Even as business endeavors and invest-ments create new wealth at an unimag-inable pace, the differences between thewealthy and the poor are both enormousand accelerating. New immigrant com-munities have successfully establishedfootholds in our neighborhoods—but notin our civic life. Color and poverty areconcentrating in cities as new jobs andeconomic opportunities move to thesuburbs. New strains of bigotry anddiscrimination pop up like hotspots in aforest fire, drawing new lines aroundgroups who must fight for their civilrights. As philanthropies, we know moreabout funding medical research that mightdecode our most basic molecules than wedo about funding programs that wouldguarantee basic health care to ourchildren. Our international grantssupport civil society programs that areunleashing explosive democratic energiesand pent-up hopes and dreams. Few ofus see the same opportunities here, in ourown country.

How will people in our communitiesgain voice and the capacity to get thingsdone? Where will they find the toeholdsthat lead to greater civic participation andpolitical power? What strategies will workwhen voting rates drop precipitously asone moves down the economic ladder?

Grassroots leadership offers an answer,a tool for connecting people into a baseand empowering them to act on behalfof themselves and others. Grassrootsleadership is a key—to communitycohesion and mobilization, to commu-nity economic development, to politicalprotection and representation. Grassrootsleadership can restore, expand, andreorganize the coalitions that have longguarded the political space in which jobsprograms, health care, public education,and civil rights survive. And, it can buildnew ones—it is necessary to build newones—around the challenges of multi-

legalism, welfare reform, closing thedigital divide, harnessing globalization toserve the public good. New problemsand new constituencies need new lead-ership—and it cannot be sent down orassigned to them, it must come from thegrassroots themselves.

We hope that you will read the ensu-ing pages and ponder your own commit-ment to grassroots leadership, and theways you carry it out. Perhaps you willhelp your institution ask some of thequestions we pose. Perhaps you will beable to use elements of this booklet asresources for discussion. You might wantto contact any of the funders or individu-als mentioned herein, or maybe seek outsome of the grassroots organizations totake a look at effective leadership pro-grams for yourself. But in one way oranother, we hope that in one year, twoyears, three, and more, your investmentin grassroots leadership as a strategy willgrow, and with it the numbers and effec-tiveness of grassroots leaders themselves.A democracy can not be self-governedonly from the top, or only by the wealthy,or only by those who’ve “made it” in theeconomy or who arrived on our shoreslong ago. Grassroots leadership ensuresthe renewal, vitality and contribution ofevery part of our national community, andwe as funders have a vital role to play.

Sara Gould is executive vice president ofthe Ms. Foundation for Women and managesthe Foundation’s involvement with grassrootsleadership development. She is a board mem-ber of the Neighborhood Funders Group andactive with several funding alliances aimedat supporting grassroots leadership andcommunity development.

Jeff Malachowsky is the former directorof the Western States Center, a supportorganization to grassroots organizations andcoalitions in the Western United States. Hecurrently co-directs a national nonprofit researchprogram on campaign finance, and consults onorganizing, strategy, evaluation, and resourcedevelopment related to grassroots communitychange.

9

Finding 1)I n most communities, reliance on grassroots leadership is growing. We expect citizens to take on our biggest challenges and help forgeworkable solutions. The lessons about who they are, what motivates them, and how to best support their efforts are important. Using thisinformation can help leaders involve more people, find greater enjoyment in leading, eliminate unnecessary disagreements, and buildrelationships with funders and support organizations that make the most sense for your community.The Campbell study and follow-up focus groups made clear that grassroots leaders are unique in three ways.

First, grassroots leaders are mostoften not persons in “positionalleadership.” They aren’t electedofficials, commissioners, or businessexecutives, though there are certainlyexceptions in communities of all sizes andparticularly in rural and smaller communi-ties. Sometimes grassroots leaders areunconnected to the broader communitydue to limited income and education, comingfrom isolated neighborhoods in lessdesirable locations, or as a result of someother disadvantage. Race and class oftenlimit opportunities for grassroots leaders.Unlike many positional leaders, they are notpaid for their leadership activities. They haveresponsibilities to jobs and families andmust make time to be involved.

Second, grassroots leaders areusually driven by passion and by oneor more specific motivations. Theirpassion and motivation are distinguishingfeatures and go beyond self-interest. Ahigher purpose was consistently found tobe the driving force behind a leader’sinvolvement.

The three motivations found throughout thestudy were: a commitment to service, acommitment to social justice and socialchange, and/or actions based on faith orspiritual beliefs. For many communityorganizers trained with a philosophy thatleaders are motivated purely by self-interest,recognizing these three motivations ordriving forces breaks new ground.

People at the grassroots often feel uncon-nected to their community and disenfran-chised. A large part of the challenge ofleadership development is connecting withand involving people at the grass roots.People who get involved at this level areresponding to some sense of higher purposethat goes beyond individual interests.

Understanding the higher purpose thatmotivates grassroots leaders is importantto understanding their actions and needs.Consider for a minute why someone not ina leadership position would take the risk ofgetting involved and speaking up. There’susually little or no initial support andencouragement, and such leaders oftenface resistance from outside and insidethe community and even from within theirfamilies. Some focus group participantsspoke of resistance to their communityinvolvement and leadership role fromspouses, parents, and children.

Grassroots leaders havedifferent motivationsand needs than those oftraditional “positional”leaders.

How does understanding their passionand motivation help to involve more people?

Why do peopleat the grass roots get involved?

10

11

Despite these hesitations, the power of faith,the desire to serve, or the commitment tosocial change leads citizens to get involved.These motivations are not surprising tothose who work with grassroots leaders or tothose who have reflected on their ownpersonal commitment to working for change.What is empowering is the opportunity to bemore conscious and overt about whatmotivates leaders and organizations.Understanding what’s driving a person or anorganization’s involvement can strengthenour connections and broaden the results inour communities. Assisting leaders inrecognizing their own and other’s motivationand consciously working towards theirhigher purpose are attributes of effectiveleadership development programs.

Third, grassroots leaders’ develop-ment and support needs are oftendifferent from mainstream or posi-tional leaders. Throughout this booklet weuse the words “mainstream” or “positionalleaders” to contrast with “grassroots.” Thisis a convenient—but admittedly much toosimple—way to distinguish between thegenerally accepted and established parts of acommunity—government, businesses,service agencies, etc.—and the lessrecognized, less powerful, underrepresented,and often newer segments of the communitywhere grassroots leadership is found. Indistinguishing between these areas, we don’tmean one is better than the other—but we domean they are different.

In most instances, grassroots leaders haveless access than positional leaders totraining and educational opportunities,technology and “standard” equipment andinfrastructure. Money for such resources isoften scarce. Additionally, grassroots leadersmore frequently come from economicallydisadvantaged backgrounds and have lessformal education. These differencesnecessitate a different form of support andtraining. The hesitancy of most grassrootsindividuals to become involved and theirreluctance to identify themselves as leadersfurther argues for a support and training systemgeared to their needs.

Community colleges and other educationalinstitutions can meet some of the needs ofgrassroots leaders. But many communitiesfind the development of some form ofsupport and training specifically aimed atgrassroots leaders to be an important part ofa proactive, intentional leadershipdevelopment strategy.

What’s different about grassroots leaders?

Why is understanding grassroots leaders important to funders and support organizations?

Developing GrassrootsLeaders: What’s Different?A Funder/Practitioner View

By Cheryl Casciani

In this essay, Cheryl Casciani offers both a funder and practitioner perspective on who grassroots leaders are and how working with themdiffers from working with positional or more mainstream leaders. Cheryl left a position directing the Fellows Program at the Annie E. CaseyFoundation to become executive director of a 55-year-old citizen action organization in Baltimore, MD, Citizens Planning and HousingAssociation. Her dual perspective as funder and practitioner provides an interesting view of who grassroots leaders are and of some of the wayswe as funders might relook at how we connect with and invest in grassroots leadership development.

or four years (1992 -1995) I developedand ran a national leadership developmentfellowship program for mid- to senior-career professionals for a national foun-dation. The fellows were education,health, human services, and communitydevelopment professionals. The year-longprogram was designed to provide newskills, information, knowledge, and net-works to people who aspired to local,state, and national leadership positionswhere they could affect change on be-half of disadvantaged children and theirfamilies. Each of the participating fel-lows brought to the class complex lead-ership challenges that they had faced intheir work, and they all clearly benefitedfrom the experience.

The program provided a very safelearning environment. People were takenout of their work situations for a year,provided with extraordinary learningopportunities,and protected—at least inthe short term—from the challenges ofimplementing their new ideas. The pro-gram was also safe for me as the funder. Iwas working with a group of people whohad been selected through a very com-petitive process and helping them to chart

their next high-level career move. Theprogram was intellectually challengingand stimulating and successful in that ithelped to establish a strong network ofeffective change agents.

For the past four years (1996 -1999) Iwas the executive director of a nonprofitorganization which works with and forgrassroots community leaders. In this case,the leaders were primarily volunteersfrom community-based associations whoparticipated in my organization’s leader-ship programs both as individuals and asmembers of community teams. And, forthe most part, they were residents of low-income neighborhoods that were facinga wide range of problems due to years ofdisinvestment, neglect, and abandonment.I learned very quickly that there wereremarkable similarities—and differences—between the two types of leadershipdevelopment and support.

I’ll quickly note the similarities, but Iwant to focus on the differences. Whilethe similarities are instructive, I believethat the differences offer some importantlessons to funders who want to supportgrassroots community leadership.

Leadership Program SimilaritiesI have learned from a range of experi-

ences—managing a national leadershipprogram for a foundation, supportinga grassroots leadership program as thedirector of a local intermediary, andparticipating in a local leadership programfor business and nonprofit leaders—thatthere are some common elements whichcut across these programs, despite verydifferent purposes, constituencies, anddesigns. These similarities include:

(1) Building and sustaining learning net-works – Ask participants in any leader-ship program that involves the same groupof people coming together multiple timeswhat they valued most from the experi-ence and most will tell you that the bestpart was the other participants. Someprograms are better than others at nur-turing the development of the learningcommunity and in supporting the net-work after the program ends. But formost programs, it is almost a given thatwhat people learn from having the chanceto spend time with others, learning abouttheir experiences, sharing ideas and sto-ries, and building new relationships is themain benefit. The best programs are those

F

12

13

that recognize this from the beginningand consciously create time for this rela-tionship building and learning to takeplace.

(2) Creating access to new informationand skills – Most people expect to learnnew things in leadership programs. Ilearned in both programs—grassroots andmid-career leadership—that people areisolated in their jobs or neighborhoodsand do not always have access to infor-mation that could enhance what theyare trying to do. Leadership programsconnect people to new sources of infor-mation and build people’s knowledge.In both programs, new knowledge wasenhanced by also developing skillsthrough which to use the knowledge. Forexample, both programs provided train-ing in public speaking and negotiationthat enabled participants to bring theirknowledge to life.

(3) Enhancing personal leadership visions– The impact of the first two similaritiesis that most people—regardless of the typeof program and target audience—have abroader vision after the experience.Whether it is the influence of a success-ful community development approach inanother part of town, or the lessons froma leader of a human service agency fromanother state, or the discovery of a newability to articulate a more complex ad-vocacy position, people come away fromthese experiences thinking bigger, and inmany cases, more confident about theirpersonal ability to affect change.

Leadership Program DifferencesDespite the similar ities, there are

important differences to consider as afunder interested in supporting grassrootsleadership development. Among the mostimportant considerations, in my experi-ence, are the following:

(1) Exercise patience and a willingnessfor longer timeframes – Many grassrootsleaders are not accustomed to havingpeople invest in their learning and devel-opment. They are, for the most part,volunteers with full-time jobs who aredoing their best to improve theircommunities. They are frequently notcommunity development experts. But,

they understand their neighborhoods andknow that it will take time to implementtheir visions for their communities. Whatthey need in return for their time invest-ment both in the leadership program andin their neighborhoods is for funders tohave patience.

When I moved from the large, nationalfoundation to the local intermediary andgot involved with the community lead-ership program, I immediately began toask questions about outcomes. I had thesense that people had no idea what I wastalking about. What I learned over timewas that they did understand me, but they

were taken aback by the nature of thequestion. I was always asking longer termquestions about how we were helpingpeople in the leadership program trans-late their community experience intoimportant system changes for police,public works, and criminal justice agen-cies, for example. It was true that peoplewanted there to be changes in thesesystems. But, in the short term—one totwo years—they needed assistance inmobilizing people, building their localcommunity association, and engagingyoung people to be constructive com-munity members. As I noted above,people emerged from the communityleadership program with larger visions forwhat is possible and what needs to bedone. It was as important, however, thatmy organization and the funders helpedpeople to craft multi-year plans to achievetheir goals and continued to provideresources for their efforts.

(2) Meet community leaders where theyare – Related to having patience is thewillingness to customize support to meetthe immediate needs of community lead-ers. Again, big visions matter, and long-term community revitalization outcomesare desirable. More important in the shortterm, however, is to support efforts about

which community leaders care, such ascrafting a plan for a vacant lot or build-ing, developing a youth program, or sup-porting their organizational development.This does not mean that the leadershipprogram should not address the need forthoughtful, comprehensive communityplans with many partners. It only arguesfor paying as much attention to thesmaller community building projects thatare immediate and allow people to cel-ebrate progress. Change from thesesmaller projects is incremental. But,this type of movement combined withsustained support for the communityleadership team will ultimately lead

to work on their larger communityvisions.

While there were some elements of thisin the national leadership program, therewas much less discussion and appetitefor “projects.” The focus was much moreon large-scale systems change, and theexpectations for the participants was thatthey would tackle change on a large scale.I suspect that participants from this pro-gram also needed to implement smallprojects along the way and would havebenefited from support for these incre-mental efforts. In my experience, though,attention to the immediate needs of com-munity leaders is critical to the success ofthe program.

(3) Treat community leaders like the spe-cial people they are – The work peopleare doing in communities is hard and canbe depressing at times. Community lead-ers are working against enormousobstacles without the benefit of manyresources. Community leadership pro-grams should nurture and celebrate theirspirit and treat the participants as veryspecial people who are making enormouscontributions to their neighborhoods,their cities, and society as a whole. Iwas struck each year at the graduation

Community leaders are working against enormousobstacles without the benefit of many resources.Community leadership programs should nurture andcelebrate their spirit and treat the participants as veryspecial people who are making enormous contributions totheir neighborhoods, their cities, and society as a whole.

ceremony by how proud everyone wasto receive the continuing education cer-tificate from a local, prestigious univer-sity. Our program was offered in partner-ship with the university, and while part-nerships like this require extra time andenergy, the benefits were astounding.Many people can take for granted suchrecognition, but for these communityleaders, many of whom had no highereducation, receiving the certificate was alife moment. The same was true aboutthe weekend retreat at a corporate con-ference center. Many participants hadnever spent a weekend away without afamily member, and virtually none ofthem had ever spent two days in such anupscale atmosphere. This treatment mat-ters, given all that we are asking from theseleaders.

This type of respect and care is cer-tainly needed in all leadership programs.For people who are professionals, likethose in the national leadership program,travel and recognition are more frequentand can be taken for granted. Forgrassroots leaders in a community lead-ership program, taking the extra time torespect each person’s pace of developmentand investing in celebrating and recog-nizing each leader’s gifts and contribu-tion is more than worth it.

ConclusionInvestment in grassroots leadership de-

velopment is an investment in the socialfabric of our communities. Funders areto be commended when they supportsuch programs. I hope that my experi-ences not only encourage funders to sup-port community leadership, but also pro-vide some insights that will help the pro-grams be successful for participants,funders, and ultimately, our communities.In many ways the process of leadershipdevelopment is the outcome. The pay-off for everyone is stunning—more anddiverse leaders and stronger, healthiercommunities.

Cheryl Casciani is currently director ofprograms at the Baltimore CommunityFoundation. She writes from her two previouspositions at the Annie E. Casey Foundationand as executive director of CitizensPlanning and Housing Association.

14

15

T

Finding 2)Investing in grassrootsleadership development leadsto increased communitywell-being and encourageslong-term problem solving.

How building a community-wide vision and grassrootsproblem-solving capacity makes a community ahealthier, more desirable place to live. here are many outcomes from investingin grassroots leadership development. Youknow the most common—problems getsolved, more people become involved, andthe number of potential future leaders grows.More is possible! All over the countrygrassroots activists and organizations havemoved beyond their individual concerns towork at changing systems and underlyingcauses. Previously uninvolved citizens arelearning new problem-solving skills and arebeginning to work with others to shape ashared picture of the long-term change theydesire. Leaders, funders, and supportorganizations are being challenged as towhether they are getting all possible benefitsfrom the time, money, and talent they haveinvested. Those who are not involved aregetting a better picture of the potentialbenefits to the community and may begin torealize that there are many different possibleways to achieve those benefits. Build on yourstrengths, solve problems and expand yourproblem-solving capacity, and head into ashared vision for a better community.Interested?

The Campbell report summarizes the positivechange that resulted from the efforts ofthousands of grassroots leaders. Increasedcommunity well-being, the study concludes,is the outcome of the efforts of grassrootsleaders and those who invest in their work.This finding is obvious to those involvedwho have struggled to change somethingimportant to them and who have emergedvictorious. When people get togetherbecause they believe in something—theirneighborhood, their children’s school, safetyin the streets, fighting discrimination againstthe disabled—the community is strongerand healthier.

Many problems are solved through theefforts of grassroots leaders across Americaand throughout the world. As important astheir accomplishments are, researchersfound that when the development andsupport of grassroots leaders becomes apriority, there is an opportunity to go beyondissue- or problem-specific approaches. Morecan happen than having a problem solved ora service provided. The report points out:“Organizing around community well-beingmeans coming to see specific problems in alarger context—to see them as part of a webof community issues. This shift in perspec-tive opens up the possibility of identifyingand building on assets as resources whenconfronting community needs.”

Sustained investment in grassroots leader-ship development results in an expandedlong-term leadership capacity for thecommunity. When community well-being isseen as the desired outcome, leaders beginto create a shared vision for the community,to build on strengths and assets and topositively resolve issues and problems.Developing grassroots leaders becomes atool for creating a problem-solving capacityor environment in a broader and morepositive community context.

This approach requires developing skills towork with people who represent a wide rangeof interests, issues, and communities. To gobeyond a specific problem or issue requires:

•Embracing a cross-disciplineapproach that incorporates differentissues and concerns;

•Bridging political, racial, cultural, andeconomic boundaries and handlingsocial differences;

•Establishing a sense of mutuality andreciprocity among different interestgroups and priorities; and

•Maintaining a big-picture perspectivethat focuses on long-term communityvitality, health, and sustainability, ratherthan short-term solutions to immediateproblems.

As the stories in this guide remind us, manynew leaders become involved because of aspecific concern or issue. Attention tonurturing this form of grassroots leadershipdevelopment is vital. The Campbell studyargues that if the focus stops there, however,a tremendous opportunity to contribute to thelong-term vitality and strength of thecommunity is missed. By investing incommunity-wide grassroots leadershipdevelopment an environment is createdwhere leaders are increasingly able to seeconnections, build on collective strengths,and resolve problems or issues.

GrassrootsLeadershipDevelopment:An EssentialStrategy forChangingCommunities

Transforming this state of affairs requiresdirect investment into communities. Cer-tainly, institutional decision makers andopinion leaders can be educated and chal-lenged to fulfill their roles in ways thatare responsive to the needs of the vastmajority of our population. But theirreach into communities will only extendso far. For a true renewal of democraticvalues and systems, leadership is requiredfrom people closest to struggling com-munities. Programs that find and developmultiple leaders from marginalized com-munities play a critical role in connectingcommunity needs to institutional responses.

By Rinku Sen

In this essay, Rinku Sen reminds us of the challenge of becoming a society where ethnic and racial diversity is the norm, not the exception, andwhere a significant part of every community is not benefiting from growing economic prosperity. Grassroots leaders are at the center of theseissues. Our year 2000 national census will confirm that the United States is the most ethnically and racially diverse nation in the history of theworld. For this experiment in democracy to continue to succeed, we need to continue to find new ways to build connections across all kinds ofboundaries. In this essay, Rinku shares her experience as a leader and director of programs to identify and develop grassroots leaders fromethnically diverse and low-income communities.

16

merican democracy faces majorchallenges, some would say of crisisproportions. The dual phenomena ofincreasing economic inequality andrapid-fire demographic changes haveexacerbated the gap between powerfulinstitutions and individual residents andcitizens. Conflict and competitionbetween populations struggling for basicsurvival resources disrupts the potentialfor seamless public policy and its imple-mentation.

A

17

Some examples of this kind of work inaction include:

• The Environmental and EconomicJustice Project and their STEPProgram involving a variety oforganizations of color;

• Urban Habitat’s LeadershipDevelopment Program forBay Area environmental justiceorganizations;

• The Asian Immigrant Women’sAdvocates offers programs inChinese and Korean; and

• Direct Action for Rights andEquality offers its field program forgrassroots leaders.

Grassroots leadership provides signifi-cant advantages for meeting communityneeds. Grassroots leaders emerge directlyfrom the cultural, political, and economicconditions that shape local communities,and they embrace family and friendshipnetworks that keep them closely linked.These leaders understand the dynamicissues and traditions of their own com-munities, especially important in thesedays where institutions are stretchingthemselves to address a huge variety ofracial/ethnic and generational differences.

Grassroots leaders tend to live in the com-munities they represent and work with,providing long-term, stable, and directaccess to other residents, unlike mostelected officials or public administrators.One can walk across the street or addressa problem in the grocery store with one’slocal leaders, rather than making appoint-ments through a secretary with someonemore removed. These leaders begin withhigher levels of trust and confidence fromcommunity members than externally-based, formally named, leaders—oftenbecause they operate from real, rather thanprojected, accountability to communityneeds. These people are cr itical toresident participation in a representativedemocracy—they provide a conduitbetween the voices of their communitypeers and institutional leaders.

Because this kind of leader works inconditions very different from those ofthe large nonprofit or the university, the

traditional leadership development pro-gram has to be adjusted to maximize hisor her potential. Often grassroots lead-ers have very little formal education, andthey enter leadership roles throughinformal activities and local organizations.This means their developmental path isgoing to be less linear, more meandering,than that of a person on an elite leader-ship career track who emerges fromacademia. Grassroots leaders often requiremore orientation and support in address-

ing the formal aspects of community de-velopment and institutional decisionmaking. They also make important deci-sions slowly, using a process of consulta-tion and consensus building with othercommunity members. Indeed, that pro-cess often becomes one of their majorfunctions in the community, requiringskill and attitudes honed over many years.These leaders squeeze in leadership re-sponsibilities with other life responsibili-ties, and their time has to be loosened upfor them to be effective.

Effective programs for grassroots lead-ers are forced to innovate because of thetremendous challenges of designing sys-tems that can encourage and sustain suchleadership. The most successful of theseincorporate the following common prin-ciples:

(1) They understand the differencebetween leadership identification andleadership development. Identificationmodels of program planning seek outpeople whose authority to take leader-ship is already established and requiresonly improvement and promotion. Deepand thorough leadership developmentrequires starting with people very earlyin their acceptance of responsibilities, andproviding consistent support to them overtime. Such programs have to be willingto take risks on people, and accept attri-tion and disappointment as the price thatmust be paid in search of the real gems.

(2) They use both formal and informalpedagogy, which is participatory andengaging for adult learners with littleformal education and groups with un-even language ability. In addition toclassroom-type training, they also requirea consistent process of hands-on work andevaluation through which emergingleaders learn new skills and developbeneficial attitudes. People have to haveopportunities to learn on the job, andthe job has to be crafted to make a

contribution to the community, whiletaking up mostly evening and weekendtime. For example, in addition to aformal session on meeting facilitation,the leader might be apprenticed throughseveral community meetings, takingincreasing responsibility until she is com-fortable with the full range of tasks involved.

(3) Hands-on aspects of the best grassrootsleadership development programs havethe added benefit of addressing live com-munity issues as well as developing indi-vidual skill and networks. Many publicpolicies related to health care, education,job discrimination, environmental health,housing, and immigration have beennegotiated while emerging leaders werelearning from mentors, working withtheir communities and reflecting onlessons for their leadership.

(4) Programs that serve diverse constitu-encies build their crew of staff and teach-ers to include the language capacity andcultural connections needed to supportimmigrants and other marginalizedgroups. It’s impossible to evaluatesomeone’s work if you don’t know thecontext they are coming from, if you can-not measure their contributions againsttheir peers’, rather than a pool of estab-lished traditional leaders. Often theseleaders move their communities throughpolitical changes, changes in ethnic andnational identity, and generational con-flicts that emerge from assimilation and

Grassroots leaders emerge directly from the cultural,political and economic conditions that shape local com-munities, and they embrace family and friendship net-works that keep them closely linked.

resistance to assimilation. They need ana-lytic support to understand the challengesfacing their communities and respond tothem thoughtfully, rather than withcookie-cutter methods like having theright kind of food at meetings.

(5) They provide one-on-one evaluationand attention to growth. They measuregrowth by specific skills, but also in termsof confidence gained, ability to withstandhigh levels of conflict, productive inter-ventions in community conflicts, accu-rate and accountable representation of thecommunity, and the level of self-aware-ness in the leader. Excellent leadershipdevelopment programs will take partici-pants through a consistent cycle of as-sessing strengths, challenges, and goals;matching the participant to an assignment;assisting the participant through formaltraining or one-on-one coaching throughthat assignment; returning to assessmentand evaluation for the next step.

Foundations will have to apply a morehands-on approach to cultivating excel-lent proposals from grassroots leadershipprograms. Many existing programs areshort staffed and under-resourced, andprogram planners may need significantsupport to produce a fundable proposal.Most importantly, these kinds of programsdo not produce results overnight. A leadercan finish one phase of a program, butwhat next? In order for a reasonable next

step to exist, the program has to continueto exist, and has to have room for newand returning participants. Individual-ized attention requires a much higherstaff-to-participant ratio than most pro-fessional development programs provide.Guaranteed multi-year funding, withtechnical assistance and other resourcesmade available, will make a tremendousdifference in programmatic longevity, andin producing effective leadership.

Most support organizations are busydoing the work rather than promotingthemselves. Foundations can encourageprograms to spend their time on docu-mentation, reflection, evaluation, and pro-motion, rather than the relentless cycleof raising money. Site visits tend to pro-vide a fuller picture of such organizationsthan paper applications, but foundationsand organizations will have more produc-tive site visits if the foundation provides

some guidelines for site visit planning, andis willing to conduct them when programparticipants and graduates can be avail-able. If foundations are willing to takesome risks, they can make themselvesmore accessible to grassroots leadership.

Rinku Sen is the former codirector of theCenter for Third World Organizing. She hasalso served on the Allocations Committee ofthe Vanguard Public Foundation, theBannerman Fellowship Program, and theNational Committee for ResponsivePhilanthropy.

Foundations will have to apply a more hands-on approachto cultivating excellent proposals from grassroots leader-ship programs.

18

19

H ocus-pocus, triple focus. It sounds likemumbo-jumbo! It really is a kind of magic.The mystery is in all the positive benefits thatoccur when current and potential leaders areable to get useful training and support that:

•Respects each of the leaders and theirunique backgrounds and contributions;

•Allows newly involved people to decidetheir own pace and not be rushedthrough a cookie-cutter model ofleadership development;

•Alerts leaders to typical issues abouttheir organizational growth and change;

•Offers flexible and affordable capacity-building assistance to increase theorganization’s ability to achieve theleaders’ desired results;

•Assists leaders and organizations to seehow one issue connects to others and todevelop longer-term approaches tosystemic change when the time is right;

•Connects leaders and organizationsbeyond their specific areas of interestand fosters systemic change when thetiming is right; and

•Encourages increased communitycooperation and building of a sharedcommunity vision as a desirable andachievable goal.

“To most effectively address community-widesolutions at the grassroots level, funders(support organizations and leaders) shouldfocus on grassroots leadership in ways thatsimultaneously: a) meet the needs of theindividual leader; b) address the capacity-building needs of community-basedorganizations; and 3) keep the overall visionof community well-being in clear view,”Dr. Campbell concludes in her report’sExecutive Summary.

Perhaps the most powerful finding from thestudy—the triple focus recommendation—argues convincingly against reliance onstand-alone skill training or capacitybuilding as the most effective grassrootsleadership strategy.

What makes the triple focus so powerful? Itputs learning in the context of the leadersand assists them in advancing theircommunity change goals. The investment inskill building is leveraged by the growingself-esteem that results from being a part ofan effective organization and by makingprogress on issues or action goals.

Grassroots leaders are very personallyinvolved in their communities, organizationsand issues. All are tightly connected andbound together. Grassroots organizations are

typically small and fragile. As a result, it’soften difficult for leaders to separate theirconcerns for the organization and issues fromtheir interest in developing as leaders. If aleadership development program is able toeffectively support the organization and theissues, it can help make sure the leaders’attempts to lead are successful.It’s quitedifficult for leaders to focus on learning whenthey are concerned and distracted by a crisisin their organization. At the same time,because leaders are driven by passion for theirissues or community, they often are not lookingto abstractly acquire new skills. They merely wantto make progress on today’s issues in theircommunity and organization.

Progress on their issues and in building aneffective grassroots organization are amongthe most important measures leaders use tojudge their own effectiveness. Grassrootsleaders want to work with people whounderstand these interconnections and whowant to help them succeed on these terms.Leadership programs that meet this test havethe greatest opportunity to develop grassrootsleadership skills because they engender trustand respect. Programs using the triple focusapproach assist participating leaders becausethe learning is relevant to individuals in thecontext of their organization and issues.

Finding 3)In developing grassrootsleaders, the best resultsare achieved by usinga triple focus on theindividual leaders, theinvolved organization, andthe community or issueof concern.

What the triple focus on individual, organization andissue/community means and how to use it.

While using the triple focus approach mightappear to be straightforward, it is difficult todo and even more difficult to do well over anextended period. In fact, many of theorganizations visited in the study offered onlyparts of the three components or lacked theresources to offer them in an ongoing way.However, the collective experience of theorganizations studied demonstrates thepower and potential of this approach.

Those committed to supporting or fundinggrassroots leadership efforts have plenty ofchoices about where and how to focus theirefforts. Such choices often confoundemerging leaders and organizations,however. Support opportunities vary widelyfrom community to community. Typically,community colleges or service organizationsoffer some form of leadership skill training orleadership self-assessment. Less often thereis local access to technical assistanceintended to improve some aspect of a non-profit organization’s functioning, e.g., board-staff relationships and roles, financialmanagement, resource development, etc. Afew communities have organizations thatassist grassroots leaders in developing acommunity-wide plan or in shaping astrategy around a specific, troubling issue.

Each of these support needs is important.The Kellogg Foundation review foundattempts at grassroots support to be mosteffective when combined. Simply said, morepositive benefits occur when skill trainingaddresses the capacity-building needs of theparticipant’s organization as well as the localissues and the community change goals.This notion runs counter to much of the“prevailing wisdom.”

Implementing a combined approach requiresovercoming a number of obstacles. Theinvestment of resources required to developgrassroots leaders in the context of theirorganization and issues is often greater thanthey or their organizations can afford.Further, the cost is a lot more than tuition toa typical leadership training course orprogram. This approach also runs counter totheories more prevalent in business, socialservices, or government, namely that the besttraining is specialized, standardized, andvalue-neutral. Unlike this more traditionalapproach, grassroots leadership develop-ment works from a value system andresponds to the higher purposes that drivethose involved.

The triple focus doesn’t happen all at once.It may involve more than one organizationsupporting a grassroots leader. Not everyleader or situation is ready for this approachfrom the outset. Often, concerned citizens getinvolved because of a specific issue. In thebeginning, most of their focus is on workingon that issue with anyone who will help. Overtime, where resources are available, peoplelike the four leaders profiled in the introduc-tion look to connect their personal learningwith building their organization andpromoting community issues. Ultimately,training and capacity building based on thetriple focus approach leverages and expandsthe results of any investment in grassrootsleadership development.

Here are some examples ofhow the triple-focus approachwas applied in the work of twoof the leaders who openedour overview:

• The Democracy Resource Centerworks with leaders andorganizations throughouteastern Kentucky. Their outreachstaff learned of Joan Robinettand her battle against toxicdumping. Their involvementincluded assisting Joan inresearching the issue and legalliabilities, organizing andbuilding the Anti-Toxic WasteCoalition, and providing coachingto her and her organization onstrategies and tactics as theyworked for five years to endthe dumping.

• The Neighborhood ReinvestmentCorporation is a nationalnonprofit organization thatworks with a network of locallybased community developmentorganizations across the country.Thomas James got assistance fromthe staff of NeighborhoodReinvestment and anorganizational developmentconsultant provided to rebuildthe board, clarify the communitychange goals, and recruit aneffective new executive director.Mr. James and other grassrootsleaders from Richmond attendedworkshops at NeighborhoodReinvestment’s Training Institutethat added skills and knowledgeon the issues they worked withat home.

20

21

T

As the Campbell findings point out, focusing training and technical assistance on the connections between the individual leader’s skill buildingand capacity building for the organization towards the community change goal makes total sense. Sometimes this approach just happens.Other times it is totally elusive, and focusing on skill building and issue development or skills to strengthen the organization is all the leaderor the trainer can do well. Triple focus is an ideal and a way of thinking about effective delivery of training and technical assistance forgrassroots leaders and organizations. Triple Focus: An Approach to Grassroots Leadership Development offers more details on theapproach and how it works.

he triple focus finding has lightningrod potential for those interested insupporting and strengthening grassrootsleadership efforts. From visiting more than20 grassroots leadership projects aroundthe United States, it became clear that thebest and most successful programs focusedon more than leadership. The approachesthat worked best and produced the mostresults for the leaders themselves and theircommunity or issue areas were those thatwent beyond either individual skill build-ing or organizational capacity building.

In this important way, grassroots lead-ership development programs differedfrom other leadership programs. In asingle-focus program, a new nonprofitexecutive might attend a skill-buildingworkshop. The president of a commu-nity coalition might learn skills to run ameeting or build a network. While thesetrainings are helpful, the Kellogg Foun-dation research found that the mostimpact came from a strategy that simul-taneously focused on, and could deliveron, three distinct areas: the individualleader, the organization the leader repre-sented, and the community or issuewherein the leader sought change.Successful grassroots programs get theirkick, not from narrow specialization,impartiality and non-involvement in“issues,” but from understanding andsupporting the participant in thegrassroots leaders’ environment. It’s theattention to the connections between theindividual’s learning and the organizationand community where the most poten-tial for change occurs.

The Triple FocusBy Tom Adams

Why would this approach, referredto here as the triple focus, have moreimpact for grassroots leaders? First, theindividual grassroots leader is differentfrom more traditional learners. At thebeginning and sometimes for a long time,some people don’t see themselves as“leaders” and aren’t sure they want thattitle. They are often torn between anunquenchable desire to do somethingabout a community or issue they care

deeply about, and fervently wanting tonot be involved. Leadership is probablyunfamiliar and certainly risky, invitingfailure, controversy, unwanted attentionand even attack. They’ve often not hadopportunities to give voice in public totheir concerns or beliefs, or to learnbasic skills of organizing a group,running a meeting, developing a plan, andcarrying it out. Depending on theirethnic, cultural, or economic background,many leaders have their own personalbarriers to overcome arising from inter-nalized negative messages that get in theway of being effective as a leader. More-over, the identity of grassroots leaders isgenerally bound up with the organiza-tions they are invested in and the issuesthat motivated them into leadership, andthat they work through their organiza-

tions. And they are experiential learners—learning while doing what is highlyimportant to them.

For these reasons, offering the indi-vidual the opportunity to expand self-esteem and learn basic leadership skills isa key part of grassroots leadership devel-opment, even for the most promising andadvanced leaders. However as a stand-alone focus, it is limited in how much

leadership development or communitychange will result. The leader’s firstpriority will be the organization, andconnecting the leaders to their organiza-tion adds significantly to the impact ofleadership development. Focusing onboth the individual and the organizationadds an ability to both support and trainthe leader in the context of the organi-zation in which they lead, and to betteridentify where capacity building is neededto keep that organization healthy and outof crisis. Leadership programs that helpsupport organizations while training theirleaders ensure positive experiential learn-ing grounds for the application of newleadership skills. There are normal andpredictable issues that occur in organiza-tions such as leadership transition, growth,and an occasional funding or interper-

Moreover, the identity of grassroots leaders are generallybound up with the organizations they are invested in, andthe issues that motivated them into leadership and thatthey work on through their organizations. And they areexperiential learners –– learning while doing what ishighly important to them.

sonal crisis. Working with the leader andthe organization increases the odds of theorganization remaining healthy anddeveloping the skills to manage thesenormal organizational changes.

Long-term involvement with indi-vidual leaders and their organizationsprovides opportunities to assist leaders intheir environment and with the issuesthey face and to identify and addressimportant organizational capacity-build-ing issues. While this dual focus is pow-erful, the ultimate objective of mostgrassroots efforts is community change.Therefore the third aspect of the triplefocus is key—the community, or for many,the issue. This is how grassroots leadersjudge their own efforts, and the value ofrelated activities—does it move theirissue forward? Does it help their com-munity—help them help their commu-nity? Leadership programs that acceptresponsibility for commitment to theirleaders’ issues, and are able to providetraining and additional support that aredirectly connected to those issues, willhave more credibility with grassroots lead-ers, and a higher rate of success. And thesuccess will be twofold—developing theskills and capacity of the individual, andsharing in the community bettermentthey cause.

These, then, are the three keys—thetriple focus—that yielded the greatestsuccess among the 23 programs theKellogg Foundation funded—attention tothe individual, the individual’s organiza-tion, and the issue or community changethe leader and organization were com-mitted to. A wide range of organizationswere included in the Kellogg Foundationstudy, ranging from an Urban LeagueChapter to a university-based trainingprogram to several regional leadershipcenters. The triple focus examples amongthese groups stood out for their success.

A grassroots leader in Baltimore had asecure job with the local government. Shechose to buy a home in the neighborhoodwhere she was raised, a “distressed” neigh-borhood facing many challenges. She sawthat her mother’s generation was no longertrying to keep the neighborhood associa-

tion going, and it was heading downhill.She got involved and encouraged otheryounger residents and homeowners. Sheand her mother signed up for a year-longleadership program offered by a city-widecitizen action organization, the CitizensPlanning and Housing Association.Through this training, she received indi-vidual skills training and she developed aplan for revitalizing her neighborhood andthe association. She and her neighborssought money for a full-time organizer and

when successful she was asked by herneighbors to take the position. With alot of reservations, she gave up hergovernment job and began working in thecommunity. Continuing to work with theassociation, she connected with a newlyforming city coalition seeking to expandresources for neighborhoods like hers andto influence the policies of the newly electedmayor. The effort has succeeded to the pointthat it’s been recognized in the nationalnews. This leader benefited and herneighborhood benefited from a triplefocus strategy.

Cheryl Casciani, senior program officerat the Baltimore Community Foundationand former executive director of thecitizen action group, Citizens Planningand Housing Association, explained it thisway: “ I’ve been watching Mareda andher organization since she first startedshowing up at our trainings. It’s impos-sible to imagine her or her organizationmaking as much progress in just over ayear without this mix of attention to heras a leader, to her evolving organizationand to assisting in developing a strategyfor her neighborhood and connecting herto neighborhoods with similar needs. Shehas been able to help bring about majorchanges in resource allocation andpolicies for neighborhoods in Baltimore!

Intentionally focusing on the connection between theindividual leader, her or his organization, and thecommunity or issue to be changed adds tremendouslyto the potential impact of grassroots leadershipdevelopment programs, and hence to any investmentby funders in grassroots leadership.

22

Timing certainly helped, but there is noway her neighborhood would haveprogressed this far without the mix ofsupports available to grassroots leaders inBaltimore.”

In Boise, a young librarian grew concernedabout censorship and intolerance towardsgay people in her community. Tentativelyat first, she joined a brand-new “humandignity” group. Soon Idaho found itselfat the center of a national campaign to

pass or defeat laws restricting the civilrights of gay citizens. By now the librar-ian, Jen Ray, had enrolled in the leader-ship training program of the Western StatesCenter. The conflict in Idaho grew largerand more heated, and Jen applied skillslearned through Western States to help hergroup grow, and encourage many smallergroups to get involved as well. Leadersfrom some of these groups joined the West-ern States program as well, and workedtogether to develop skills, strategies,research, and educational workshops toapply in their communities. Jen eventu-ally left the library and became executivedirector of one of the largest and mostsuccessful public interest groups in Idaho,the Idaho Womens’ Network—andduring this transition she received furthertraining and support from Western Statesthrough their year-long Advanced Lead-ership/Mentorship Program. Jen is nowone of the most highly respected statewidecitizen leaders in Idaho, a regular spokes-woman for human rights in both Idahoand national media, and a board memberof the Western States Center—whereshe works to ensure that ever-growingnumbers of grassroots activists have accessto leadership development programs.

23

Betsy Dunklin is a veteran observer ofgrassroots leaders in Idaho. Now a leaderin the Idaho State Senate, Betsy is aformer journalist who became a grassrootsleader herself, working for the YWCA andlater as founder of the Idaho Womens’Network. According to Dunklin, “Themultiple facets of the Western Statesprogram provided just what grassrootsleaders in our state needed. We are a smallstate, thinly populated, and people who“stand up” to take leadership are oftenisolated, even threatened, in their commu-nities. But they are brave to “stand up”and with support and training andconnections to other leaders, folks canaccomplish astonishing things. Jen Rayis a perfect example. Our community isa better place for her efforts, safer and moreopen-minded. That she could accomplishso much in so short a time is astounding—what’s more, she is just one of a dozenor more leaders all coming up togetherthrough these programs. It just wouldn’thave worked out this well, if we’d had toship everyone off to a training school, orhad consultants drop in to put on a coupleworkshops.”

Long-term involvement with indi-vidual leaders and their organizationsprovides opportunities to assist leaders intheir environment with the issues theyface, and to identify and address impor-tant organizational capacity-buildingissues. If the goal of grassroots leadershipis improving community well-being, asDr. Campbell suggests, then connectingleaders and their organizations to theissues they care most about is a key toexpanding impact and results.

There are thousands of examples, newones daily, of grassroots leaders diggingin to change something in their commu-nity. In Wyoming, a welfare mother wasconcerned about health care and tookaction. In the Mississippi Delta, AfricanAmerican mothers in a tiny rural townfought the powerful white school boardand won, stopping corporal punishmentof their children. In Kentucky, a motherwho’d lost one son to cancer got involvedto stop the pollution that threatened otherfamilies. In each of these situations, theleaders benefited from a connection to aleadership program that focused on com-

munity change and did it through bothindividual leadership development andconnecting to the organizational context.For neighborhood-focused leaders, thecommunity is where they live, theirimmediate surroundings. For others“community” may mean an ethnic group,or people affected by a common prob-lem or concerned with a common issue.Regardless of how “community” isdefined, intentional focusing on theconnection between the individual leader,her or his organization, and the commu-nity or issue to be changed adds tremen-dously to the potential impact ofgrassroots leadership developmentprograms, and hence to any investmentby funders in grassroots leadership.

Tom Adams formerly directed leadershipprograms at the Neighborhood ReinvestmentCorporation, a national nonprofit that workswith community-based organizations, and iscurrently a consultant and writer in areas ofleadership, leadership transitions, and organi-zational development for nonprofits.

16

T here are many people and organizationsinvolved in grassroots issues. At times, all ofthis activity looks unconnected, somewhatdisorganized and perhaps even random.This may or may not be the reality in yourcommunity. It certainly doesn’t have to be.This guide provides you with a variety ofexamples of communities and groups whichare taking actions to proactively supportgrassroots leadership development. They areacting because they know that everyone winswhen people decide together how they aregoing to invest in grassroots leadershipdevelopment.

Not every leader or community has access toneeded support—institutional or financial. Inmany cities, suburbs, and rural areas acrossAmerica, grassroots leaders are isolated andstruggle to get started. Many give up or nevertake the risk of becoming involved. Our civilsociety counts on that decision to becomeinvolved, however. Time pressures, fear,family commitments, and the growingcomplexity of life at all levels do make thedecision to get involved a bigger deal intoday’s brave new world.

The work of support organizations and othersdemonstrates the power and the potential ofan intentional decision to engage in thedevelopment of grassroots leadershipas a strategy. This decision allows thecommunity to go beyond the efforts ofindividual grassroots leaders. The productbecomes much more than the sum results ofall of the involved leaders and organizations,despite their individual importance.

A deliberate approach to leadershipdevelopment work means to be intentional,proactive, and consistent. It also means to

Finding 4)Grassroots leadership worksbest when the decision toinvest in developinggrassroots leaders is adeliberate strategy, i.e.,intentional, proactive, andconsistent.

How to get more from the time, money, and talentinvested in grassroots leaders, and who benefits.

view grassroots leadership development as adistinct strategy with proven methods andoutcomes. In communities that are trulyintentional about grassroots leadership, thereare many benefits to the whole community,including:

•More people get involved at alllevels—on their street or block, in thecommunity, and in coalitions andservice organizations;

•New leaders have access to supportand can learn from peers and see whatis possible;

•A pipeline of new leaders is developedrepresenting ethnic groups orconstituencies previously not part ofcommunity decision making;

•Long-time leaders continue to grow,are renewed, and often serve longer andbetter without burn-out or isolation fromtheir constituency;

•New talent is developed for mainstreamleadership positions and more of agrassroots perspective is present inbusiness, nonprofit, and governmentmanagement.

The support provided to Joan Robinett in herwork in eastern Kentucky would not haveexisted without a conscious decision by agroup of local leaders. Intentional in thiscase meant “just do it!” Tired of the politicsof exclusion and control by a few, and seeingthe impact the existing style of governmentwas having on communities and their vitalservices, a group of leaders formed anorganization to challenge corruption and thelack of open government process in easternKentucky. The Democracy Resource Center,

with the support of regional and nationalfunders, assisted Joan on her initial issue oftoxic dumping and then worked with her asshe broadened her interests and became adeveloper of other leaders and organizationsin her region.

There are many ways to be deliberate aboutgrassroots leadership. Establishing a supportsystem that is multi-faceted and responsiveto local needs is a proactive approach. As astrategy, leadership development has explicitgoals, proven methods, replicable andmeasurable results—and powerful impact.Being proactive often involves the formationof organizations dedicated specifically todeveloping grassroots leadership, in thehope that such leadership will flourishacross a broad range of community-basedorganizations.

Consistency—of focus and in the commit-ment of time, energy, and money—isrequired for this proactive approach to work.The Campbell study reminds funders thatgrassroots leaders have different needs thanother types of leaders. Supporting thedevelopment of grassroots leaders takesmore time and effort than running a programfor positional or mainstream leaders. Thejourney is often a long one. Building andstrengthening community well-being is anongoing need not served well by periodicand inconsistent attention. There arecertainly benefits to one-time and short-termprograms or funding. However, the complex-ity of the issues, and the competing demandsfor time and energy of volunteer citizens,support organization staff, and fundersreinforce the importance of consistentinvolvement over the long term.

24

25

Finding 5)Grassroots leaders encouragefunders and supportorganizations to take actionsthat support the effortsof grassroots leadership.

How support organizations can be most helpful andwhat leaders might expect and ask from them.

T

How to more fullyinvolve funders insupportinggrassrootsleadershipdevelopment.

he days of the “super hero” leader going italone are over. Many would argue suchsingular leaders never truly existed to beginwith. In modern society we need each othermore than ever. Our issues are morecomplex. Our leaders and followers comefrom many backgrounds and cultures.Building a community means reaching andinvolving a wide variety of citizens at thelocal level. This is messy work, not donethrough a neat formula. It requires courage,compassion, and openness to change.

For grassroots leadership development togrow as a deliberate strategy, commitmentfrom support organizations and funders isessential. The Campbell report developed aset of recommendations for funders which

demonstrates how the time and dollarsinvested in grassroots leadership develop-ment can be maximized. The report alsoconcluded that access to effective supportorganizations is a key ingredient to asuccessful grassroots leadership strategy.

An obvious finding? Perhaps, but thinkabout grassroots leaders and organizationsyou know. What access do they have to asupport organization? To flexible fundingthat meets their needs? We can, and should,ask how support organizations can be helpfuland what kind of funding is most needed.Let’s take a look at what the study foundabout characteristics of effective supportorganizations and funders workingwith grassroots organizations.

SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS

The Campbell study found conclusively thatsupport organizations of all kinds play animportant role with grassroots leaders andtheir organizations. Because of the oftenunique backgrounds of grassroots leadersand their distinct needs, such individuals(and their organizations) work in isolationand face challenging issues without accessto support. The 23 organizations studied(and others like them) represent a range ofapproaches to supporting grassrootsleadership. Some provide training in auniversity or community college setting.Others provide training, networking, andon-site technical assistance for leadersworking on certain types of issues or froma particular philosophy or point of view.Some support organizations are referredto as intermediaries because they play a“go-between” role related to the transfer ofservices and/or money between funders andnational networks, and local organizations.For our purposes, intermediaries areincluded as one type of support organization.These organizations represent the earlydevelopment of a much-needed “system”of support for grassroots leaders andorganizations.

Some of the most easily identifiable andbroadly known types of support organizationinclude:

•Local or regional community-basedorganizations offering training and /ortechnical assistance to grassrootsleaders and organizations

•Local or regional service organizationsthat offer leadership developmentopportunities

•Local educational institutions offeringcourses or programs for grassrootsleaders and organizations

•Regional or national organizationscommitted to social action (ofteninvolving community organizing andleadership development)

•Regional or national organizationsfocused on service, education, and/orcommunity building.

How to plan a strategy that is deliberate because itis intentional, proactive, and consistently used.

How to reach new allies and broadenyour network and resources.

The number of support organizations is growing because of the increasing needs ofgrassroots leaders, their organizations, and funders. Given the limited resources availableto grassroots leaders and their organizations and their frequent disconnect to mainstreaminstitutions or resources, it comes as no surprise that support organizations help fill a largehole in the educational infrastructure of most communities. These organizations providea wide range of services and training opportunities, which include networking with otherleaders, skill training, organizational capacity building, issue research and strategydevelopment.

The following are the important characteristics of an effective support organization orintermediary as seen by grassroots leaders and organizations:

•The support organization’s mission and reputation reflects the grassroots orientationand commitment to the community. The organization shares the general philosophyof the grassroots leaders’ organizations, and is of a size and structure that relateswell to local leaders and their communities.

•The organization’s programs are reliable sources of leadership resources and support,and have inclusive, diverse operations that inspire trust in members of the localcommunity. Credibility and a track record of following through with the communityin which it works is key to the organization succeeding with leaders on difficult, oftendivisive issues.

•Leadership development projects within the organization have the capacity to focussimultaneously on individual change and on group support and development.

•The organization offers a mix of leadership training, organizational capacity building,peer-to-peer networking and support, and on-site technical assistance.

Effective support organizations are able to recognize and work with leaders and groups atmajor institutional change points, which provide critical, often “do-or-die” opportunities toexpand leadership and strengthen the target organization. Such change points include:

– the creation or start-up of an organization;– major leadership transitions;– major growth or down-sizing; and– times of crisis.

26

27

FUNDERS

Funders, like support organizations, directlyand significantly impact grassroots leadersand organizations through their policies andpractices. The Campbell study looked at therole of funders and their behavior to identifywhat helps and what gets in the way ofsupporting grassroots leadership develop-ment as a strategy.

Those familiar with grassroots leadershipinitiatives recognize the episodic, almost fad-like coming and going of funding support forgrassroots leadership. Often, a community ora foundation has within it a champion for thecause of local issues. When such a propo-nent leaves, funding from the organizationoften diminishes. The Campbell study notedthat some of the weaknesses of thegrassroots leadership development effortsare inherent to the history and mission ofsuch efforts; others result directly from theepisodic and limited funding available.Actions which might reverse these weak-nesses include:

• Increasing attention to organizationaldevelopment and planning aboutoutcomes and community indicators byleadership development organizations;

• Investing in support organizations ata scale appropriate to grassrootsorganizations (i.e., neither too small ortoo large) and avoiding difficulties inrelating to leaders (too large) or ingrowing too slowly to keep pace withneeds (too small);

• Moving beyond a focus on isolatedcommunity projects to linking issuesand levels of change in a community;

• Making more time and resources availablefor organizational renewal and fordevelopment of support staff; and

• Clarifying the role(s) of foundations andother funders in grassroots leadershipdevelopment efforts.

How and with whom funders choose to getinvolved in grassroots leadership develop-ment makes a big difference in outcomes andsustainability. The study also identified someareas that might assist funders in thinkingabout their long-term approach to grassrootsleadership development.

Like grassroots leaders, each funder hasmotivation and interests. The Campbellfindings suggest that funders of all stripesshape their giving programs to make thegreatest impact as part of a specific leader-ship development strategy. As support forgrassroots leadership development continuesto expand, the way in which grassrootsorganizations, support organizations andfunders collaborate will continue to change.As this study indicates, the individual andcollective effectiveness of all involved partiesis interconnected. Experience shows thegreat potential to be realized when funderswork with grassroots leaders and supportorganizations. Additional observation andreflection will continue to shape the practice.The Neighborhood Funders Group, an affinityorganization of foundations and otherfunders involved with community-basedchange efforts, is publishing a CommunityOrganizing Tool Kit with useful materialsthat further advance this work.

Involvement with grassroots leaders andtheir issues changes most people and theirorganizations. It’s nearly impossible to bearound the infectious energy and “can do”confidence of local leaders and not bemotivated. Profound personal and commu-nity change occurs every day all acrossAmerica because of the courage and tenacityof grassroots leaders. There will always bean element of struggle and challenge ingrassroots efforts. The Foundation’s fieldstudy gives anyone interested a powerfulguide to reduce the struggle for support andfunding. These findings offer an opportunityfor each of us—leaders, trainers, funders,and other stakeholders—to examine howwe think about and practice grassrootsleadership development. Our belief is thatattention to these lessons will broaden thebeneficial effects of current efforts andexpand the lives and communities touchedby a deliberate use of grassroots leadershipdevelopment as a strategy.

FINDINGSSUMMARY

The Crosscuttingof the GrassrootsLeadership StrategyBy Regina McGraw

In our next essay, Regina McGraw of the Wieboldt Foundation offers a compelling demonstration of just how grassroots leadershipdevelopment is a crosscutting issue for funders. Most funders make grants in specific issue or focus areas. Grassroots leadershipdevelopment has vital application across all issues and has a place in most foundations’ grantmaking as one of the essential strategiesfor affecting issues and community change.

Additionally, given the mounting demands on philanthropy, most funders are aggressively looking for synergy and leverage for theirinvestments. The issues that we are concerned about—health care, homelessness, youth development, safe neighborhoods, qualityschools, elimination of hate crime and discrimination, among a host of others—are unavoidably linked to grassroots leadership.Regina shares her experience and that of a number of funders who have stepped up their investment in grassroots leadershipdevelopment as a way to increase the crosscutting benefits from their grant making.

28

The Wieboldt Foundation’s funding ofcommunity organizing meets this need.As community leaders decide what issuesare important to them, and develop plansto solve them, they bring to the issue aperspective that is often missing in themost hallowed halls of our major univer-sities and think tanks. You may know thisfrom your own funding. Or you maybe interested in solutions to specificchallenges—health, community safety,youth development, school reform,poverty alleviation—whatever yourfoundation’s guidelines suggest are thecr itical community problems yourfoundation was founded to address. Whyshould you fund community leadership?

I can give several examples of why Ithink the funding of this strategy will workfor you—but two important points. Oneis that community leadership does nothappen in a vacuum—it must be devel-oped and nurtured through the work ofcommunity organizing through commu-

A s a funder, I am blessed with access toknowledge—I read the New York Timesevery day, and receive enough publicpolicy reports to outfit a small butimpressive library. As a funder of com-munity organizing, I am blessed withaccess to people who want to make adifference in their communities. They arelively, smart, courageous, and insightful—the kinds of people that give living rebut-tal to all of the stereotypes of class andrace that play out daily on our televisionnews and talk shows.

I also want the communities ofChicago that are home to low-andmoderate-income residents to have thesame access to power and decision mak-ing as their wealthier fellow residents.I want to support strategies that workto build a more healthy community—strategies that will stand the test of timeand continue long after the “flavor of themonth” description and prescription fora social issue have moved on to make roomfor others.

nity organizations. Also, development ofcommunity leadership must be in the con-text of building healthier communities—it is personal leadership exercised for thegood of the community rather than justthe individual.

As a funder, I want to know that myinvestment will pay off in the long term—that changes made can be sustainedand enhanced. School reform in Chicagocame as a result of community leadersenlisting the support of business leaders,public policy groups, and politicians andpressing for policy changes that openedthe schoolhouse doors to parents andcommunity members through the forma-tion of Local School Council eleven yearsago. By pressing for this change, commu-nity leaders agreed to work with schoolpersonnel to improve education forevery child in the city. As a result ofincreased community leadership in theschools, test scores have improved,curriculum has been updated, schools have

29

been made safer, and some schools nowserve as community centers where after-school programs include literacy andcareer training for adults.

What about other areas of public policy?After requirements are made of businessor government, who will make sure theyare enforced? Community leaders will.Community leaders have challengedbanks to follow the community reinvest-ment act and provide adequate funds tolow-income communities and startedco-ops and mortgage-lending programsthat work because the residents areinvested in their success. Leaders inpublic housing have also challenged thenotion of demolition without displace-ment, and given young people who livein these islands of poverty role modelsof adults who can stand up to the richand powerful who want to gentrify theircommunities.

Strong community organizations canspend much time building communityleadership, and then take on large-scaleprojects for meeting the needs of theircommunities. After years of recruiting andtraining leaders, a Chicago organizationhas turned to the broad needs of theircommunity and built 114 affordablehomes, and constructed a communitycenter which houses child care and healthprograms, and serves as a place for com-munity events.

Community leaders with years ofexperience in organizations can also usetheir organizational strength to push forchange that is more far-reaching andmakes more of an impact than neighbor-

hood-specific work. This has been seenin a new strategy for poverty alleviation—the successful living-wage campaigns thathave united community and union lead-ers in fighting for better incomes in Chi-cago and other cities across the country.

Sometimes community leaders can sur-prise you with their attention to the thingsthat matter in their communities. Onecommunity organization has begunworking with members of their commu-nities to encourage community residentsto become foster parents to the abused orneglected children of their communities.After the residents become parents, theyare given ongoing support. Anothergroup, which works in a diverse commu-nity of immigrants, refugees, and moder-ate- and low-income residents, is work-ing with members of the American Fed-eration of State and Municipal Employ-ees who work in local public assistanceoffices to improve services and stream-line bureaucracy. These are innovativeapproaches, and can only come from folkswho know first-hand the depth andbreadth of a problem.

As I suspect you may have seen in thenews, Chicago’s city council passed anordinance which allowed the police toarrest any young people who were “hang-ing around” a street corner or house whenone member of the group was a knownmember of a gang. Although this law didnot pass muster with the U.S. SupremeCourt, a revised version recently passedthe council.

Community leaders know that youthare not the enemy—they are the sons and

daughters of community residents. Onecommunity organization has set up apolice-youth board that grapples withincidences of youth harassment in theircommunity—another group has set up aseries of meetings between young peopleand the police district superintendent.Each of these efforts recognizes thetalents and skills of young people, andenables them to work with adults toaddress community safety.

As new issues arise, or new opportuni-ties for change occur, who will be on theground to spot and respond to them?Community leaders will. For the past 25years our foundation has learned that,although community organizations maygo through hard times, and staff may comeand go, a core of community leadershipwill allow the organization to survive mosthardships.

Community organizations give leaderstheir best chance to develop and grow. Theorganizations that we fund organize byenlisting and nurturing the participationof a large number of neighborhood resi-dents, organizations and institutions,recruit and formally train local leadership;and enable local residents to develop anagenda, to devise strategies, and to carryout actions effectively to address issues.They also demonstrate innovative strate-gies or create new local institutions thatstrengthen the local community capacity;broaden their impact by working withother groups, whenever possible; are ledby a board of directors that is representa-tive of and accountable to communitymembers; and show evidence of signifi-cant local fundraising.

30

These types of organizations have a coreof community independence that willmake them immune to following thelatest trend in foundation funding, or fallprey to utilizing a strategy that workedextremely well in another community orcity but does not fit their situation. I havelearned this the hard way—when Isuggest a strategy that I think has greatpotential, due to another group’s experi-ence, the leaders always listen politely, andthen fit the strategy to their situation orexplain why they are trying somethingelse. Community leaders keep fundershumble.

This talk of community leadership doesnot get at one simple fact that I also thinkis important. Due to the challenges of raceand class, residents of low-incomecommunities do not have the opportuni-ties for leadership in their jobs or politi-cal life that are taken for granted inmiddle- or upper-income communities.The formation of such leadership is in andof itself a societal good that is important,but a funder can make a much largerdifference if this leadership is tied tocommunity goals.

There is a story that shows this point.An official from the Department of Hous-ing came to a housing development tohear about the dilapidated condition ofthe development’s apartments. One femalecommunity leader spoke eloquently infront of hundreds of people about thehorrors of her apartment—no hot wateror heat, roaches and rats frequently found,and pant that was peeling off the ceilingsand walls. The official looked at her andsaid, “Let me get the number of yourapartment and we’ll see what we can do.”The woman looked the official right inthe eye and said, “If you do somethingabout this development, you will bedoing something about my apartment.”The personal and the political cametogether—the woman knew that she wasaccountable to her community, andvalued the plight of her community asmuch as her own hardships. The organi-zation that she belonged to had given herthe forum for her leadership, and sup-ported her efforts. This is community lead-ership at its best and most effective—andmakes me proud of being a part ofher, and other community residents’,leadership.

Regina McGraw is the executive directorof the Wieboldt Foundation in Chicago and aboard member of the Neighborhood FundersGroup.

31

THE IMPORTANCE OFSUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS

The Western States Center provided training to a frustrated welfare mother from Wyoming. Some years later, through her ongoing involvementwith the center and its programs, Wende Barker had helped change how welfare works in Wyoming and had become a state legislator.

Pat Wilkerson saw many problems in the neighborhood where she bought a home. However, as a single mom it was all she could afford.She felt powerless until she and two neighbors attended a Community Leadership Institute workshop sponsored by the NeighborhoodReinvestment Corporation. Things in her neighborhood began to change.

Jill Carson wondered why her neighbors in a rural area of Virginia seemed disconnected and out of touch with their proud past. TheHighlander Center and its Southern Appalachian Leadership Training gave her the tools to recognize her own talents and to create anAfrican-American cultural center in her community.

Joan Robinett knew there was a lot of illegal dumping all over Harlan County. The county government denied it was a problem until Joan andher neighbors worked with the Democracy Resource Center to document 230 illegal dumps and demand something be done about them.

Leaders of the Latino Civil Rights Task Force in Washington, DC, knew that the local government wasn’t dealing with problems facingtheir neighborhoods and Latino immigrants. Working with the National Council of LaRaza and the Council of Latino Agencies and others, theselocal leaders changed that.

In many communities, Asians, Latinos, African-Americans and whites don’t always cooperate. In Oakland, CA., however, The Center forThird World Organizing and People Unitized for a Better Oakland worked together to improve health and youth services for thewhole community.

Robert Greenleaf had a notion that service was at the core of leadership. The Center for Servant Leadership now annually trains thousandsof grassroots and mainstream leaders in how to be an effective servant leader—in families, at the workplace, and in the community.

Cherie Brown grew up concerned about fairness. Her faith led her to work for social justice. Fifteen years ago, she helped found the NationalCoalition Building Institute which has provided an intensive anti-racism and prejudice reduction training workshop for over 30,000 people oncollege campuses and communities across the United States and in other countries.

The Southern Empowerment Project was founded to encourage grassroots organizing in the South. Today, leaders and organizers of14 organizations work together to learn how to build stronger and healthier communities through grassroots organizing and fundraising.

hese organizations are not unique. They area small sample of a growing network of peopleand organizations which provide support tograssroots leaders and organizations. Somehave long and rich traditions like theHighlander Center with its pioneering work inpopular education that organized and broughttogether civil rights workers and labororganizers beginning in the 1920s. Othersare more recent, including the NeighborhoodReinvestment Corporation, the Center forCommunity Change, and an entirely newgeneration of support groups which came intoexistence beginning in the late 60s and early70s. During the past two decades, many moreorganizations with different approaches havejoined the field, including the Western StatesCenter, Democracy Resource Center, and theNational Coalition Building Institute, to namea few.

Some organizations are dedicated to workingfull time to develop grassroots leaders andorganizations. Others devote a part of theirmission to grassroots support efforts.Examples include leadership or communitybuilding programs offered by communitycolleges or human service agencies.

We want to highlight this growing field and toshare experiences and lessons with those whoare involved. We’ve intentionally used a broadnet in an effort to capture the range of experi-ence and contributions that Dr. Campbelldocumented in her report to the KelloggFoundation. Because support in one form oranother is the common element providedthrough these programs, we’ve chosen to usethe term “support organizations” to refer toentities engaged in providing leadershipprograms, other training, technical assistanceand networking to grassroots leaders andorganizations.

Some organizations are better known asintermediaries. Others prefer to be identifiedas leadership programs or centers. Regardlessof their labels, Dr. Campbell summarized thecritical role such organizations play in helpingrealize the full potential of grassroots leader-ship development as a strategy: “To reachgrassroots community participants and toprovide support and technical assistance to

groups and organizations attempting tosustain community-wide initiatives (systemschange), …fund well-defined, grassrootsintermediary programs to run grassrootsleadership programs.… We have definedintermediary to mean organizations that arecredible, trusted, and capable of reachingsmall, often isolated grassroots groupsand individuals.”

Think for a minute about the changes whichoccured in the communities described in thisguide. Add to that list a few examples from yourown experience of how support organizationshave empowered people and organizations tomake their communities better places. If thissystem of support didn’t exist, there wouldundoubtedly be more communities in decline,more discrimination, and more polarization ofAmerica’s citizens. In short, our democraticvalues and our belief in a free and opensociety are advanced daily by the work ofsupport organizations like these.

Identities for groups emerge from practice. Agrowing number of architects, gardeners,draftsmen, and agriculturalists were involvedin planning for green spaces and publicgardens in the early 20th century. It wasn’tuntil Frederick Law Olmstead and a few othersbegan calling themselves landscape architectsthat that field got an identity, however. It’s notuncommon for people and organizationsdoing similar work to lack a means to easilyconnect.

Grassroots leadership developmentsupport is a broad and growing field ofpractice. Even with its great diversity, thisdiscipline would surely benefit from a sharedidentity. If, as a community and nation, we wantto be more deliberate about our investment ingrassroots leaders and organizations asthe Campbell study suggests, then we’rechallenged to broadly define our peers and toactively share lessons learned. In an article thatfollows, Seth Borgos reminds us that narrowdefinitions of support organizations onlyhinders our work.

There are many people and organizationsinvolved in providing support to grassrootsleaders and organizations. There are also

major differences in philosophy, values, andmethods among the support providers. Theterm “grassroots” implies that the work isoutside of the mainstream. Given the oftenfierce independence of grassroots leaders, it’snot surprising that many of the organizationsworking with them mirror that independenceand are resistant to categorization.

Borgos suggests that among the manydifferent kinds of intermediaries that supportgrassroots leadership development, no singletypology can capture the diverse characteris-tics of these institutions. “ Intermediaries” (andsupport organizations), as he sees it, “may beclassified by their geographical scope (e.g.,statewide, regional, national, global), by thekinds of organizations and communities theyserve (e.g., faith-based, low-income, rural,immigrant), by their issue focus (e.g., hous-ing, health care, civil rights, environmentaljustice), or by the primary services they pro-vide (e.g., leadership training, research, policyanalysis, staff development, technology).”

There are obvious overlaps among thesecategories. The three previously mentioneddistinct motivations (service, social action, andfaith) and the triple-focus approach suggestedby the Campbell study add further explanationto why such a wide variety of approaches isneeded to promote the personal development,organizational development, and communityand issue building goals of grassrootsconstituencies.

Most programs or initiatives aimed atproviding support for grassroots leadersinvolve some combination of networkingopportunities, training, or technical assistance.There are also many different ways to offerlearning opportunities and services. Borgossuggests that a useful way to summarize thefield of practice is by looking at the relation-ship of support organizations to grassrootsorganizations. He suggests three primary typesof structures and relationships:“Networkstypically have a membership structure or acomparable mechanism that defines a discreteset of organizations to be served. In manycases, the network is the primary sourceof organizational support for its members and

32

T

33

Training & Networking

Training occurs in a variety of settings and from different perspectives. The participant’spoint of view influences the content of the training. Some programs teach basic skillsof leadership; others put those skills in the context of community building or issueorganizing, which adds analysis and strategy development as key content areas. Someoffer stand-alone workshops; others promote weekend networking and topical training;and still others present a structured leadership development program over an extendedperiod of time.

Networking is a key component of most training for grassroots leaders. Many programsemphasize the value of learning from peers and experiential education. Some of theorganizations involved in leadership development encourage networking by hostingannual or semi-annual gatherings of “graduates” of leadership or mentoring programsor of people working on common concerns or issues.

Some of the ways that training is delivered include:

Leadership Programs - Big category! It ranges from activist-oriented programs offeredby organizations like the Center for Third World Organizing or the Highlander Center toefforts of organizations that serve both mainstream and grassroots leaders (e.g., theGreenleaf Servant Leadership School and some of the corporate-sponsored communityleadership programs such as Leadership Fort Wayne or Leadership Kentucky). In betweenare programs offered by universities or community colleges or citywide organizations likethe Citizens Planning and Housing Association in Baltimore or the Kansas CityNeighborhood Alliance.

Training Workshops - A host of organizations provide workshops or learning opportu-nities for grassroots leaders. Many of these offer more formal leadership programs aswell as topical trainings. In addition, coalitions, associations, community organizationsand community development corporations, national and regional organizations, theUnited Way and other human services agencies provide training that fosters grassrootsleadership development. There are also training programs available for communityorganizers and executive directors of grassroots organizations. (See Curriculum Ideasfor more details).

Networking - For some, networking is a collateral benefit of attending a workshop orprogram and isn’t structured. For others, networking is the primary purpose and the focalpoint of such events. For nearly everyone, however, providing networking opportunitiesfor leaders is a key part of their training.

Technical AssistanceTechnical assistance is also a broad field. It includes organizations like the WesternStates Center and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which provide a range oforganizational development assistance to grassroots leaders and organizations. Supportincludes start-up of organizations, board development, fundraising, strategic planning,and financial management. The Western States Center and other issue-focused organiza-tions provide assistance in researching issues and analyzing policy questions that impactgrassroots communities. There are also support organizations that provide technicalassistance to leaders from distinct ethnic populations and around issues of discrimina-tion and access to services, local decision making, and resource allocation. The NationalCouncil of LaRaza and the Center for Third World Organizing are examples of this typeof support.

Besides formal programs or technical assistance, many organizations and individualsprovide informal mentoring or coaching for emerging and experienced leaders.Experiential learning is the preferred approach for many support providers.

the level of structural accountability is fairlyhigh. Multi-purpose support centers serve awider and less clearly delineated universe oforganizations than networks, and the bondsbetween intermediary and constituent tend tobe weaker, or at least more variable. Special-ized intermediaries provide a narrower set ofservices, generally defined by issue or func-tion. They sometimes have a membershipstructure but more often follow the supportcenter model.”

If this is taken as a beginning definition of sup-port organizations and other importantsupport providers are added, we begin to havea sizeable field of practice. Borgos intention-ally focuses narrowly on organizations directlyinvolved with grassroots leadership develop-ment and community or issue organizing. Butwe can look at this more broadly. Thoseinvolved with community development, forexample, see leadership development as a keyrole for success. There is distinct support andan intermediary system for community devel-opment organizations. The same is true for theenvironment and other issue areas. Manyorganizations in these areas are providingsupport for grassroots leadership development.

Money is an important ingredient for grassrootsleaders and support organizations. At times, itcauses strains between local leaders and “in-termediaries.” In addition to other activitiesdescribed above, some support organizationsare involved in providing financial support.For some this is a small adjunct role; for oth-ers, it is a primary role. Funders have createdcollaborative funds, which often have somesupport or intermediary functions. This alsoadds to the field of practice.

Other major supporters of grassrootsleaders come from service agencies andeducational institutions in local communities.Much of the work of the Girl Scouts andsimilar organizations involves leadershipdevelopment. Many human services andwelfare-to-work programs have a componentfocused on building self-esteem and beinginvolved in community. Churches and congre-gations have their own approaches to leader-ship development, which sometimes reachesgrassroots citizens.

Seth Borgos offers a succinct and helpful introduction to this complex and at times controversial topic. The Campbell research foundunequivocally that effective support and intermediary organizations are essential for the growth of grassroots leadership development as astrategy for community change. The need comes from two directions. First and foremost, grassroots leaders and organizations by definitionhave fewer resources and more challenges in getting things done. It’s inefficient and doesn’t work to design training and support for eachorganization and leader. Grassroots leaders need a system of support that relates well to them and adds real value to their work.

The second need fueling the growth of support and intermediary organizations comes from us as funders. We can’t respond or relate to eachsmall organization. We recognize the need to invest in people and organizations and can’t very well do that directly ourselves either. Seth’sarticle offers fresh insights on ways these organizations work and some of the questions we as funders face in deciding our goals and whereand with whom to invest.

No One Goes it Alone:Types and Roles ofIntermediary andSupport OrganizationsBy Seth Borges

assistance they need on the open market.This strategy is often reinforced by apolitical orientation that deems local, in-digenous institutions to be more authen-tically democratic than intermediaryformations.

Such categor ical judgments havetended to obscure rather than illuminatethe actual role of intermediaries—theways in which they amplify the strengthsof grassroots organizations and compen-sate for their limitations. While interme-diaries perform a host of services, theirmost critical functions can be groupedinto four broad categories:

A mong funders concerned with grass-roots leadership development, the statusand role of support or intermediaryinstitutions has always been a bone ofcontention. Intermediaries, by definition,are situated at a certain distance fromlocal communities, which creates thepotential for cultural conflict andresource competition. Furthermore,intermediaries have often been imposedon grassroots organizations to serveextrinsic interests—notably the interestsof funders. To avoid these pitfalls, somefoundations have chosen to restrict theirsupport to community-based organiza-tions, assuming that if these groups areadequately funded they can buy any

34

Developing and housing technicalresources. Few grassroots organizations canafford to maintain skilled staff or consultantsin all the areas they need (e.g., research,fundraising, media work, policy analysis, popu-lar education). By housing these capacities andallocating them on the basis of opportunityand need, intermediaries allow the field totake advantage of economies of scale anddeploy limited resources efficiently.

Promoting and diffusing innovation.Innovations in community organizing andleadership development tend to germinateat the local level— often simultaneously indifferent communities— and are graduallyadopted by peer organizations. Intermediariesaccelerate this diffusion process by providing amarketplace for new ideas and by targeting themost promising innovations for assessment anddissemination. They also serve as a conduit forideas drawn from academia, policy institutes,advocacy groups, and other sources outside theimmediate circle of grassroots organizations.

Broadening the scope and sophisti-cation of leadership development. Thegreat strength of grassroots organizations— theirrootedness in specific, local communities— mayalso constrict the range of experiences andinfluences to which leaders are exposed.Intermediaries that are committed to leader-ship development provide a “ safe space” forleaders to encounter people from diversecommunities, to see the world through differ-ent lenses, and to engage new and sometimeschallenging ideas.

Attracting new resources tograssroots organizing. Effective interme-diaries speak two languages— the languageof the local communities that comprise theirconstituency, and the language of funders,intellectuals, and policymakers. As a conse-quence, they are able to communicate the “ case”for grassroots leadership development and theresource needs of grassroots organizations in aform that is comprehensible to foundations andother donors. They can also translate the highlycoded expectations of funders into terms thatare more transparent to community leaders.

There are many different kinds ofintermediaries that support grassrootsleadership development, and no singletypology can capture the diverse charac-teristics of these institutions. Intermedi-aries may be classified by their geographi-cal scope (e.g., statewide, regional, na-tional, global) the kinds of organizationsand communities they serve (e.g., faith-based, low-income, rural, immigrant),their issue focus (e.g., housing, health care,civil rights, environmental justice) or theprimary services they provide (e.g., lead-ership training, research, policy analysis,staff development, technology).

For funders, however, perhaps the mostimportant consideration in assessing anintermediary is its functional and struc-tural relationship to its constituency. Net-works typically have a membership struc-ture or a comparable mechanism thatdefines a discrete set of organizations tobe served. In many cases, the network isthe primary source of organizational sup-port for its members and the level ofstructural accountability is fairly high.Multi-purpose support centers serve awider and less clearly delineated universeof organizations than networks, and thebonds between intermediary and con-stituent tend to be weaker, or at least morevariable. Specialized intermediaries pro-vide a narrower set of services, generallydefined by issue or function. They some-times have a membership structure butmore often follow the support centermodel. For purposes of illustration, theattached chart provides a sample of na-tional and regional organizations in eachcategory.

In addition to the generic criteria oneapplies to all organizations—mission,capacity, and effectiveness—here are somedistinctive considerations that fundersshould keep in mind in evaluating anintermediary institution:

Is there a relationship of trust and mu-tual accountability between the interme-diary and its constituent groups? (Thisrelationship may be formal and structural,as is the case in many networks, or it maybe informal and “cultural,” as is often thecase with support centers.)

Do the agenda and priorities of theintermediary reflect the primary needs ofits constituency? When the intermediarycommunicates with the foundation worldon behalf of grassroots organizations, is itconveying an accurate message or rein-venting it in ways that serve its own in-stitutional interests?

Does the intermediary provide suffi-cient value-added to grassroots organi-zations to justify the resources it absorbs?Does it help its constituents not just toperform certain activities but also to be-come better organizations?

Is the intermediary primarily con-cerned with technical support or is it alsocommitted to the development of lead-ers? Is the leadership development func-tion confined to discrete training activi-ties or is it integral to the mission andprogram of the organization?

As this list implies, an effective inter-mediary must strike a balance betweenserving and leading its constituency. Itshould be faithful to the immediateinterests of grassroots organizations, butit should help them to situate those in-terests within a broad and inclusive vi-sion of community. It should be deeplyrespectful of grassroots leaders, but it shouldalso agitate them to grow and change.

Seth Borgos is currently the senior programofficer of the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Pro-gram at Shelter Rock. He serves as co-chair ofthe Funders Committee for Social Change.

NetworksNational: Association of CommunityOrganizations for Reform Now (ACORN),Farmworker Network for Environmental andEconomic Justice, Gamaliel Foundation,Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF),National People’s Action, Pacific Institutefor Community Organization (PICO).

Regional: Midwest States Center, NorthwestFederation of Community Organizations,Northeast Action, Southern OrganizingCooperative, Southwest Network forEnvironmental and Economic Justice,Western Organization of Resource Councils.

Multi-Purpose Support CentersNational: Center for Community Change,Center for Third World Organizing, MidwestAcademy, Applied Research Center.

Regional: Western States Center,Democracy South, Highlander Center,Grassroots Leadership.

Specialized IntermediariesCommunity Catalyst, Data Center,Grassroots Policy Project, Environment andEconomic Justice Project, EnvironmentalSupport Center, Progressive TechnologyProject, Southern Empowerment Project,We Interrupt this Message, YouthAction.

35

Creative CapacityBuilding: Developingand SupportingEffective GrassrootsOrganizations

In our next essay, George Knight gets into the details of working with real life organizations and leaders. Based on his 25 years of experiencein managing capacity-building services to grassroots leaders and their organizations, he lays out four areas of priority for capacity building.Knight shows the importance of the organizational considerations in designing and delivering a triple-focus approach. The improvementsin leadership tenure and organizational effectiveness for Neighborhood Reinvestment’s network of organizations achieved through thisapproach are impressive and noteworthy.

W

By George Knight

or less. The costs of this painfully highleadership turnover were extraordinary.Talented, committed board leaders gaveup and slipped away, sometimes abruptly,sometimes through an extended periodof absences. Remaining community lead-ers became more and more frustrated attheir organization’s inability to deliver onthe simplest of goals.

Funders lost confidence and pulledback. Major cities—Charlotte, Atlanta,Cleveland, Indianapolis, Los Angeles—

ould you continue to fund an orga-nization that had hired and lost fourexecutive directors in five years? Thispainful example in a Southwest commu-nity-based organization was part of alarger leadership crisis NeighborhoodReinvestment faced some years ago. Inthe early 1990’s, the NeighborWorks®

network of over 200 community-basedorganizations we work with was hemor-rhaging executive directors. For 40 per-cent of these organizations, the executivedirector was in that position for two years

36

and smaller cities and rural areas—Cattaraugus County, NY, Midland, TX,Santa Fe, NM, Clearwater, FL, North LasVegas, NV—had little or no capacity torevitalize troubled neighborhoods be-cause of this leadership crisis.

This troubling experience forced theorganization I lead to confront this real-ity. We decided to increase our investmentin capacity building and have becomedeep believers in its power. Theresults speak for themselves and have

37

demonstrated to us the positive benefitssuch an investment can have. The mediantenure of executives has increased from3.0 years in 1991 to 5.2 years in 1998.And importantly, since long tenure by it-self doesn’t translate to more results, we’vequintupled our activity in neighborhoods—new homeowners, homes repaired,increased units of affordable housing.

Exper ienced funders know thestrengths and realities of most grassrootsnonprofits. They’ve seen organizationsstruggle through many organizationallife-cycle stages: start-up, explosivegrowth, crises, losing or saying good-byeto founders and important volunteer lead-ers, and drastic loss of funding. Allnonprofits struggle with one or more ofthese issues. For grassroots organizations,there are typically fewer availableresources in the organization and com-munity. Additionally, there is always thecomplexity of local circumstances, historyand people. This essay looks at some ofthe lessons from NeighborhoodReinvestment’s over 20 year experiencewith community-based nonprofits and ajoint leadership transition project fundedin part by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation(WKKF). It will share lessons learnedaround the following areas we believekey to any capacity building strategy: 1)organizational structure (mission, goals,roles); 2) leadership, leadership fit andleadership transitions; 3) organizationallife cycle and managing growth; and 4)systems and technology. While our focusis primarily organizations with small staffsand modest budgets ($250,000-$5million), many of the lessons have broaderapplication.

While capacity building has becomeone of those “umbrella” terms whosemeaning is often in the eye of the speaker/writer, this writer is going to use it as adescriptor of activities that assist an orga-nization enhance its long-term institu-tional ability to achieve its mission withgrace and élan. In reflecting on Neigh-borhood Reinvestment’s experience, es-pecially based on the WKKF’s multi-yearinvestment in capacity building, I woulddivide capacity building into two parts:organizational and individual. Both areimportant and very much intertwined

with each other. However, they can andshould be separated for analytical andintervention planning purposes.

When our Pueblo, CO, affiliate execu-tive director and board chair attended aweekend workshop on board leadershipand organizational effectiveness, new skillsand knowledge were applied immediately.Inactive board members were visited andasked to renew their commitment or re-tire from the board. As a result, the orga-nization got stronger and went througha period of planned growth that increasedthe benefits to the neighborhoods theyserved. Likewise when an organization

is struggling with high executive turn-over or other signs of organizationaldistress, we look first to the leadership tosee how well it’s coping with the situa-tion and its capacity to handle the situa-tion. The dynamic interplay betweenindividual leaders and the health of theirorganization is obvious and a key ingredi-ent to any capacity building approach.

Likewise when an organization is struggling with highexecutive turnover or other signs of organizational distress,we look first to the leadership to see how well it’s copingwith the situation and its capacity to handle the situation.

Individuals bring a bundle of skills,experiences and personal attributes toany leadership position, staff or volunteer.Any approach to building individual ca-pacity needs to start with self-assessmentof the fit between skills, experiences, andpersonal attributers with the mission athand. Naturally, part of self-assessment iscareful listening to others who can ob-serve you and provide feedback. Skillsand experience both count and can beexpanded when nurtured through accessto training, mentoring, reading, and thereflection that occurs from networkingwith peers and more experienced lead-ers. Like any educational experience, the

individual’s readiness to learn and theability of the organization structuring thelearning opportunity to meet currentimportant needs are keys to success.

Supporting an organization in build-ing an effective leadership team oftenmeans strengthening or creating a senseof partnership—where colleagues work-ing together can feel that each individualis genuinely contributing to the whole.No one leader or organization can go italone. Grassroots organizations needrelationships with many other institutionsand individuals to enhance their capabil-ity to achieve their goals. Board leaders,funders, interested parties can all helpin the partnership building aspects.Brokering effective partnerships is excit-ing when the two organizations discovercommon ground. If that leads to a will-ingness for mutually beneficial action,both organizations succeed and enhancetheir capacity to achieve their individualset of goals.

The final piece of a capacity-buildingstrategy—and some might say mundaneuntil it leaps up and bites you—is the areaof systems (business processes) and tech-nology. Here most of us shy away fromthe nitty gritty often involved in enhanc-ing an organization’s capacity to “processthe paper” or today “process the elec-trons,” account for the money, etc. Asorganizations grow, their systems (ac-counting, communication and informa-tion methods, office and facilities man-agement, personnel and staff develop-ment, etc.) become unsuited to currentneeds. Refitting them to the current/near future will increase capacity andprobably release resources for other ac-tivities, as well as increase organizationalefficiency. Often this requires assistance

from outsiders who have greater experi-ence and familiarity with the options forimprovement. Frankly, a funder’s will-ingness to pay the bill is often the differ-ence between analysis paralysis and get-ting on with the task. In today’s worldthis often means increasing both com-puting power and restructuring theorganization’s processes to take advantageof the awesome power provided by thecomputer. It’s not easy. Systems andtechnology offer real power that mostgrassroots organizations will need to growand succeed. Moving through the 21stcentury means relooking at our systems,processes and application of technologyto achieve our goals. Failure to do so isrisky and costly for everyone involved.

Several years ago, I was concerned thatI was having trouble reading at night.After worrying about eye cancer, braintumors and similar catastrophes, I visitedan eye doctor who indicated that ithappens about my age with practically allhuman beings. Leaving the doctor’soffice, I sorted through my emotions offeeling relieved about being told I wasolder. And that’s probably the first, andin many ways, most significant point inbuilding organizational capacity—someof the change that needs to occur is“normal” as the organization grows older,environments change, and technologymarches on. And successful outcomesare both about what’s changing (new eye-glasses were easy) and how we go aboutmaking the change useful (brighter read-ing light, AARP membership) as a plat-form for the next stage of development.

Addressing what is threatening the organization’s abilityto do its mission and refocusing on how to best buildon its strenghs is among the most useful forms ofcapacity building

38

Grassroots leaders make a tremendouscommitment to their community andcause. They overcome some incredibleodds. Getting the most from this gift oftime and energy is important to every-one—present and future leaders, theirorganizations and the communities andissues they are working to better. Changefor people and an organization is inevi-table. Capacity building is the service andgift we as funders and support organiza-tions can offer grassroots leaders. It is inno way just compensation for what theycontribute to our communities every day.In committing to capacity building,we’ll contribute to increasing the justicequotient and access to critically neededservices in our communities. Capacitybuilding for grassroots organizations is aserious business and deserves seriousattention.

George Knight is the executive director ofthe Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation,a publicly funded support organization for anetwork of community-based neighborhood andhousing development organizations. Prior tobecoming executive director, he managed anddelivered support and technical assistance tocommunity-based organizations.

39

T $110 million local foundation in Baltimore,explains his decision to invest in creating andsupporting the Resource Center for Neighbor-hoods in Baltimore: “Our foundation has madeneighborhoods and neighborhood develop-ment a priority since our inception over 25years ago. We believe strongly in the power ofordinary citizens to provide the leadership tokeep neighborhoods strong and to partner withbusiness and government on strategies to over-come some of the difficult issues older urbanareas confront. Developing a resource centerthat serves the neighborhoods and their lead-ers is one of the soundest investments we’veever made. The leverage is incredible. How doyou quantify the contribution of new leaderswho get nurtured and developed and the pridethat comes with neighborhood successes andproblems solved? The impact is staggering. IfBaltimore didn’t have a resource like this, we’dsure want to create it. From a funder’s vantagepoint, it ’s an investment whose returnkeeps growing.”

Besides providing training and technical as-sistance, making grants is another key func-tion of some intermediary organizations. Somefoundations are created specifically for the pur-pose of providing funding to grassroots causes;their principals are often people who want tohelp but who don’t want to make all of thedecisions on whom to fund and how.

This is a field of practice that is needed and grow-ing. Recognizing the realities of support organi-zations for grassroots leaders and organizationsand proactively managing their effective growthis our responsibility and a great challenge.

Why SupportOrganizationsare Growing.

hink back twenty years or so. The term“intermediary organization” was rarely, if ever,used and in any case, it didn’t refer to today’ssupport landscape. The practice of supportinggrassroots leadership development has grownenormously over the past twenty years.

The Campbell study offers an important clueas to what has fueled this growth. Grassrootsorganizations are typically small, initiallyissue- or geography-specific, and led by peoplewho often have little formal training or experi-ence as leaders. While self-reliance can be avirtue, experience shows that grassrootsefforts are more effective when they aren’tisolated and if they are connected to peers withopportunities for learning.

Expectations of grassroots leaders andorganizations have changed as well.Operating the Little League or providingopportunities for neighbors to socializerequires a certain skill. But communities askand expect much more from grassroots lead-ers today. Think about major opportunities orneeds in your community. How are failingschools revived? By increasing parent in-volvement and, in the case of charterschools, by direct parental control.

How are laws or practices that discriminateagainst the disabled, immigrants, or gayschanged? People organize and take action.

How do communities facing disinvestment anddecline turn around? Neighbors get involvedand form working relationships withbanks, government, and foundations to

rebuild a healthy community. Neighborsstart nonprofit businesses that renovateabandoned homes or build new ones, re-develop business districts, or start newcompanies to create jobs.

Grassroots leaders and organizations are fac-ing a set of challenges unique in the history ofour nation. Increasing racial and ethnicdiversity and growing gaps in income andeconomic well-being give grassroots leader-ship in this century a different role andincreased importance. Our field of practice isgrowing because no one has simple answersto the challenges of the 21st century and mostleaders need to be connected to and supportedby something more than themselves and theirorganization.

Funders need support organizations andintermediaries. Many national funders are toolarge to relate to individual grassroots organi-zations. The staff required and administrativecosts of building relationships and makinggrants to hundreds—and in some cases po-tentially thousands—of organizations is daunt-ing. Additionally, congressional oversight andpublic scrutiny limit how much of their moneyfunders can invest in overhead and adminis-tration. They need support organizations andintermediaries to carry out their mission in aresponsible way.

Some funders recognize both the importanceof investing in grassroots leadership and thekey role support organizations play in meetingthe distinct learning needs of grassrootsleaders. Timothy D. Armbruster, president of a

ing to speak of. That can be true whenfunding the early stages of movementbuilding, as opposed to established insti-tutions. One needn’t be shy about fund-ing movement building. Often that’sexactly what grassroots groups are about.

The art of grantmaking will, however,get a measure of the passion of the lead-ership: the intensity of their feelings aboutthe issue, the depth of their knowledge,the use of “we” instead of “I”, theperception of their own strengths andweaknesses, and a reasonable assessmentof what they can do about the issue.Assessing these features requires intenselistening and mature judgment on the partof the program staff. Site visits, an essen-tial part of good grantmaking, need to bemade by someone who has a sense of therange of possibilities for workingwith grassroots groups and can see theirpotential. Do the groups have a strategy,can they make a difference, who are theyconnected to in their community? To getat these questions, put people at ease andlet them describe what’s going on.Straightforward talk and getting to knowseveral members of the staff and boardwill yield the information to form a solidopinion.

Terri Langston of the Public Welfare Foundation offers a number of concrete suggestions for funding grassroots leadership efforts. In thisessay, she addresses both the art and the mechanics of grassroots funding. She argues that both are important and warrant attention fromfunders looking to be savvy investors in this area of grantmaking. Terri offers suggestions on how funders can build mutually respectfulrelationships with grassroots organizations and provides texture to the Campbell finding about what’s unique about grassroots leadersand supporting their development.

Diamonds in theRough: FundingGrassroots Workby Terri Langston

T wo broad categories govern the processof funding: first, the art of grantmakingthat addresses issues and deals with peopleand organizations; second, the mechanismsa funder sets up to process the applica-tions and get the money to grantees. Tobecome skillful in funding grassroots work,staff members need to be open, innovative,and flexible within both categories.

Grassroots work challenges traditionalhabits of grant makers. It is important toget beyond the presentation of the appli-cation and to distinguish between pack-aging and substance. Many grassrootsgroups don’t have the staff, technologicalcapacity, or time to develop a well-wrought proposal. While you won’talways see a sophisticated, polisheddescription of the work and articulationof the issues, people at the grass roots cangive you a truer reflection of the prob-lems than you could get anywhere.

The presentation may also reflect thelack of formal organizational structuresin certain grassroots groups. The programofficer encounters a handful of commit-ted people, in some cases organizations,operating out of someone’s home, withlow to no technology, and no other fund-

40

The leadership of grassroots organiza-tions and movements is crucial. Thoughtheir presentation may not be slick, payattention to where they are, who they rep-resent, and their connection to the issues.Never think that an awkward presenta-tion or apparent lack of sophistication canbe equated with the lack of ability toperform the work well. The more onedoes site visits, the more one sees just howsophisticated grassroots organizations are.

Some foundations’ budgets for site visitsare limited, especially if they fund in abroad geographical area. That’s where co-operation among funders can make a realdifference. Checking in with local ornational funders doing work similar toyours, exchanging impressions and infor-mation, and even asking them to visit agroup for you are ways that can maxi-mize funders’ capacity.

How friendly a foundation can makethe mechanisms of grantmaking tograssroots groups will determine a largepart of its success. While we don’t like tothink of ourselves as bureaucratic, weinevitably veer that way. It is a lack oftime and resources, not a lack of account-ability, that makes a complicated proposal

process a barrier to grassroots groups. Itis important to remember that grassrootsgroups tend to be extremely accountable.They must be very sensitive to the mis-use of funds, because in small communi-ties such misuse rightfully resounds andmakes reputations. Their sometimes over-zealous reporting and questions suggest apossible lack of confidence with regardto financial presentations, reporting, orrelationships with funders. A foundationhelps by being accessible and by beingclear: use forms that demonstrate whatinformation is needed and how topresent it. The National Network ofGrantmakers’ forms, both for narrativeand financial presentation, are excellentexamples. Such standardized forms savethe group much time and anxiety.Another helpful move is to give themextra money to get their books in order,to purchase a computerized financialtracking system, or to get an externalreview of their finances, which fundersshould accept in lieu of audits.Another option is to encourage them toask local auditors for a pro bono audit.Of course, a group can realize any orall of these improvements if it is givengeneral support grants, those too rare butcrucial grants that build the capacity ofthe organization.

A funder should be willing to workwith an organization that has no IRS501c(3) status or is in the advance rulingperiod. Foundations must work with theirown counsel to be sure all they do iswithin the law; that said, the space withinthe law provides several options. A foun-dation may make sponsored grants or mayexercise expenditure responsibility. Mostof what is required with expenditureresponsibility mirrors practices that arealready in place in many foundations.Foundations tend not to use expenditureresponsibility as much for domestic as forforeign grants, yet it is a clear and effec-tive way to make grants to any charitableproject lacking the usual nonprofit taxstatus. A union, for example, or another501c(6) membership organization, doinga charitable project, may receive a grantin this way. It is important for foundation

staff members to be knowledgeable andwilling to offer technical assistance toadvise groups about the law.

A foundation should provide suchinformation in a clear and accessible way.Its web site is a natural place for thisinformation, but it should be printed andsent upon request to any callers as well.Therefore, a foundation must encouragean understanding of the needs ofgrassroots groups within its administra-tive staff in the interest of the grantees.

Finally, the process of a grant makergiving a group its first grant can have atremendous impact on a movement oran organization through its own techni-cal assistance and by providing access togood support centers. In these ways,grassroots groups can learn to presentthemselves more effectively to otherfoundations, those who may consider onlywell-wrought proposals. Foundationsthemselves are effective when theyprovide proposal-writing workshops forgrassroots groups. Or they may putgroups in contact with centers whosecredentials and reputation merit recom-mendation. On the other hand, founda-tion staff should warn against the expenseand waste of time that can be brought onby fundraisers whose credentials andexperience are unproven.

Time may be required to develop theinternal skills and mechanisms to recog-nize and accept grassroots proposals. Forsome, however, it will require only a shiftin perspective. The effort is well rewarded,as funders become partners in strength-ening and supporting local capacity toaddress community needs.

Terri Langston has served as the programofficer for Health and the DisadvantagedElderly Initiative for the Public WelfareFoundation for 13 years. She serves on theboard of Grantmakers for Health.

41

Rinku Sen offers two concrete examples of how grassroots organizations crossed challenging racial divides to create and sustain multi-racialcoalitions. The compelling case studies from Oakland and Los Angeles offer noteworthy insights for any leader of our society interested in howwe find our shared common purpose and goals, while honoring and building on our rich and diverse cultures and traditions. As the Campbellreport emphasized, getting beyond problem-solving to larger systemic issues is key to long-term community change. Understanding andworking across racial lines is a key to achieving the increased community well-being she describes. Her essay offers a set of principles fordeveloping effective leadership development programs for grassroots leaders. These principles are consistent with the five Kellogg Foundationfindings and offer practical and proven counsel for funders and trainers.

AppreciatingDiversity andBuilding EffectiveBridges: TheGrassroots Leader’sChallengeBy Rinku Sen

42

(KIWA) have won major victories in theircities and states by creating lively, sophis-ticated public policy campaigns that dealdirectly with the implications of raciallybiased policy and institutional practice.

In the late 80’s, PUEBLO was created outof a Campaign for Accessible Health Careled by 15 immigrant and American-bornleaders, who won 30,000 free immuni-zations and set up a new county program.In the 90’s, PUEBLO’s Latino, Anglo,Asian and African-American memberswon the first lead prevention and treat-ment program west of the Mississippi.PUEBLO eventually made the leap tomore controversial issues, building a mul-tiracial campaign committee to fight forpolice accountability in Oakland, goingfar beyond case-by-case disciplinaryaction to win new powers for theCommunity Police Review Board andforcing the Oakland PD to pay miscon-duct lawsuits out of its own budget.Recently, PUEBLO’s youth group, Youthof Oakland United, hooked up with fourmonoracial youth organizations to formthe Kids First! Coalition. This Coalitionran a successful ballot campaign establish-ing a new $90 million public fund foryouth services.

Korean Immigrant Workers Associationstarted in Los Angeles during the after-math of the Rodney King riots. KIWAhas successfully consolidated a workingclass identity among Korean immigrants,and developed the Korean community’sability to act in alliance with surround-ing communities. KIWA started outgiving voice to Korean workers, whoconstitute 75 percent of the entire Ko-rean population, to fight for fair treatmentand pay in Korean restaurants. Sinceone-third of such restaurant workers areactuallyLatinos, KIWA’s membershipexpanded to include those workers earlyin the organization’s development. KIWAemploys a sophisticated media strategyalong with direct action and negotiationto educate Koreans and others about thereal conditions facing Korean immigrants,and their interest in larger public policyissues. KIWA’s education campaign onProposition 209 (the anti-affirmativeaction proposition) is credited with trans-forming the 75 percent Korean supportfor 209 polled several months beforethe election, to 75 percent oppositionreflected in the final vote!

43

L anguage and cultural barriers keepmany U.S. residents from their fullpotential for civic engagement. Mostindividuals have little or no interactionwith the public or private institutions thatgovern their lives, and the vast majorityof public and private institutions cling toan ancient concept of American identity.

In communities of color—Asian,African, Latino, Middle Eastern, or indig-enous, both U.S.-born and immigrant—community organizations and theirleaders build the last buffer between theregular struggling person and crushingpoverty and violence. These are the agentsof today’s most important institutionaltransformations, as well as the no lessimportant creation of common identitiesout of diverse constituencies. The best ofthese organizations are very explicit abouttheir racial politics and questions, and theydevote attention to the needs of eachdistinct constituency within the organi-zation. Leaders negotiate cultural terrainand build lasting relationships through aprocess of consensus and conflict, until anew identity emerges for the group as awhole. Organizations like People Unitedfor a Better Oakland (PUEBLO) and theKorean Immigrant Workers Association

issues. KIWA’s education campaign onProposition 209 (the anti-affirmativeaction proposition) is credited with trans-forming the 75 percent Korean supportfor 209 polled several months before theelection, to 75 percent opposition re-flected in the final vote!

Leaders in these organizations under-stand the dynamic issues and traditionsof their own communities, even as theyact as the threads that weave constituen-cies together. That function has neverbeen more important in the United Statesthan today, when institutions are stretch-ing themselves to address a huge varietyof racial/ethnic and generational differ-ences. What are the factors that enableeffective work in today’s diverse commu-nity? First, even while they attend to thepractical needs of multiple constituencies,like translation oremergency advocacy,these organizationsalso integrate culturaland political educationwith their issue cam-paigns and other pro-grams. That education enables the orga-nizations to examine racism, culturaldomination, and immigration policy upfront, building the capacity of theirmembers to deal with high levels ofunresolved conflict and the root causesof that conflict. They use a varied peda-gogy in formal and informal settings toadvance such education, important forgroups with uneven literacy or multiplelanguages needs.

Second, effective organizations designtheir policy proposals and plans tosupport diverse communities for the longhaul. They begin to standardize commonelements to their policy proposals, forexample, with consistent demandssimplifying certification requirements forpublic services, or by applying racialequity criteria to guide policy choices.Each individual or organization’sprolonged exposure to anotherconstituency’s challenges and strengthscontr ibutes to a seamless collectiveconsciousness that takes diverseapproaches into account without disrupt-ing the organizational capacity to moveinstitutions.

Third, organizations that operate froma multiracial and multicultural frameworkunderstand and accommodate the needfor each constituency to have space andtime alone, to address some of its specificissues through monoracial formations. Aswe see in KIWA’s case, even single-con-stituency organizations, if they are builtconsciously as part of multiracial move-ment, greatly enhance the potential forcooperation across identity lines. Leadersof multiracial alliances or organizationsare often also leaders of monoracialorganizations in the same town or city,creating a bridge between their constitu-ency and the rest of the community,often arguing for multiracial alliancesamong their own people. Evenmonoracial organizations are usuallymulticultural, and still required to build acommon identity, for example at the

Committee Against Anti-Asian Violencein New York, organizing Chinese, Viet-namese and Koreans on policing,immigration and welfare-to-work issues.

A most unusual combination ofmaturity and innovation are required byorganizations that wish not only to keepup with changing demographics, but alsoto maximize the tremendous potential forpower that emerges from effectivemultiracial alliances. The symbioticrelationship between an organization, itsleaders, its membership (from which newleaders emerge), and its allies allows anorganization to apply lessons from its past.Without the organization, a leader has nobase from which to operate. Without theleader, the organization has insufficienthuman time, memory, and talent withwhich to make change. These organiza-tions charge themselves with understand-ing layer after layer of a complicatedsociety, and then to interpret each layerfor its policy and community life impli-cations. They force institutions to dealwith the people affected. They get thepeople affected to know that they’reaffected. They build consensus. They write

policy. They fight and advocate. Theytalk to the media. They educate thelarger public. That cannot possibly be aquick process, no quicker, certainly, thanthe time it took for seemingly suddendemographic changes to take shape in ourneighborhoods, which actually resultedfrom years of immigration, labor, andurban planning decisions. These peoplehave got a lot to do, and they get verylittle support for doing it. An investmentin this arena, filled with peopleaccustomed to doing a lot with a little,would have tremendous impact onevolving communities.

Foundations will have to apply a morehands-on approach to cultivatingexcellent proposals from grassrootsorganizations. Many are already short-staffed and under-resourced, and program

planners will needsignificant supportto produce fundableproposals. Multi-year funding, withtechnical assistanceand other resources

made available, will make a tremendousdifference in programmatic longevity, andin producing effective leadership andchange. With even a small amount ofbreathing space created by reducingfundraising requirements, organizationscan conduct the documentation, reflec-tion, and evaluation of their work,supporting adaptation andcollaboration,so we can repeat those successes all overthe country.

Rinku Sen is the former co-director of theCenter for Third World Organizing. She hasalso served on the Allocations Committee ofthe Vanguard Public Foundation, theBannerman Fellowship Program, and theNational Committee for ResponsivePhilanthropy.

Leaders of multiracial alliances or organizations areoften also leaders of monoracial organizations in thesame town or city, creating a bridge between theirconstituency and the rest of the community...

44

Spence Limbocker is executive director of the Neighborhood Funders Group (NFG). The NFG members are experienced funders of grassrootsorganization and leadership development efforts. Here, Spence shares concrete examples of decisions by funders and strategies that areworking around the country. He concludes with some specific steps that funders interested in initiating or expanding support for grassrootsefforts might take. If these findings and the hundreds of stories behind them make sense to you, you won’t want to miss this closingcall to action.

Making the Case—SupportingGrassroots LeadershipDevelopmentBy Spence Limbocker

munities has continued to decline. Thelitany of systemic issues is well-known andoften recited—poor schools, widespreaddrug and alcohol addiction and relatedcrime, a mismatch between job require-ments and available workers, low wages,unsafe housing and neighborhoods, toname a few. The social fabric of manycommunities is challenged by tensions andmisunderstandings as ethnic and culturaldiversity increases. Fewer people have ormake the time to be involved in theircommunity or to vote at a time whenour society requires bold and committedleadership to face the challenges of a newera driven by technology.

This persistence of poverty and dete-rioration of community life in the faceof growing wealth intensifies the strainin neighborhoods and communities acrossAmerica. Disparities in income are grow-ing. By any reasonable definition ofpoverty, some 60 million Americans, oralmost 20 percent of our population, don’tenjoy the opportunities and benefits offirst class citizens.

I f funders are going to play a role inmaking our democracy work for every-one and all communities including thosemost disadvantaged, our investment ingrassroots leadership development willneed to grow. The lessons from the W.K.Kellogg Foundation study add weight andpromising details that demonstrate bothwhy and how we can step up this com-mitment. The need is clear; the strategyworks. It’s time for leaders, funders, or-ganizers, trainers and capacity builders tounite in making the case and deliveringon expanded leadership and healthiercommunities across America. Much ishappening; much more is needed andwithin our power. Can we seize the mo-ment and make the case?

The United States is going through oneof the longest sustained periods of higheconomic growth and low inflation everexperienced in this country. While mostpeople in the United States are seeingtheir incomes and assets grow, the qual-ity of life in many urban and rural com-

45

Foundation giving is at its highest levelever and is predicted to expand to un-precedented levels in the next few years.However, many in the foundation worldare frustrated with their institution’sinability to effectively address the chal-lenges of strengthening communities andother issues. Some leaders in the fundingworld have become convinced that theseunmet needs can only be dealt witheffectively by rebuilding our civil society,expanding democratic participation anddeveloping strong and effective localinstitutions and grassroots organizations.Their collective experience argues thatnone of the stubborn, persistent, and life-draining issues our country faces will getresolved without increased attention toand support for grassroots leadershipdevelopment.

The Neighborhood Funders Group(NFG) is a membership association ofover 200 grantmaking institutions thatsupport a broad range of community-based organizations and communitystrategies. Our membership consists of

public foundations, community founda-tions, family foundations and corporategiving programs. Most NFG membershave supported community revitalizationactivities for a number of years and oneof the most important lessons they havelearned is the importance of grassrootsleadership development and theeffective participation of local residentsin planning for and implementing com-munity revitalization activities. As indi-cated in the preceding essays, there aremany ways to work intentionally to ex-pand grassroots leadership and strengthencommunity problem-solving capacity.

One strategy many of the NFG mem-ber foundations have found effective forleadership development is throughcommunity organizing. In a recent sur-vey of NFG membership, nearly 50 per-cent stated that they funded communityorganizing activities. Discussions with ourmembers point to a steady increase ininvestment in community organizing overthe past four years (See sidebar for moreon community organizing as a leadershipdevelopment strategy.)

A few of our members have recentlygone through internal planning processesthat lead to their focusing a greater per-centage of their funding on communityorganizing as a leadership developmentstrategy. Here are two examples:

(1) The Hyams Foundation in Boston,after several years of reflection andassessment of their grantmaking,developed a new mission statementand funding priorities in 1998. Oneof the new priority areas is civicparticipation that has a specific focuson supporting leadership develop-ment and the support of emergingcommunity organizing efforts in theBoston area.

(2) In September 1999, the Board ofTrustees of The Charles StewartMott Foundation approved a newfunding program “Pathways Out ofPoverty.” The foundation statementof philosophy reads in part:“Increasingly, we have come to seecommunity action, education, andeconomic participation as critical tomoving low-income Americans

toward greater prosperity.” Thefunding goal is “To enhance thevariety, geographic spread, power,and effectiveness of the communityorganizing field in order tostrengthen and sustain the involve-ment of low-income communitiesin democratic processes of socialengagement.”

Both of these foundations have madethe decision to focus significant resourceson supporting the development andparticipation of leaders through commu-nity organizing.

Other foundations have long-standingtrack records of supporting grassrootsleadership development efforts. Amongthem are:• The David and Lucile Packard

Foundation traditionally has placed astrong emphasis on supporting leadershipdevelopment through their Neighbor-hoods Program in low-incomecommunities in California.

• The Edna McConnell ClarkFoundation, through its Program forNew York Neighborhoods, has providedfunding for ACORN to train anddevelop low-income leaders in theBronx.

• The Mary Reynolds BabcockFoundation has provided support to alarge number of mainly rural communityorganizations in the South for a severalyears. It also provides significantorganizational development support tothese groups.

• The McKay Foundation has supportedthe development of communityorganizations that are pursuing strategiesto create access to economic resources andpolitical power.

• The Campaign for HumanDevelopment has been one ofthe major supporters of communityorganizing in the country. In the past30 years, it has invested over $300million in low-income communityorganizations.

Despite the success and growth ofinvestment in grassroots leadershipdevelopment and community organizing,for many funders the decision to becomeinvolved in this type of funding is noteasy. Some foundation staff and leader-ship will dismiss or never fully considerthis approach because they are not famil-iar with the full range of possible ways toget involved. They may have zero orlimited experience or a narrow defini-tion of what it is based on media or scaryanecdotes.

Some are perhaps personally uncom-fortable with some aspect of the strategy.They may, for example, be reluctant tosupport advocacy and grassroots citizenaction, particularly when it involvesefforts to enable and support low-incomeconstituencies to participate in thepolitical process. There may be a reluc-tance to be involved in any grassrootsorganizing efforts that involves conflictand confrontation.

Grassroots leadership development usu-ally encourages those most affected by theissues to be involved in developing andimplementing the solutions to the prob-lem. In many cases this will require main-stream or positional leaders to change andto give up or share their control over thedecision-making process. For some, thereis a reluctance to become involved inefforts that implicitly or explicitlychallenge the status quo.

Despite these quite normal and ex-pected concerns, an increasing numberof funders are making new commitmentsto supporting grassroots leadership devel-opment. The good news is that there aremany ways to become involved. As thefindings from the W. K. Kellogg Founda-tion reveal, grassroots leaders are drivenby a passion that goes beyond self-inter-est. For these leaders, there is often a dis-tinct motivation and higher purpose thatfuels their commitment to involvement.A commitment to service of others, tosocial justice and social change, and/oractions based on faith or spiritual beliefsare the driving forces for grassroots folksand their organizations.

46

Given these distinct and different mo-tivations, funders don’t have to stretchbeyond their comfort zone to find a wayto support rebuilding communities andthe social fabric of our nation. Founda-tion leaders from every background andideology have found a way to supportgrassroots leadership development. Sinceit is difficult, if not impossible, to bringabout lasting change in our most dis-tressed communities without an invest-ment in grassroots leadership develop-ment, and because the values and qualityof life of all communities are threatenedby this growing gap in wealth and ser-vices, funders are encouraged to revisithow they can support grassroots leader-ship development.

One simple question perhaps offers aframework for funders considering a first-time commitment or for those already in-volved who are reviewing their commit-ment with an eye to doing more. Thatquestion is: Given our mission, how canwe best invest proactively in grassrootsleadership development in the commu-nities and areas of community life we arecommitted to improving?

Sometimes this question comes from aconcerned program officer; other timesfrom a board member or senior manager.Here are some suggested steps that mightassist you when your organization reflectson this or a similar question:

(1) Review the organization’s currentgrant priorities. Are there activitiesthat directly or indirectly supportdeveloping community leadership,improving community, and/orstrengthening democratic participa-tion? If so, what’s working or notworking? If not working, brain-storm ways you could see yourorganization supporting its currentpriorities better by considering aninvestment in developingcommunity leadership.

(2) Examine your institution’s internalmission statement, value statement,and other core documents. Whatdoes the foundation wish toaccomplish in its funding?Determine if supporting leadershipdevelopment and organizing fitsinto the values and mission of theinstitution.

(3) If this self-assessment concludes thatsupport of grassroots leadershipdevelopment is or could be avaluable and appropriate strategy forthe foundation, become morefamiliar with the many approachesto leadership development andcommunity organizing. Talk withcolleagues whose foundationssupport these activities (NFG canhelp you identify funders whomyou might want to talk with) andmeet with grassroots leaders andstaff or board members of trainingor support organizations involvedwith grassroots leadership development in your community. Take ateam of board and staff on site visitsto organizations or funders involvedin the kinds of activities you’d liketo consider. (Stretch your comfortzone a little when deciding whichorganization(s) to visit if yourorganization tends to be somewhatrisk-averse.) Attend conferences thatinclude workshops on this strategyand read other resources on leader-ship development and organizing.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AS AN EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Community organizing is one of the oldest and most proven strategies for involving citizens usually left out of the system. It also is a tried and true methodfor solving some of our most pressing social problems. Reverend Robert Linthicum, of World Vision International, defined this strategy: “Communityorganization is that process by which the people…organize themselves to take charge of their situation and thus develop a sense of being a communitytogether. It is a particularly effective tool for the poor and powerless as they determine for themselves the actions they will take to deal with the essentialforces that are destroying their community and consequently causing them to be powerless.”

It is very difficult to categorize and define community organizing. The field is tremendously diverse and is always changing. Community organizing isprimarily identified with a number of national or regional networks. The most well known are: The Industrial Areas Foundation, Pacific Institute of CommunityOrganizing, Gamaliel, Direct Action Research and Training, and ACORN.

The major approaches taken by such organizations include:1. Direct or individual membership groups that tend to be small and use geographically based efforts to organize individual people.2. Issue-based coalitions that mobilize public interest groups, unions, and other established blocs to address a common concern.3. Institution-based organizing, which is rooted in and brings together local religious and other institutions to work on behalf of a community.

The key principles of community organizing are:• A Participative Culture - Significant time and resources are devoted to leadership development to enlarge the skills, knowledge, and responsibilities

of the members. “Never do for others what they can do for themselves” is known as the iron rule of organizing.• Inclusiveness - Community organizations are committed to the principle of developing membership and leadership from a broad spectrum of

the community.• Breadth of Mission and Vision - Every issue that effects the welfare of the community is within the purview of community organizations.

Most integrate a diverse range of issues and link them to a larger vision of the common good.• Critical Perspective - Community organizations seek to change failed policies and non-performing institutions. In many cases they are the

only force in the community that is promoting institutional accountability and responsiveness. 47

As foundation staff and leaders struggle with questions related to their funding priorities and vent their frustration with past funding efforts,some are looking at supporting community organizing as a key grassroots leadership development strategy.

One of the reasons that some foundations have reevaluated their funding strategies is that they have seen the success of community organiza-tions in contributing to the revitalization of low-income neighborhoods across the country. Community organizing is an effective strategy forempowering ordinary people to bring about positive changes in their environment. Many local communities have also identified communityorganizing as the most effective strategy for training community leaders. As community organizing groups have grown and prospered, moreand more grassroots leaders have turned to community organizing as their primary tool for developing community cohesion and for influenc-ing the future of their communities.

Recently, in almost all issue areas of foundation concern, community organizations have been essential to achieving results at the state andlocal levels. Community organizing successes include tangible and significant programmatic and policy changes. Community organizing hasalso resulted in dramatic increases in democratic participation by citizens who previously had not taken leadership roles in their communities.

The field of community organizing is very diverse and encompasses a wide variety of approaches, philosophies, and organizational structures.For a more in-depth discussion of community organizing read the “NFG Community Organizing Toolbox” which will be published in the springof 2001.

(4) Develop an internal strategy foryour foundation to begin to discussand plan for ways to get involved.Every foundation is unique and willrequire a different set of strategiesand approaches. Talk with othercolleagues who have developedsimilar approaches inside of theirfoundations. They can assist you indeveloping talking points. Youshould also look for internal allies inyour institution to work with.

(5) Connect the approach you arerecommending directly tooutcomes you are seeking as afunder. This can take many differentforms and have different startingpoints. You may conclude that thebest way to get started is to supportspecific issue work that a commu-nity organization is doing, or aleadership development program forgrassroots leaders in specificneighborhoods. Another entrypoint would be to support network-ing and issue research for staff and/or leaders. Be thoughtful aboutwhat you call this initiative from theoutset. Several foundations thatsupport community organizing, forexample, are more comfortablenaming it citizen participation orconstituency building.

(6) Other steps for your internalstrategy will depend on whois already supportive and thedecision-making process in yourfoundation. There are peers at alllevels in the funding and foundationworld who have embraced thisapproach. Reach out for advice orguidance if you need it.

(7) Once there is a commitment, start ata scale and level of activity that ismanageable and with leaders andorganizations in which you haveconfidence. If there is resistance,build support incrementally throughsolid early decisions.

Making the case for funding grassrootsleadership development and communityorganizing will be different for eachfoundation. There are resources and col-leagues who can help you develop a strat-egy and the case. Rebuilding our com-munities and sustaining a democratic andcivil society requires leadership from ev-eryone. Investing in grassroots leadershipdevelopment is an opportunity to exer-cise leadership with long-term impact atmany levels.

The self-confidence and skills leadersdevelop change lives and the destiny offamilies and communities. Organizationsare created and sustained that strengthenthe quality of life, social fabric, and in-clusiveness of our communities. Perceivedintractable problems are addressed andoften resolved.

To us the case is clear. We hope we’veconvinced you there is a case or givenyou support for decisions you’ve alreadymade. A lot is riding on our leadershipand decisions. (For more informationabout the Neighborhood Funders Group,contact NFG at (703) 448-1777 or visitour web site at <www.nfg.org>.)

Spence Limbocker is the executive direc-tor of the Neighborhood Funders Group andworked previously for the Campaign forHumanDevelopment.

48

49

The TripleFocus inActionThe Campbell study points to the synergyformed and positive benefits produced byconnecting training and technical assistancefor the individual and the organization, withthe community or issue change goals. Forsome support organizations, that’s a standardoperating principle. For others, it’s anintuitive practice, often unspoken. For stillothers, it’s a new idea that makes sense.For everyone, it’s a challenge.

The triple-focus approach is an ideal. It’soften achieved after building a relationshipthrough ”stand-alone” skill training with anemerging leader or an organization. Hereare some examples of how a few supportorganizations built to the triple focus andsome of the obstacles they encounteredalong the way.

PRACTICES THAT WORKThere is a rich diversity of approaches and settings in which we provide support for grassroots leadership development.Because this is a relatively young field, little is codified or uniform. Without a professional association or a network thatunifies the wide variety of philosophies and approaches to grassroots leadership development, there is little cross-fertilization of practice.

For these reasons, it’s not entirely possible in a guide like this to capture the richness of how we offer support tograssroots leaders. The following examples are offered as illustrations. We hope they will encourage more discussionand sharing across the various boundaries of the emerging support system.

Resource Center for Neighborhoods, Citizens Planning and HousingAssociation (CPHA), Baltimore, MD

Grassroots leaders in Baltimore get support from CPHA’s Resource Center for Neighborhoods(RCN) in a number of ways. CPHA is a nonprofit membership organization committed to theuse of citizen action to develop the best quality of life for all the people of Baltimore. TheResource Center for Neighborhoods is composed of three focus areas: training, assistanceand information, and neighborhood action. RCN fosters inter-neighborhood collaboration andnetworking, and serves as a first-stop support center for leaders and neighborhood organiza-tions. RCN offers training, community organizing, leadership development, and additionalresources to community activists, nonprofit boards, volunteers, and professional organizers.

Leaders and potential leaders typically connect with CPHA in one of three ways. Some havea CPHA organizer assigned to their neighborhood or hear about CPHA from an involvedneighbor. Others attend one of a dozen or more half-day training sessions offered two orthree times a year on topics identified by neighborhood leaders. Some need help on aspecific neighborhood issue and call CPHA directly.

Once a neighbor makes contact with CPHA, there are a number of learning opportunitiesfrom which to choose. In addition to the previously mentioned half-day workshops, CPHA hasdeveloped a curriculum around two issue areas—Crime and Drugs, and NeighborhoodMarketing. Depending on the needs of the neighborhoods, some leaders or potential leaderssign up as a team from their community and attend four-to-eight session topical programs.Skills and strategies are developed, and a lot of networking occurs with others who havedealt successfully with these issues.

A more intensive learning opportunity is the year-long leadership program called theLeadership and Community Building Fellowship. This program consists of three parts: athree-session self-assessment and strategy clinic to develop learning goals and determinereadiness for the program; a six-month series of training on leadership skills and strategiesheld on one Saturday and one evening per month; and a four-month practicum where skillsare applied towards a specific goal and project developed in the preceding classes. Teamsof two to four people from eight to 12 neighborhood associations or coalitions attendannually. Besides the in-class learning opportunities, participants have limited access totechnical assistance for their organization while in the workshop.

Here are some examples of how this system of learning and support opportunities builds towards a triple focus:

Joyce Smith moved back into the neighborhood where she grew up. She purchased a newly constructed home, however her community hadmany abandoned homes, and neighbors felt unsafe on the streets. Joyce got involved with the neighborhood group, learned about CPHA andbegan attending training workshops. When a leadership fellowship was started, she was in the first class. Soon, she began applying the skillsshe was learning to her neighborhood, and she was offered a position working full time for her neighborhood center. She developed moreopportunities to lead and to learn. The next year she again attended the fellowship with a team of three new leaders from her neighborhood.The following year she encouraged others to participate in the program. With the help of her neighbors, she initiated an area-wide planningprocess to improve the community. In the process, Joyce applied what she had learned about vision-setting and planning. Today, herneighborhood and nearby neighborhoods are working together to implement this plan. Over a five-year period, Joyce moved fromattending training workshops to applying new skills in developing additional leaders and creating a plan for her community.

Thomas Cherry is a deacon of a small church in south Baltimore. A developing neighborhood association turned to him for organizinghelp. He became aquainted with leaders who had never worked in a neighborhood group before, and was asked to be part of their team. Heagreed. As a result of their participation in the Leadership and Community Building Program, the minister and the new leaders decided towork together to open a neighborhood center to serve as a site for community youth meetings and activities. This project expanded theskills of the participants, gave their organization a focus and provided a new resource for the community.

Leaders from several neighborhoods in less distressed parts of the city attended a series of workshops on neighborhood planning andmarketing. They soon realized that the local government was not investing much public money in their neighborhoods. With the help ofCPHA staff, they formed a Healthy Neighborhood Alliance and began to advocate for more state and local resources. This is a textbookexample of leaders taking their learning and applying it first in their own neighborhoods and organizations and then moving to bringabout city-wide policy change.

Western States Center

The mission of the Western States Center is to “build a progressive movement for social, economic, racial, and environmental justice in eightWestern states.” The Center works on three levels to reach this mission: strengthening grassroots organizing and community-based leadership;building broad-based statewide progressive coalitions; and encouraging a new generation of citizen leaders to run for public office and toengage in the public policy process.

The Center works through a number of major programs, several of which intentionally use a triple-focus approach. The Community LeadershipTraining Program (CLTP) works with established and emerging grassroots leaders and their organizations. It provides training, leadershipdevelopment, and strategic organizational assistance. CLTP includes an annual four-day training session for more than 400 communityleaders, an intensive year-long organizing and leadership development program, and targeted technical assistance to organizations across theregion. Similar to the experience of Baltimore’s Citizens Planning and Housing Association, Western States Center has found that the four-dayannual training becomes a feeder for leaders and organizers who want to learn more through the year-long intensive program.

Two other programs of the Center also link local leaders and their organizational issues with a broader community change agenda. The WesternProgressive Leadership Network supports the development of permanent, multi-issue statewide coalitions through training and organizationaldevelopment support. Besides using a triple focus, this program intentionally advocates ongoing relationships among organizations withsimilar goals and values rather than reactive, crisis-driven issue cooperation.

The Center’s Research and Action for Change and Equity (RACE) Program supports research, education, and action on race-related issues atthe community level. It includes a “dismantling racism” training program, and a partnership project combining issue education with strategicconvening of organizations working towards racial justice. Race also helps to focus organizational development within communities of color.

50

Here are some examples of how the Center’s programs have advanced the development of leaders and organizations:

In Wyoming, Wende Barker got involved as a frustrated welfare mother seeking to change the welfare system. After years as a grassrootsleader, she was elected to the state legislature. She’s now a positional leader with extensive grassroots experience and ties.

In Idaho, Jen Ray first got involved as a leader in her community. Over the years, she attended several training sessions with the WesternStates Center. She eventually became the executive director of the Idaho Women’s Network, which works on systemic issues such as disabilityrights, gays and lesbian rights, and welfare reform.

Jim Hansen was a former legislator with no experience in organizing or running an organization. When he became the director of the UnitedVision for Idaho coalition, he signed up for the year-long Advanced Leadership/Mentorship Program (now called The Western Institute forOrganizing and Leadership Development). Through this program he received organizational development assistance, mentoring and specifictraining and technical assistance on how to staff an organization and build alliances and coalitions.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) is a public nonprofit that provides training, financial resources, and capacity buildingto a network of more than 200 organizations. Neighborhood Reinvestment has over 25 years of experience in designing and deliveringtraining and technical assistance to grassroots leaders and organizations that work in partnership with business and government.

The approach to training at NRC has evolved over the years, at times emphasizing specialized training based on role (board presidents,executive directors, community organizers, etc.) and at other times working to enhance generic skills applicable to many positions. Thecurrent approach that has proven most effective involves training combined with telephone and on-site technical assistance.

National Training Institutes are held over a week and offer more than 50 training sessions of varying lengths (from one day to all week).These Institutes are held four to five times annually in different parts of the country. Approximately 700-1000 participants includinggrassroots leaders, staff, and other volunteers typically attend. The advantage of the Training Institute approach is that it offers a greatmenu of choices to leaders of all types, and provides extraordinary networking opportunities. It has also proven more efficient not to tryto have stand-alone trainings on all possible topics. The curriculum includes skill building for leaders and staff; organizational managementand development topics; and specialized training in community organizing, affordable housing and economic and community development.

NRC has also developed a specialized training program for grassroots leaders called the Community Leadership Institute. This three-dayweekend brings together 200-300 grassroots residents. The agenda is a mix of storytelling, workshops, testimonials, action planning,leadership films, field trips, and roundtables. Residents of the host community are actively involved in planning both the event and theinteraction with local leaders. Experiences aimed at recognizing and affirming leaders’ talents and skills combined with organizationalaction planning results in a bridge to the triple-focus approach. As one participant commented: “The most important thing I’ll bring backis the idea that everyone has an asset to share with the community; everyone is a potential leader.”

These training opportunities focus mostly on individual learning. Where possible, however, teams from an organization are encouraged toattend. Through its staff and consultants, Neighborhood Reinvestment provides technical assistance to its member organizations and seeks toconnect individual learning with organization and community building through its system of technical assistance and capacity building. Areasof service provided include board development, expanding community leadership, neighborhood strategy, housing and real estate expertise,financial management and resource development.

51

As with many support organizations, the challenge for Neighborhood Reinvestment is balancing scale and coordination. As more leaders andcommunities are served, it’s easier for the training and technical assistance to become disconnected, somewhat diluting benefits of the triplefocus. On the other hand, the opportunity for leaders and organizations to participate in consistently available, high-quality training, and tocombine it with technical assistance strengthens the organizations and expands local leadership.

Here are some examples of grassroots leaders who found value in Neighborhood Reinvestment’s approach:

Pat Wilkerson says that her attendance at Community Leadership Institutes (CLI) sponsored by Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporationwas really the “turning point” in her development as a neighborhood leader. She went first by herself and two more times as part of a team ofthree from her neighborhood. What was special about the CLIs was the variety of workshop topics and the chance to learn what other leadersaround the country were doing. “We saw the benefits of being organized and how others were doing things . . . When I went by myself it wasinteresting, but when we all three went together it was amazingly motivational. It was like coming out of Sunday school. We were all fired upand ready to go.” For this team, skill building, setting their organizational priorities and a plan on their issues came out of attending theseInstitutes.

When Thomas James became the board chair of a struggling organization in Richmond, Virginia, he was relieved to learn about the servicesprovided by Neighborhood Reinvestment. He and other new leaders he recruited attended Training Institutes and special workshops fororganizations in transition. Additionally Neighborhood Reinvestment had an assigned staff person and a consultant providing organizationaldevelopment and neighborhood planning assistance. “We needed help on a lot of fronts”, Mr. James explained. “The training and other help wegot from Neighborhood Reinvestment helped us pull through. We are a healthy effective organization today as a result.”

52

The Campbell study of a sample of Kellogg Foundation grantees looked at what kinds of support and support delivery were most useful tograssroots leaders and organizations. Conclusions were reached through surveys, focus groups, site visits, and discussions at networkingconferences with grantees. The Campbell study concluded that support organizations that work effectively with grassroots organizations havecertain defining characteristics. These support organizations:

• Have an orientation and commitment to working with grassroots leaders and organizations;• Hire staff who inspire trust because they respect people, are open to all, and work well with people from diverse communities

and backgrounds;• Offer a mix of practical leadership development approaches that include networking, training, and technical assistance;• Use the triple-focus approach and make the connections between the individual’s development needs in relation to their organization

and community change goals; and• Are useful resources to leaders and organizations in dealing with major change (organizational start-up, crisis, leadership transition,

growth, etc.).

The Campbell study also points out that size is an issue in the effectiveness of support organizations. Organizations that are small andorganizationally fragile have difficulty providing consistent and high-quality support. Large organizations risk being too institutional,bureaucratic or fragmented in service delivery to serve grassroots leaders well.

In her essay Grassroots Leadership: An Essential Strategy for Changing Communities, former co-director of the Center for Third WorldOrganizing, Rinku Sen, suggests that effective programs for grassroots leaders are forced to innovate because of the tremendous challengesof designing systems that can encourage and sustain grassroots leaders. The most successful programs incorporate five common principles:

1. They understand the difference between leadership identification and leadership development. Identification models ofprogram planning seek out people whose authority to take leadership is already established and requires only improvement andpromotion. Deep and thorough leadership development requires starting with people very early in their acceptance of responsibilities,and providing consistent support to them over time. Such programs have to be willing to take risks on people, and accept attrition anddisappointment as the price that must be paid in search of the real gems.

2. They use both formal and informal pedagogy, which is participatory and engaging for adult learners with little formaleducation and for groups with uneven language ability. In addition to classroom-type training, they also require a consistentprocess of hands-on work and evaluation through which emerging leaders learn new skills and develop beneficial attitudes.

3. They offer hands-on learning opportunities in ways that address current community issues as well as developingindividual skills and networks. Many public policies related to health care, education, job discrimination, environmental health,housing, and immigration, have been negotiated while emerging leaders were learning from mentors, working with their communitiesand reflecting on lessons for their leadership.

4. Programs that serve diverse constituencies build their crew of staff and teachers to include the language capacity andcultural connections needed to support immigrants and other marginalized groups. It’s impossible to evaluate someone’s workif you don’t know the context they are coming from, or if you cannot measure their contributions against their peers’. Often diverse leadersmove their communities through political changes, changes in ethnic and national identity, and generational conflicts that emergefrom assimilation and resistance to assimilation. They need analytical support to understand the challenges facing their communities.

5. They provide one-on-one evaluation and attention to growth. They measure growth by specific skills, but also in terms ofconfidence gained, ability to withstand high levels of conflict, productive interventions in community conflicts, accurate andaccountable representation of the community, and the level of self-awareness in the leader. Excellent leadership developmentprograms will take participants through a consistent cycle of assessing strengths, challenges and goals; matching the participant to an assignment; assisting the participant through formal training or one-on-one coaching through that assignment; and returning to assessment andevaluation for the next step.

As the number and type of support organizations continues to grow and the importance of the field is better understood and acknowledged,how these and other challenges are faced will influence the future of support organizations.

CHALLENGES WE FACE

53

54

Leadership Transition: A Strategic Moment

A lot is on the line when any organization changes its top leader. Grassroots organizationshave fewer resources and less ability to bounce back from a poor hiring experience. Leadersof grassroots organizations hiring a new executive face another dilemma—there is a shortageof people prepared to lead community-based organizations and few incentives to attractnew talent.

These systemic issues are what caused the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to investover $2 million of its Research & Development funds in partnership with the W.K. KelloggFoundation to learn more about assisting grassroots organizations in managing leadershiptransitions. The lessons learned were both hopeful and sobering. Improvements in tenure andorganizational effectiveness are possible by focusing on transition and other capacity building.A number of struggling organizations were improved and some transformed through attentionto the executive transition process. The findings affirmed the strategic importance of makingassistance available when an organization is fragile and at risk.

Much was learned about what kinds of support are most helpful to grassroots boards as theysearch for new leadership. As part of this research, NR developed a systematic, three-phasetransition process. By assisting the board in seeing the key issues and decisions during threedistinct phases—getting ready, recruitment and selection, and post-hiring—the board isempowered and the odds for a successful hire are increased.

Compensation is an obvious key to successful recruitment and retention. Competitive salariesare important; an employer-contributed retirement program is even more important, accordingto Neighborhood Reinvestment’s study. Organizations with employer-contributed retirementhad twice the tenure for staff of those without it.

Neighborhood Reinvestment’s study had two other findings of note. First, most of the over 100transitions observed were non-routine and complex. They involved a start-up, a turn-around,a founder departure or entrepreneur departure or other major organizational challenges for agrassroots board. Second, despite considerable investment in outreach and marketing,increasing the number of executives from communities of color did not occur, though anumber of boards did successfully recruit a non-white executive.

There is great potential for strengthening staffed grassroots organizations through increasedattention to leadership transition. Whether an executive departs or community leaders arestuck in a position too long, funders and others who want to support grassroots leadershipdevelopment will find the lessons from this work of interest. (For more information, seeNeighborhood Reinvestment’s website at <www.nw.org>.)

CONCLUSIONConcrete, visible results are occurring across America due to the emerging relationships between support organizations, and grassrootsleaders and organizations. Communities are healthier and more vibrant and inclusive. Citizens not part of the conventional systems arebecoming involved and have an increasing voice in their communities. The collective power of grassroots organizations and the numberof support organizations working with grassroots leaders is significant and growing.

It’s an exciting time to be involved with grassroots organizations. Communities abound with new hope at the same time as they face large,complex issues. Our track record and history provide confidence and direction as to how to meet the challenges detailed in this guide.As the Campbell report demonstrates so clearly, much is possible, and much more is at stake. It is not an exaggeration to say that everycommunity in America relies on grassroots leaders and organizations for roles that are central to the vitality of the community. Supportorganizations of all kinds are providing much needed assistance. The challenge is to build on the strengths evident in this work and tofind ways to continue to be more deliberate about grassroots leadership development as the strategy for lasting community change.

For those of you interested in grassroots leaders skill development, please review our companion publication: Grassroots LeadershipDevelopment: Workbook for Aspiring or Current Grassroots Leaders. This booklet takes the reader on a journey to discover their leadershipabilities and aspirations. With a very hands-on approach this workbook is a terrific tool in motivating potential grassroots leaders to takeaction. This resource will help you fulfill your obligation to mentor leadership within your community.

55

56

CLUSTER EVALUATION PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

Organization Location

African and American Friendship, Inc. Mattapan, MA

ACORN Institute for Social Justice, Inc. Brooklyn, NY

American Leadership Forum Portland, OR

Association of American Colleges & Universities Washington, D.C.

Delta Research and Educational Foundation Washington, D.C.

Democracy Resource Center Lexington, KY

Grassroots Leadership Charlotte, NC

Highland Research and Education Center, Inc. New Market, TN

Horizons of Mission Enterprises, Inc. Mission, TX

Interdenominational Theological Center Atlanta, GA

Mega-Cities New York, NY

National Association of Neighborhoods Washington, D.C.

National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise Washington, D.C.

National Coalition Building Institute Washington, D.C.

National Council of LaRaza Washington, D.C.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Washington, D.C.

Robert K. Greenleaf Center Indianapolis, IN

Southern Empowerment Project Maryville, TN

Southwestern Michigan Urban League Battle Creek, MI

State University of NY - Binghamton Binghamton, NY

Tacoma Urban League Tacoma, WA

Virginia Polytechnical Inst. and State University Blacksburg, VA

Western States Center Portland, OR

Appendix AOther Training for Support Organizations

The National Coalition Building - Offers a seven-day experientialtraining using a “train the trainers” model for leadership development thatassists a broad range of organizations in creating more inclusive communi-ties. The principles used in workshops on college campuses and incommunities and government agencies to build bridges among people ofdifferent races and ethnic backgrounds and to eliminate discrimination aredetailed in Healing into Action, A Leadership Guide for Creating DiverseCommunities.

The Highlander Center - Works with leaders at the rustic Center in theSmoky Mountains of Tennessee in giving voice to each leader’s story andconnecting the issues as part of movement building. Current programs havea goal to better connect the training results back to the local organization byinvolving organizational leaders who are not attending the training indiscussions before and after the training.

Neighborhoods Inc. - Has developed a two-part 16-week CommunityBuilders® leadership program for grassroots neighborhood leaders in BattleCreek, MI.

Leadership Fort Wayne - Offers an experiential leadership program foryoung people called Youth in Action. It’s based on a skills-based curriculumdeveloped by the Fanning Leadership Center of the University of Georgia,Athens.

Center for Third World Organizing - Has developed a flagship MinorityActivist Apprenticeship Program (MAAP) which has produced over 300organizers of color for activist organizations. MAAP is an intensive seven-week field-based internship, which includes a six-week field placementwhere interns get hands-on organizing experience. Interns are placed at oneof several partner organizations throughout the U.S. and work under closesupervision on an organizing campaign at a community organization or laborunion. CTWO introduces and prepares people of color for organizing andleadership positions in grassroots activist organizations and assists withtransitions from organizing to a management position as that occursover time.

Southern Empowerment Project - Organizes a conference every twoyears for grassroots leaders and organizers, which uses the planning andconference facilitation as leadership development practice for participants.Also offers a week-long introductory training for grassroots leaders andorganizers on how to weave community organizing and grassrootsfundraising together to strengthen membership and leadership control oforganizations. In the training, participants learn the why’s and how’s ofraising funds in their own communities and then participate in a learningand technical assistance “cluster” for three years.

The Greenleaf Servant Leader Center - Has developed 10 characteris-tics of servant leadership and six areas of application and offers workshopsin colleges, churches, workplaces, communities, government agencies andbusinesses on how to apply the servant leadership principles in every area ofa leader’s life.

Technical Assistance

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation - Has developed anapproach to executive transitions in staffed organization with broadapplicability to grassroots organizations. This three-phase approach buildson the strengths of the board leadership and provides a structure formanaging the challenging and often traumatic times of leadershiptransition.

Western States Center - Works in one of its programs with issue-basedcoalitions within a state to form longer-term multi-issue networks andcoalitions. Technical assistance involves serving as convener, fund-raisingstrategy and help, organizational development and start-up mentoring forstaff and leaders, and issue strategy assistance.

MegaCities provides technical assistance to organizations and leaders inmajor cities of the country and the world around their unique set ofopportunities and challenges.

The Center for Community Change provides technical assistance toresidents of public housing and is planning to repeat a successful trainingon the impact of changes in the financial industry on low-income andminority communities and to provide follow-up technical assistance toparticipants in how to expand access to loans and financial services intheir community.

Management support organizations and some state associations ofnonprofits offer both training and technical assistance useful to grassrootsorganizations around organizational development issues. In the Baltimore-Washington communities, for example, the Maryland Association ofNonprofit Organizations and the Support Center of Washingtonboth provide low-cost training in a range of issues facing grassrootsorganizations (board development, fundraising, computer and technologyuses, communication and marketing, among many others). Bothorganizations also offer technical assistance as well.

Similarly, in the San Francisco Bay area a leading management supportorganization, CompassPoint, offers training and technical assistance ona wide range of topics relevant to grassroots organizations. Similarmanagement support organizations and/or state associations of nonprofitorganizations exist throughout the United States. Their mission is to serveall nonprofits and some of what they offer is relevant and useful tograssroots organizations and to support organizations who work with them.(See Resource Directory for information on how to reach the nationalorganizations for a directory of local resources.)

57

NOTES

58

55

One MichiganAvenue EastBattle Creek, MI49017-4058USA616-968-1611TDD on siteTelex: 4953028Facsimile: 616-968-0413Internet: http://www.wkkf.org

Job #LE 3668aItem #529

1000–1.0HWDPrinted on Recycled Paper