mccarthy walker nvs q

7/31/2019 Mccarthy Walker Nvs q

1/23

10.1177/0899764004266200McCarthy, WalkerAlternativeOrganizational Repertoires

Alternative Organizational Repertoires of PoorPeoples Social Movement Organizations

John D. McCarthy

Edward T. Walker

Pennsylvania State University

This article contrasts the organizational structure, goals, and tactics of congregation-based organizations (CBOs) with individual membership organizations (IMOs) thatrepresent alternative organizational repertoires forgroups aiming to empowerpoorcom-munities in the United States. Organizational records of 86 CBOs and 125 IMOs areevaluated. It wasfound thatCBOsmobilize substantiallymore communitymembersandare more likely to devote their efforts toward leadership development and organizationbuilding.On theother hand, IMOs are farmorelikely to employaggressive socialchangetactics, whereasCBOs focus more on consensusissues. Finally,IMOs employ a farmorediverse array of grassroots funding strategies. The generalizability of these findings isdiscussed.

Keywords: community organizing; repertoires; social movements; faith-basedorganizations

Advocates of social change must turn private problems into public issues andat the same time develop convincing arguments about how collective actionmay succeed in addressing those issues to effectively mobilize masses of citi-zens (Gamson, 1990). As well, they must develop collective vehicles that caneffectively frame public issues and directly mobilize diverse constituencies.Activist entrepreneurs who seek to create such collective efforts must chooseamong a limited range of culturally available organizational repertoires(Gamson, 1990; Tilly, 1995). In what follows, we explore the consequences ofsuch a choicebetween twoquite differentorganizational templates that aimtoempower poor people in local communities across the United States. The two

Note: We thank Debbie Perkins-Jones and Louis Crishock for their extensive contributions to theproject of assembling and analyzing the data that serve as the bases of the present analyses. JimCastelli was a valued collaborator on the project until his untimely death.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Supplement to vol. 33, no. 3, September 2004 97S-119S

DOI: 10.1177/0899764004266200 2004 Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

97S


2/23

templates arecongregation-based organizations (CBOs)andindividual mem-

bership organizations (IMOs). We argue that the choice of one or the other ofthese organizational repertoires has direct consequences upon the goals andtactics chosen by the groups.

Past research has focused primarily upon the CBO template. As a result,argumentsmadebyitsadvocates,aswellasitscritics,havenotbeenamenableto empirical assessment. We aim, in what follows, to generate a test of some ofthese claims. Our results are of particular importance, because trends in thechoiceof repertoires for local poor peoples groupsin theensuing decades hasdirect implications for the extent and adequacy of representation of poor citi-zens in local and national policy debates in the United States.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF LOCAL

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING GROUP STRUCTURE

It has been estimated that 6,000 community organizations are working toorganize and empower people in poor communities in the United States(Delgado, 1994). These groups take a number of distinct forms including (a)those that enroll poor community residents as individual members constitut-ingtheir primaryconstituency, like those groupsthat make up theAssociationof Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) network as well asthe groups loosely affiliated with the Third World Organizing Center(TWOC);1 (b) groups that typically consist of issue-based coalitions of localorganizations; and (c) groups primarily made up of congregations. Althoughmany IMOs and issue-based coalitions may receive support from and even

include local religious groups in their coalitions, congregation-based groupsare defined by their primary use of local congregations as building blocks forcreating organizational structures. Also, bothcongregation-based groups andcoalitions are composed of primarily organizational members. We will focushere upon a contrast between two standard organizational repertoires ofpoor-empowerment groupsone that is composed primarily of individualsasmembersandone that is composed primarilyof congregations asmembers.

We have relatively few solid censuses of local advocacy groups that wouldallow us to describe their demography. Common images of advocacy groupstypically misrepresent the wide range of organizational membership types,assuming that most groups enroll individual members (see Lofland, 1996).Edwards and Foley (2003), in their analysis of national peace movementgroups, for instance, showed that more than 35% of them are composed pri-

marily of organizational members. Among the full sample of communityempowerment groups that we gathered, approximately 50% are composedprimarily of organizational members.Whether a group choosesto enroll indi-vidual or organizational members, or some combination, has consequencesfor its subsequent operations that shape its goals and tactics.

98S McCarthy, Walker


3/23

An extensive literature has accumulated recently describing in great detail

the CBOformof advocacy groups.Bothadvocates and critics of the form havedebated its advantages and disadvantages. Much less has been written, how-ever, about the advantages and disadvantages of the IMO type even thoughmost assume this form to be the typical model of the local advocacy group(Oliver & Furman, 1989; Oliver & Marwell, 1992). In what follows, we willdescribe the two types, ponder their comparative strengths and weaknesses,and then examine some evidence that allows a systematic comparison of thetwo.

Individual membership advocacy groups. In spite of the great attention paidrecently to advocacy organizations without any members (Putnam, 2000;Skocpol, 1999), many groups continue to depend heavily upon individualmembers for support. There is no standard meaning of membership across

groups like these, however, and it may for some groups consist of little morethan being listed on a membership roster and/or paying some small amountin annual dues.2 In part, this contributes to what we will argue is the greaterdegree of heterogeneity within this organizational type: We will show thatIMOs display great diversity in internal structure, standard operatingprocedures, and issue focus.

Some IMOs included in our comparisons areaffiliates of national umbrellagroups such as ACORN, 9 to 5, and the Association for Children for Enforce-ment of Support (ACES). ACORN has been building IMOs in some of thepoorest urban communities in the United States for more than 3 decades(Delgado, 1986). Organizing working poor women has been the goal of 9 to 5,which has developed chapters in many cities across the United States. ACEShasenrolled women seeking helpin gaining child supportfrom ex-spouses in

hundreds of local chapters across the United States.Other IMOs we examine are independent ones such as the Farm Labor

Organizing Committee (FLOC), the Asian Immigrant Women Advocates(AIWA), and the Virginian Black Lung Association. FLOC is a farm laborgroup based in Toledo, Ohio, that hashadgreat success in organizing workersin cucumbers and tomatoes (Barger & Resa, 1994). AIWAhas built an organi-zation mobilizing Asian immigrant women who work in sweatshops in theSan Francisco bay area. And, Virginia Black Lung has continued to mobilizecoal miners to fight for health benefits. Most of these local groups have lessthan 2,500 individual members, and none have more than 6,000 members.

IMOs face two difficult problems that must be solved for them to remainviable. First, they must give constant attention to membership recruitmentand retention, and second, they must attend to the task of building a stableflow of resources to support the organization, some of which comes from thefinancial support of those members. Groups that depend upon individualmembers must first recruit and then retain them. Membership retentionremains a difficult problem for such groups. Rothenbergs (1992) study ofCommon Cause illustrates the problem showing the very high rate of

Alternative Organizational Repertoires 99S


4/23

turnover of membership that requires that organization to continue to invest

great resources in replenishing its membership annually. Advocacy organiza-tions with limitedresourcesmust devotea greater proportionof themto thesetasks. The great difficulties experienced by the Massachusetts Welfare RightsOrganizations (Bailis, 1974) in retaining members who were welfare recipi-ents, even during its period of greatest vitality, illustrates the special difficul-ties of retention for advocacy groups aiming to enroll poor and low-incomemembers.

Many local advocacygroupsdependupon volunteerleadership mitigatingthe need for resources to support paid staff. Lofland (1993), for instance,showed for the 1980s U.S. peace movement that volunteers led most localgroups. Edwards and Foley (2003) showed for a sample of these same peacemovement groups that very few of the local ones retained paid staff. But localgroups that choose to compensate some of their leader/activists must nor-

mallyseek resourcesbeyond thoseprovided by individual members to do so.The twin difficulties of building an organization based upon membershipdues andthe necessityof seekingoutsidesupport beyondthemembershipareexacerbated for groups that seek to organize disadvantaged populations.3

Individual members cannotafford to provide much financial support, andthebroader communities within which they work are also less endowed withresources. As a consequence, basic organizational maintenance is an ongoingproblem for many IMOs.

CBOs. The Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) leaders developed the CBOtemplate after the death of the organizations long-time leader and notoriouscommunity organizer, Saul Alinsky. There are now at least 60 IAF groups inU.S. communities with several more in formation (Warren, 2001). Some of

IAFs best-known and most successful groups include Communities Orga-nized for Public Service (COPS) in San Antonio, Texas (Rogers, 1990); Balti-moreans United in Leadership Development (BUILD) in Maryland (Greider,1992); and South Bronx Churches in the South Bronx, New York (Rooney,1995). We know most about the groups that make up the IAF network and,hence, the details of the IAF model, because there has been so much effortdevoted to describing it. In addition, there are several other networks of localgroups that mirror the IAF model including the Gamaliel Foundation, basedin Chicago; thePacific Institute forCommunityOrganization(PICO), based inOakland; and Direct Action and Research Training (DART), based in Florida.Each of these networks includes organizations in states beyond their homebase, and together they include at least 75 to 80 more CBOs (McCarthy &Castelli, 1995; Speer & Hughey, 1995; Warren & Wood, 2001). Although wehave more limitedsecondary accounts of them compared with theIAFgroups(but seeHart, 2001; Wood,1997), it appears that thebasic outlines of organiza-tion building, organizational structure, financing, leadership training, andrelational organizing are quite similar across the groups.4



5/23

The CBO formula for organization building.5 The several CBO networks enter

communities in a largelysimilar fashionlooking forecumenical support froma number of congregational leaders before they will commit an organizer to acommunity. The support includes enough financial resources, from duesassessed from congregational membership, to hire a lead organizer and pro-vide the rudiments of an umbrella organization linking together the partici-pating congregations. An organizing committee is formed, and the lead orga-nizer meets with pastors and lay leaders from participating congregations,typically in one-on-onesshort meetings aimed at sizing up the leadershippotential of and creating bonds with leaders. In this way, a cadre of leaders isformed out of the congregations to take part in leadership training. Theseleaders, in turn, carry on one-on-ones aimed at identifying additional leaderswho can also be exposed to leadership training. The organizing strategy thusdepends on building upon the preexisting relationships between congrega-

tional members. It is driven by the desire to identify and train local leaders inrelational skills andto have them build ever-wideningcirclesof relationships.Eventually, leaders work to build relationships with outside allies, commu-nity leaders, power brokers, andordinary citizens outsideof their owngroup.Rooney (1995), summarizing what he learned studying the creation of theSouth Bronx Churches, called this process organizing relationally andobserved that a CBOis builtpiece by piece, person by person. Therein lies itsstrength (p. 226). This process is tremendously labor intensive and timecon-suming, and, notunusually, years canbe spent in creatingthethickrelationsoftrust and respect among members from the constituent congregations thatultimately allow these organizations to act collectively.

The IAF refers toits groupsasbroad based, bywhich theymeanthatgroups

should be established, to the extent possible, upon as wide a diversityof race,ethnicity, age, geography, groupidentification, and denominationas possible,and the other CBO networks similarly strive to be broad based in this sense.The consequence of building groups upon a broad base is that the substantivefocus of their collective action consists only of issues that all elements of thebroad base can endorse. This necessarily restricts the likelihood that certainkinds of issues will become the focus of their change effortsones that dividerather than unite the membership.6 Consequently, the CBO leaders all speak,with one concept or another, of organizing for power rather than by issue.Nevertheless, these organizations uniformly seek to empower poor and dis-advantaged communitiesand to do so in such a way as to avoidthe racial andethnic divisions that plagued earlier community organizing efforts. The reli-gious basis of congregation-based organizing contributes to this goal, but

organizers insistence on broad-based organizing is intended to keep theseefforts on track (see Warren, 2001).

CBOs incorporate leadersinto allphasesof organizational decision makingand encourage broad and revolving participation in top leadership positions.With great variation across the network and between communities within the



6/23

network, CBOs createextensivecommittee structures that give leadersexperi-

ence in calling and running meetings and carrying out collective tasks.Groups typically hold more or less regular conventions of all constituent con-gregations to ratify decisions, issue directions, and decide upon projects thatwill be pursued as well as to celebrate group solidarity. Sometimes, for themore mature groups, these gatherings also include accountability sessionswhere community politicians, such as mayors and city council members, arepublicly asked to pledge support for clearly defined group positions on localissues. Sessions such as these are also held at the congregation level, and theyusually involve many leaders who are responsible for having helped todevelop the groups position on the issue and are expected to articulate thosepositions in such a fashion that the group may hold the local politicianresponsible for what they might do in the future.

Especially germane to the contrast with IMOs, CBOs develop stable flows

of financial resources through annual dues paid by member congregations.Although such dues are typically modest in amount for each congregation, aCBO with several dozen congregational members is able to create a depend-able source of financial resources upon which an organization can be con-structed. Groups that recruit congregations as members confront the sameproblem of retentionthat faces IMOs butwithcongregational ratherthan indi-vidual members as building blocks. As a consequence, the groups are con-strained by these many interorganizational relationships.

The strategy draws criticism, however, from other advocates of changeincluding some who view individual-membership, poor-empowermentgroups as superior on several grounds. First is the claim that CBOs do notorganize the poorest of the poor thereby neglecting to empower the most

needy communitymembers (Delgado,1994).This seems to be an unavoidableconsequence of building local organizations ona base of congregations, fewofwhich are likely to be composedof the poorest of the poor. Second is a concernwith the narrowness as well as the localized focus of the issues upon whichCBOs can achieve consensus. Some argue that their local issue focus makes itdifficult for CBOs to articulate and mobilize around analyses of issues thatlocate solutions to community problems in more systemic causes (Miller,1987). Third, some argue that building CBOson a congregational base merelyreinforces the traditional hierarchical structures of religious organizations(Robinson & Hanna, 1994).

Summary of differences. In the following comparisons between CBOs andIMOs, we are guided by some general expectations about how they shoulddiffer from one another based upon the preceding discussion. In particular,we expect that the two types of organizations will differ with respect to (a)choice of tactics, (b) issue focus, (c) class composition, (d) sources and uses offinancial resources, and (e) the degree of homogeneity within type.

First, although both of these kinds of poor-empowermentgroupsaresome-times likely to take up issues in relatively confrontational ways, we expect



7/23

IMOs to be more likely to do so. Similarly, although organizations of both

types also tend to avoid highly divisive issues (e.g., abortion, capital punish-ment, etc.), weexpect IMOsto be morewilling totake on issues thatare poten-tially divisive.

But what is itabout CBOs thatmakes themmorelikely topursueissues thatfindmorewidespread supportin communitieswithmoreconsensus-buildingtactics? Such patterns arepartially theresult of their philosophyof organizingand partially the result of the structural form they employ, we believe. CBOsaim to organize across a broad base. In practice, this means inclusion across adiverse set of community cleavages including race, ethnicity, age, geography,and congregation of origin. Enrolling community participants through thecongregations in which they worshipis well suited to such a strategy, becausecongregations tend to be heterogeneous with respect to social class if not eth-nic background (Schwadel, 2003). CBOs typically enroll a mix of congrega-

tions that together represent diverse ethnic constituencies, however. The con-sequence of building an organizational structure in this manner is that CBOsinclude broad cross-sections of citizens in the communities they represent.This, in concert with their philosophical approach, creates constraints on thekinds of issues they can pursue thereby leading them to seek those aroundwhich broad consensus among member congregants can be mobilized.7 Aswell, although CBOs must still address the diverse interests of their constitu-ency, they also must balance social and political engagement with core prac-tices of religious worship. Wood(2002) referred to this as the buffering of thesacred core; the religious and social commitments of participant congrega-tions are related butkeptautonomous to protect religious commitments frombeing swallowed up in the political demands of organizing (p. 72). IMOs do

not have such demands and are therefore free to engage in a broader array ofissues and choose among a wider range of tactics.Although IMOs are also focused on organizing the largest number of con-

stituents, their more diverseorganizing philosophiestend to stressorganizingaround issues rather than letting issues emerge from consensus processesamong those who have already been mobilized. Recruiting members whocome to the group with a strong position on the issues for which a group isstruggling leads to high internal consensus on those issues (McCarthy, 1987).Many IMOs, as well, begin with a commitment to direct action tactics. This isevident, forinstance, in theorganizing philosophy of ACORN,oneof thelarg-est national coalitions of local IMOs:

To build a mass community organization that has as its primary princi-

ple the development of sufficient organizational power to achieve itsindividual members interests, its local objectives, and in connectionwith other groups, its state interests. The organization must be perma-nent with multi-issued concerns achieved through multi-tacticed [sic]direct action [italics added], and membership participating in policy,



8/23

financing, and achievement of group goals and community improve-

ments. (as quoted in Russell, 1990, pp. 30-31)

We also expect CBOs to differ from IMOs in terms of their social class com-position. Following Delgado (1994), there are indications that CBOs arenotascapable of organizing the poorest of the poor. This results from the fact thatcongregations are seldom composed of the most highly impoverished indi-viduals and families, because they tend to be economically heterogeneous(Schwadel, 2003). As with most kinds of voluntary organizational forms,when middle-income members are included, their interests tend to receivegreat weight.

Fourth, we expect differences between the two types of organizations bothin terms of their sources as well as their uses of financial resources. As men-tionedearlier, IMOs are lesslikely to possess thestablesources of fundingthat

CBOs enjoy. This state of affairs forces them to focus much more time andeffort on recruitingand retaining members as well as seekingnewand diversesources of funding. We expectthesedifferences in themobilizationof financialresources to have consequences for organizations choicesof tactical methodsandissuesas well as their viabilityas anorganization. We cannotwith thedataat hand, however, address the issue of differential organizational viability.8

Finally, we expect to find greater homogeneity in structure, goals, and tac-tics among the CBO groups as well as between the several separate networksof them in contrast to our sample of IMOs. IMOs, unlike their congregation-based counterparts, do not have a well-institutionalized and clearly specifiedtemplate readilyavailable to them fororganizing poor communities. As a con-sequence, theIMOs draw upon farmore diversesources in creating their orga-

nizations and mapping out their goals and the methods for achieving them.Variations on this institutional repertoire are widely available in the practiceof existing organizations, and a common approach among those starting upnew groups is to examine existing models, being guided in their choice, tosome extent,by their institutional legitimacy (DiMaggio& Powell,1983; Scott,2001).9 In addition, CBOs all confront similar problems stemming from theircommondependenceupon a coalition of preexistingcongregations. As a con-sequence of these several factors, the CBOs should exhibit far more similarityin structure, goals, and tactics than the IMOs.

The choiceof organizational formfor grassroots,poor-empowermentorga-nizations is an especially significant one in that these groups are among thefew who represent the poor in local, state, and national politics.10 The differ-ences in goals and tactics between these two organizational forms raise ques-

tions that are of concern to scholars of community organizing, its practitio-ners, andthoseconcernedwith thedecline of local communityinvolvement inthe United States. These questions include (a) which organizational form canbe expected to mobilize the poor in greater numbers and (b) which



9/23

organizational form is more effectivein doing so?We returnto these questions

in our conclusion.

DATA SOURCE

The evidence used to assess our several theoretical expectations about dif-ferences between congregation-based and individual-membership, poor-empowerment organizations was drawn from the files of the Catholic Cam-paign for Human Development (CCHD). CCHD was formed in the late 1960sby the U.S. Catholic Bishops to serve as their mechanism for attacking thestructural sources of poverty. But rather than supporting services to the poor(which was the traditional role of U.S. Catholic Social Services), CCHD wasconceived as an agency that would instead provide support for groups that

seek to empower the poor through community organizing. For more than 30years, CCHD has made annual grants to a diverse set of local communityorganizing projects, many of which, as we will show, are congregation-basedones.11

The data set we will describe here is based upon groups that received sup-port from CCHD in 1991, 1992, and 1993. During these years, more than 600groupsappliedforfunds annually, andin each annualfunding cycle,approxi-mately 200 groups received grants that ranged between $35,000 and $50,000.Many of thegroups that receivesupport from CCHD didsoforseveral consec-utive years. All groups funded in 1991 were included in the sample, and eachgroup that was newly funded in either 1992 or 1993 was added to the sample.This procedure netted a total of 322 groups that were funded in at least one of

the study years. Of these groups, 86 were congregation-based ones, and 125were composed of individual members. These 211 groups provide the basisfor the comparisons that follow.

To gather data on the organizations funded by CCHD, the senior authorand colleagues combed the application and report records for each organiza-tion. More than 400 fields of information were included in each record. Thedata were collected using a coding scheme that enabled research assistants todirectly enter a significant amountof information from theforms (e.g., organi-zational budget categories, membership numbers, and the like).12 The moreeasily quantifiable information contained in therecords for each organizationwas directly entered by the research assistants.13 This included informationabout IRS tax status, membership composition, group age, geographicallocation, and more.

CCHD was then one of the few large sources of grant support for commu-nity organizers seeking to empower poor communities in the United States.As a result, it is likely that a large proportion of viable local social movementorganizations in this arena considered submitting applications to CCHD atsome time in their history. A comparison of groups that were funded with



10/23

those that were not funded in the 1988 to 1989 funding cycleshowed very few

differences between them in size, structure, or substantive focus (McCarthy&Shields, 1990). Of course, the local groups that are capable of making a formalapplication to CCHD (which includes a request for support of paid staff) arelikely to be ones that are already among the stronger ones.

MEASUREMENT OF KEY CONCEPTS

Economic/racial/ethnic composition. General information was collected oneach organizations board of directors, organizational staff, and organiza-tional membership.14

Tactical methods. There were 34 goal accomplishment methods coded as

well as a residual other category.15

The usage ofeach methodwascodedas a1 or 0, either present or absent.The methodswere grouped under 10 headings:(a) leadership development,(b) membershipdevelopment/training, (c)staff/board development, (d) public relations, (e) fundraising, (f) outreach, (g)direct action, (h)reflection, (i) constituency/membersservices, and(j)other.

Issues/substantive goals. There were 22 specific issues that we believe cap-tured the substantive focus of all of the organizations. The first 10 issues thatappeared in the file materials were coded. Issues were coded as 1 or 0, presentor absent. The average number of issues that were the focus of a group wasapproximately four.

Grassroots fundraising source. All grassroots fundraising sources and

amounts, which were listed by each organization for the previous fiscal year,were included.16 These sources included a number of various fundraisingactivities including (a) activities (e.g., raffles, dinners, runs, rummage sales,events, dances, and shows), (b) membership dues (from congregations ormembers), (c) unspecified donations, (d) donations from individuals, (e)donations from charity campaigns (e.g., United Way, community founda-tions), (f) donations from institutions (e.g., corporations, foundations), (g)directmail, (h) telemarketing, (i) supportbooks or advertising sales,17 (j)prod-uct sales, (k) fees for professional services, and (l) other sources.

Membership type.Theentiresampleofgroupswasdividedintofivetypesbytheir membership structure: (a) congregation based, (b) mixed organizationsincluding congregations and other institutions, (c) coalitions of organizations,(d) mixed organizations including coalitions and IMOs, and (e) IMOs. In thisanalysis, we only include organizations for which membership is one of thepure types: congregation based or individual membership.

Network affiliation. Information wasalso collected about thenetwork affilia-tion for all of the groups, which allowed us to distinguish between networks



11/23

within organizational types. Below we compare the IAF-affiliated CBOs with

all other groups of this type, and the ACORN-affiliated IMOs with all othergroups of this type.

RESULTS

We first compare the membership of CBOs with the membership of IMOs.Table 1 disaggregates the total reported membership of the two samples oforganizations by their racial/ethnic and poverty composition. First, one caneasily see that, on average, CBOs are much larger than IMOs. In our sample,CBOs are on average almost 12 times larger than IMOs. This difference isdirectly the result of the contrasting structures of the two types of organiza-tions. CBOs typically enumerate their memberships by counting all members

of constituent congregations. Our evidence is based upon each organizationsself-reported membership broken down by racial and ethnic category.18

Next, we note that IMOs have only a slightly smaller proportion of poormembers than CBOs, and the difference is not statistically significant. Thisfinding provides little supportfor Delgados (1994) claim that CBOs, by virtueof recruiting members through existing congregations, are, as a result, lessinvolved in organizing the poorest of the poor. As well, because the CBOs areso much largeron average, they mobilize substantially more poorpeoplethando the IMOs11,389 per group versus 932, respectively.

As well, the CBOs, based on these membership reports, have a somewhatlarger proportion of their memberships composed of people of colormorethan 69%compared with theIMOs that reportabout56%of their membership.

Thus, although both types of organizationsshow a typical membershipthat ispredominantly composed of people of color, CBOs include a significantlygreater proportion. Again,because theCBOsare so much larger, they, on aver-age, mobilize substantiallymore peopleof color pergroupthan dotheIMOs.

Table 2 compares themembershipof boardsof directorsof CBOs with thoseof IMOs along the same dimensions we used for individual membership.First, we note that CBOs have somewhat larger boards than IMOs. The sub-stantially larger CBO boards may reflect the pressures they face for compre-hensive representation from constituent congregations.

Similar to thepatterns formembership, there aresmall differences in repre-sentation on the boards of members who are poor; here IMOs show greaterproportions of poor board members. As well, the boards of IMOs have a bitgreater representation of people of color. However, the differences in this case

are quite modest; for both typesof groups, the majority of board membersarepeople of color.

Table 3 compares the frequency with which each of a wide range of tacticalmethods is employed by CBOs and IMOs.19 First, we compare the six mostcommonly employed methods for each type of advocacy group. These arebolded in each column. Consistent with the claims of those who advocate the



12/23

CBO template, leadership identification and leadership training are amongthe most common methods employed by these groups. Nevertheless, leader-

ship training is among the six most common activities of the IMOs. As well,recruiting and training members occupymore than half of the IMOs, whereasmany CBOs devote effort to recruiting new group members. Although amajority of both kinds of groups devoteeffort to organizational development,moreof the CBOs in our sample devote broader effort to organizational main-tenance issues (e.g., planning and research).

Second, we compare the frequency with which the two typesof groups uti-lize each of the methods. A logistic regression analysis approach is employedinwhichthedependentvariable iswhether a group usedeachmethodand theindependent variable is whether the organization was congregation based(predictor) or individual membership (reference category). Thus, odds lessthan 1 indicate that the CBO is more likely to utilize this method, whereasodds greater than 1 indicate that the IMO is more likely to utilize this method.These odds are displayed in the third column of Table 3 only when the regres-sion coefficient is statistically significant. We have bolded a subset of theseodds ratioshighlightingsome methods that areof special theoretical note. Sig-nificant odds ratios admit of straightforward interpretation. So CBOs are 3.45times more likely to engage in leadership identificationthan IMOs, and IMOs


Table 1. Organization Membership

Congregation Based Individual Membership

Average Average Average Average t Test ofMembership Membership % Membership Membership % Differencesa

Poverty members 11,388.83 51.71 931.85 50.68 0.290Asian members 734.96 3.34 54.94 2.99 0.231Black members 6,435.69 29.22 545.93 29.69 0.123White members 6,825.37 30.99 814.46 44.30 3.592***Hispanic members 7,778.63 35.32 261.96 14.25 5.780***Native Americanmembers 128.87 0.59 123.13 6.70 3.525***

Other racial/ethnicmembers 120.98 0.55 38.23 2.08 1.432

Total Anglo members 6,825.37 30.99 814.46 44.30 3.592***Total ethnic members 15,199.13 69.01 1,024.18 55.70 3.592***

Total members 22,024.50 100.00 1,838.64 100.00 5.770***n 54 95

Note: The percentages in the six racial/ethnic categories total to 100%; poverty and ethnic mem-bers are not included in this 100%. Cases are excluded that did not report membership or thatre-ported poverty membership greater than 100% of their total membership.a. All t test figures in this column test the difference in proportions between the two groups withthe exception of the total membership t test, which compares the mean number of members foreach group.***p < .001.


13/23

are6.56 times more likely to engagein recruiting individualmembers than areCBOs.

CBOs are substantially more likely to identify (3.45 times), train (3.27times), and convene meetings of leaders (3.70 times) than are IMOs. This pat-tern strongly supports the claimsof the advocates of the CBO form that one ofits key strengths is the cultivation of local community leadership. The CBOsare also more likely to employ a number of methods that may serve to instillcivic skills among participants. These include meetings and conventions, cre-ating committees, and conducting personal dialogues to identify and recruitleaders (one-on-ones). The usage of both leadership-building techniques andrelational organizing are essential to the CBO style of organizing, and this isreflected in the fact that the aforementioned tactical methods are significantlymore likely to be employed by CBOs than IMOs.

Whereas CBOs are more focused on building leadership and organizing

relationally, IMOs are substantially more likely to utilize direct action tech-niquesto accomplishtheir goals. These include protesting(morethan twice aslikely), conducting direct negotiations (2.59 times more likely), litigating, lob-bying, advocating, and monitoring performance. This reflects the confronta-tional approach that typified the Alinsky-style organizations prior to therealignment of the IAF (Reitzes & Reitzes, 1987).


Table 2. Board(s) of Directors


Average Average Average Average t Test ofMembership Membership % Membership Membership % Differencesa

Poverty members 10.08 47.05 7.68 58.56 4.434***Asian members 0.09 0.41 0.33 2.52 2.233*Black members 7.63 35.61 3.69 28.18 2.298*White members 9.95 46.47 5.88 44.86 0.481Hispanic members 3.64 16.99 1.77 13.51 1.172Native Americanmembers 0.08 0.35 0.59 4.52 3.784***

Other racial/ethnicmembers 0.04 0.18 0.84 6.40 7.911***

Total Anglo members 9.95 46.47 5.88 44.86 0.481Total ethnic members 11.46 53.53 7.23 55.14 0.481

Total members 21.41 100.00 13.11 100.00 4.220***n 80 118

Note: The percentages in the six racial/ethnic categories total to 100%; poverty and ethnic mem-bers are not included in this 100%. Cases are excluded that did not report membership or thatre-ported poverty membership greater than 100% of their total membership.a. All t test figures in this column test the difference in proportions between the two groups withtheexceptionof thetotalmembership t test, which compares themean numberof boardmembersfor each group.*p < .05. ***p < .001.


14/23

Table 4 compares thetwoorganizational types bytheir primaryissue focus.First, note that the two clusters of groups do not differ significantly upon thenumber of issues they choose to make a primary focus. The mean number ofissues each kind of group pursues is not substantially different. We also find


Table 3. Tactical MethodsDescriptives and Logistic Regression

Congregation Individual OddsBased Membership (e)

Leadership identification 63.95% 33.60% 0.29****Leadership training 83.72% 61.60% 0.31***Leadership meetings 34.88% 12.80% 0.27****Grassroots individual recruiting 18.60% 60.00% 6.56****Group membership recruiting 62.79% 4.80% 0.03****Membership training/development 37.21% 52.00% 1.83*Meetings/conventions 36.05% 17.60% 0.38***Create committees 54.65% 35.20% 0.45***Committee meetings 37.21% 14.40% 0.28****One-on-ones 37.21% 20.80% 0.44***Hire staff 22.09% 20.00% Staff training and development 29.07% 24.00%

Board training and development 10.47% 11.20% Public relations 20.93% 46.40% 3.27***Fundraising 59.30% 44.80% 0.58**Network with allies 41.86% 51.20% Network with bystanders 20.93% 27.20% Educate 29.07% 55.20% 3.01****Create alliances 32.56% 24.00% Community meetings 29.07% 29.60% Meet with public officials 34.88% 39.20% Protest 22.09% 36.80% 2.05**Direct negotiations 23.26% 44.00% 2.59***Litigate 3.49% 15.20% 4.96**Lobby 13.95% 48.00% 5.69****Public accountability sessions 4.65% 4.80% Monitoring performance 11.63% 20.80% 2.00*Plan 60.47% 41.60% 0.47***Research 68.60% 42.40% 0.34****Organizational development 66.28% 63.20% Use technical assistance 41.86% 17.60% 0.30****Facilitate housing loans 20.93% 48.00% 3.49****Legal assistance 1.16% 8.00% 7.39*Advocate 24.42% 47.20% 2.77***Other 15.12% 10.40% Mean number of methods employed 11.74 11.34 0.694Percentage of groups using at least 4of the top 6 methods for that type 63.95% 49.60% 2.087**

Total n 86 125

Note: Nonsignificant results omitted.*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.


15/23

that on 13 of the 22 issues there are no significant differences between theCBOs and IMOs. In large part, then, the two organizational types are quitesimilar to one another in terms of substantive organizational goals.

However, there are some notable differences. We have bolded the top fiveissues that are thefocusof each organizational type to facilitate these compari-sons. We have groupedthe issues onwhichthe typesdiffer in the top two pan-els of Table 4. As in Table 3, we present the results of logistic regressions withissue as the dependent variable and organizational type as the predictor(IMOs being the reference category). IMOs are more than 12 times as likely to

be involved in campaigns for workers rights, more than twice as likely to beinvolved in healthcare, andmore likely to beinvolved in both farm/rural con-cerns and issues of environmental justice and land use than are CBOs. CBOs,on the other hand, are more likely to take on questions of community issuesand services (2.27 times as likely), crime/drugs andconcerns about the police


Table 4. Issues/Substantive GoalsDescriptives and Logistic Regression

Congregation Individual OddsBased Membership (e)

Health care 15.11% 28.80% 2.27**Workers rights 2.33% 22.40% 12.12***Farm/rural 4.65% 13.60% 3.23**Environment/toxics/land use 6.98% 16.80% 2.69**Community issues and services 38.37% 21.60% 0.44***Crime/drugs/police 41.86% 11.20% 0.18****Education reform/local autonomy 50.00% 17.60% 0.21****Housing/homelessness/lending 55.81% 41.60% 0.56**

Jobs/training/unemployment 27.91% 12.80% 0.38***Public officials/accountability 5.81% 6.40% Voter registration/participation 31.40% 36.80% Tax progressivity/equity 0.00% 3.20%

Economic development 20.93% 14.40% Racial/ethnic 18.60% 18.40% Tribal rights 1.16% 4.80% Immigration/migrants 0.00% 6.40% Social justice/social change 17.44% 15.20% Social services: child care/elderly 19.77% 20.80% Womens issues 2.33% 6.40% Public services: trash/utilities 15.12% 20.00% Poverty/welfare 23.26% 18.40% Other 4.65% 7.20% Mean number of issues 4.03 3.65 1.49Percentage of groups involved in atleast 3 of the top 5 issues for that type 40.70% 13.60% 4.40****

Total n 86 125

Note: Nonsignificant results omitted.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.


16/23

(5.56 times as likely), education reform, housing/homelessness and lendingpolicies, and jobs/training and unemployment.

The concerns of CBOs, judging by the issues they choose to pursue, appeartofollowdirectly fromtheir concern with building powerwithincommunitiesby focusing upon issues that have widespread appeal across social cleavages.These arethepublicconcerns of thecommunity, which developthrough orga-nizing on the basis of the diverse interests of their constituency.

Each of the groups in our sample employs at least one paid staff member,and hence, each group must devote effort to mobilizing financial resources.The IMOs, on average, operate with slightly larger annual budgets ($165,000compared to $110,000).20 Groups of both types are heavily dependent uponinstitutional sources such as foundations and religious groups for financialsupport, but we focus here upon grassroots sources of support. Both types ofgroups are highly dependent upon grassroots funding sources, as about 21%of the annual income for CBOs derived from this source and about 23% of the

income for IMOs. Table 5 shows the average funding amounts and their pro-portions for CBOs and IMOs.21 This pattern of findings shows that, on aver-age, IMOs raise more money from grassrootssources, but thedifference in theproportion those resources make up of their annual budgets is quite modest.On average, groups of both types display impressive financial yields fromgrassroots fundraising.


Table 5. Types and Amounts of Grassroots Funding


Average Fund Average Average Fund Average t Test ofAmount ($) % Amount ($) % Differencesa

Activities 2,757.23 9.83 2,224.15 16.21 1.70*Membership dues 12,349.81 52.61 8,035.75 24.84 4.27****Unspecified donations 457.85 4.16 5,130.88 16.24 3.54****Donations from individuals 638.48 2.35 1,015.80 5.14 1.29Donations fromcharity campaigns 0.00 0.00 122.20 0.53 1.38

Donations from institutions 4,109.85 11.27 977.63 4.26 1.94*Direct mail 7.46 0.16 654.02 5.97 3.14***Telemarketing/canvassing 74.63 0.12 7,296.49 6.62 3.41***Support books/ad sales 3,219.22 8.52 1,139.29 3.80 1.47Product sales 16.27 0.37 2,030.26 3.93 2.53**

Fees for professional services 189.70 2.14 1,813.06 3.55 0.78Other 1,579.54 8.48 1,961.35 8.90 0.15Total grassroots funding 25,400.04 100.00 32,400.89 100.00 1.10n 67 99

Note: Cases are excluded that did not report using any grassroots funding.a. All t test figures in this column test the difference in proportions between the two groups withthe exception of the total grassroots funding figure, which tests the difference in average funds.*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.


17/23

There are a few salient differences in grassroots funding sources between

the two organizational types. First, CBOs collect a much higher proportion oftheir grassroots funding from membership dues than IMOs. Of course, this isprimarily theresultof thestableinstitutional sourceof their membership duesfrom allied congregations. More than 50% of the grassroots funding of CBOscomes from this source. The much smaller percentage of grassroots financialsupport deriving from membership dues for the IMOs reflects the lack ofresources of their poor individual members.

Another significant difference is that IMOs derive a larger proportion oftheir grassroots funding from activities (e.g., raffles, bake sales, events,dances, etc.) than do CBOs. Third, IMOs are much more likely to use directmail and telemarketing, both of which CBOs rarely use. Finally, CBOs areabout twice as likely to use support/ad books by raising on average animpressive $3,219 per group with these books.

Finally, we carried out a series of analyses to assess our expectations aboutthe relative degree of homogeneity in terms of structure, tactics, and goalswithinthetwo samplesof groups. Theresults (not shown)suggest that, forthemost part, there is less variability among the CBOs than there is among theIMOs.22 This is the case for budget size as well as staff size, suggesting greaterstructural similarity among CBOs than among IMOs. Especially notable isthat this is also true for tactics and goals. This can be seen for methods in Table3 where the average percentageof CBOs that adoptat leastfourof the sixmostpopular methodsused byCBOs is 63.95% compared to a similar percentage of49.60% for the IMOs. An even more dramatic pattern holds for issue choice asseen in Table 4: About 41% of CBOs are involved with at least three of the topfive issues for their organizational type compared to only approximately 14%

of IMO groups who do the same.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Despitetheoutcome of thedebateabouttheadvantages anddisadvantagesof the two organizational repertoires that we have addressed here, both typesof groups in our sample demonstrate remarkable success in mobilizing poorand minority citizens and engaging them in collective action. Both kinds ofgroups are highly likely to make leadership training one of their importantactivities. CBOs are more likely to focus attention upon leadership develop-ment and organization building, whereas IMOs are far more likely to employthe range of social change tactics for which the original Alinsky-style groups

were widely known.Themore reliable financialsupportthatCBOs receive from constituent con-

gregations appears to relieve them, to some extent, from the pressure to pur-sue other forms of grassroots funding. It is plausible to suggest that this, inturn, allows these organizations to devote effort to other kinds of tasks, espe-cially leadership development and organization building ones. On the other



18/23

hand, the heavy reliance of IMOs on grassroots activities for raising financial

support can be expected to help generate the byproduct of wide connectionswithin local communities. As well, there are some very strong differencesbetween the two types of groups in the issues they choose to pursue, consis-tent with arguments that CBOs are less likely to pursue issues that are morecontroversial within communities.

Our analyses have provided a glimpse of the population of local socialmovement organizations seeking to mobilize poor citizens in communitiesacross theUnitedStates. Groupsof both types devoteextensiveeffort todevel-oping local leadership through the development of networks of relationshipsthereby adding to the stock of social capital available to citizens of these com-munities for both collective action as well as individual opportunity (Warren,Thompson, & Saegert, 2002). The CBO organizational template appears, as itsadvocatessuggest, to mobilize more poorpeopleandto do so more efficiently.

Only because we have been able to also assemble evidence on IMOs for com-parisonare we able to draw such a conclusion. It is this formal comparison, inour judgment, that is the major contribution of our effort here.

The fact that the CBO groups in our sample are substantially younger sug-gests that the rate of founding of groups of this type was higher than for IMOsin the decade or so before our evidence was gathered. And there are indica-tions that the pace of formation of CBOs has remained high in the meantime(Warren, 2001; Warren & Wood, 2001). To the extent that such an inference iscorrect, it is reasonable to suggest that the increasing popularity among com-munity organizers of the CBO template has accelerated the mobilization ofpoor citizens in U.S. communities.

Yet this presumed transformation of the shape of the population of local

poor peoples groups is likely to have consequences for the ways in whichthese groups try to bring about social change.Recall that the IMOsin our sam-ple were substantially more likely to have employed public protest to achievetheir aimsa tactic that is most effective because, according to someanalysts,it threatens to be disruptive (Piven & Cloward, 1979). To the extent that theCBO template becomes the dominant one, our evidence suggests that the mixof tactics that poor peoples groups employ will tend to become lessdisruptive.

Letus reemphasizethatpaid organizers staff all of the groups wehaveana-lyzed here. As a result, the local advocacy organizations in our sample are nottypical of what are probably the far more common volunteer-led local groupsseeking to mobilize poor citizens. Although we cited evidence that the appli-cants that aresuccessful in receiving CCHD funds arenotsubstantiallydiffer-

ent from the larger body of unsuccessful applicants for those funds, it is likelythat only reasonably viable organizations will apply to CCHD for funding inthefirst place. As a consequence of therestricted sampleof organizations withwhich wehaveworkedinthisanalysis,we also havemadeit clearthat our evi-dence cannot speak directly to the issue of the relative viability of the twoalternative repertoires.



19/23

Samplesof local groups seekingtomobilize poorpeopleusing theconstitu-

ent elements of each repertoire, especially including those groups led by vol-unteers, would be required to adequately assess the issue of viability.23 Such adesign, as well, would allow an evaluation of the generalizability of our find-ings to volunteer-based advocacy groups. We believethat such a designis fea-sible, because there exists an appreciable number of community-level ecu-menical coalitions staffed by volunteers, which depend upon congregationsas building blocks and focus on issues such as homelessness and minorityissues. These groups, then, could be compared with local, volunteer-basedIMOs.

We expect such a comparison would yield typical patterns of tactical andissue choice quite similar to those we have seen for this sample of staff-ledgroups with CBOs being more homogeneous when compared with IMOs.This is because we believe that the comparison between CBOs and IMOs

reflects a more generalcontrastbetween types of local advocacyorganizationsthat should transcend the question of whether a group is led by paid staff orvolunteers. Many advocacy groups emerge out of preexisting groups. Suchgroups are more homogeneous in that their members are already in interac-tion with oneanother, andtheemergentgrouphastheadvantageof being abletodependupon supportfromthegroupthat spawned it (Freeman, 1979).Bothof these factors can be expected to narrow the choice of tactics as well as theissue focus of such groups.

Volunteer-based ecumenical coalitions emerge out of existing congrega-tional and intercongregational relations and, as a result, are rooted in congre-gational structures, whereas volunteer-led IMOs, lacking such institutionalembeddedness, necessarily must be more self-reliant. More likely to be lack-

ing the structural continuity provided by participating congregations, wewould expect them tohave greater difficulty, forinstance, in managing leader-ship succession, securing public meetingfacilities, gaining access to local offi-cials, and garnering media attention. For all of these reasons, then, we expectthat volunteer-ledCBOs would exhibit greatertactical andissue homogeneitythan similar IMOs. For the same reasons, we expect them to be more viable.

Notes

1. The National Organizers Alliance, based in Washington, D.C., works to knit the paid staffof organizations of this type together into a national force.

2.Localadvocacygroupstypically arebased upon a relativelysmall groupof activemembersandvolunteers witha largernumber of supporters linked to thegroupthrough mailing lists,dues

payments,and intermittentinvolvement(McCarthy& Wolfson, 1996).When groups needto dem-onstrate strength in numbers, they now and then mobilize these weaker members.

3. Jack Walker (1991) observed over a decade ago that no national individual membershiporganizations (IMOs)existeddevoted primarilyto theproblemsof thepoorin theUnited States.

4. The Pacific Institute for Community Organization (PICO) converted its existing groupsduring the 1980s from membership based to congregation based under the inspiration of an



20/23

organizerwho hadworked previouslywith theIndustrialAreas Foundation(IAF; J.Bauman,per-

sonal communication, October 1994).5. We provide only a brief sketch of the congregation-based organization (CBO) organizingtemplate here before we discuss the advantages that faith-based community organizations pres-ent to the communities in which they work. More extensive treatments can be found in Rogers(1990), Warren (2001), Robinson andHanna (1994), Rooney (1995), Speer andHughey(1995),andReitzes and Reitzes (1987), among others.

6.Thisnarrowingof the potentialissue focus byCBOsis seen bysomecritics asa major limi-tation to the strategy (e.g., Delgado, 1994).

7.In a similar vein, Walzer (1979)noted that allbroad-based communitygroups ingeneral are

clearly reformist; the neighborhood alliances often take on a kind of community upliftcharacter. Self-help against crime, the defense of old residential areas, improvement oflocal services, beautification; these are the goals, to which the organizers too must standcommitted. (p. 407)

8. As is obvious, we expect CBOs to be more viable than IMOs. Our sample of groups, how-ever, includes only those groups of both kinds that have already demonstrated viability and arealso capable of successfully gaining financial support through the highly competitive processassociated with applying for a grant from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development(CCHD). Given the high degree of organizational strength implied in this selection, our researchdesign does not allow an assessment of differential viability.

9. For instance, Geraldine Jensen (personal communication, December 1994) described thisprocess whenshefounded theAssociationfor Children forEnforcementof Support (ACES).Scan-ningthe environmentfor legitimatemodels, shenarrowed the choice to a fewand chose to modelthe structure of the group upon that of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

10.Sucha choice,of course,is constrainedby theissues, concerns, andavailable institutions ofa community. Furthermore, it is also possible that such a choice is not made by community mem-

bers but by professional organizers who select a community or region as ripe for activity.11. Groups seeking CCHD grants for specific projects must make an elaborate proposal for

support, and groups that are successful in the competition must submit quarterly reports abouttheir activities as well as a final report at the end of the annual funding period. In the aggregate,these five documents provide a detailed record of the activities and structure of the proposing

organization along with details about the specific project for which funding wassought. In addi-tion,groups provide muchadditional material aboutthemselves including founding documents,press clippings about group activities, and details about group membership. The senior authorwasprovidedfull accessto these files forpurposesof creating a data recordof a sampleof groupsfunded by CCHD. These records were then carefully examined to develop a systematic descrip-tion of each organization that is used here to make comparisons among them.

12. Discursive information about the organizations required a secondary coding scheme. Foreach coding scheme, the research team first developed a working definition of the general cate-gory of information to be coded (e.g.,goal accomplishment methods). The team thensampled 40groupfilesfrom which four membersof theresearchteamwouldindependently attempt to estab-lish mutually exclusive dimensions within that category (e.g., goal accomplishment methodssuch as hiring staff, direct action,etc.). Next, a comprehensiveset of coding categorieswas devel-oped. Following this, pairs of team members independently coded a large number of the samefiles, comparing results with one another, and revising the coding categories as needed. Therevised scheme wasthen reviewed by a numberof CCHD staffmembers andaltered accordingly,

at which point the final coding scheme was established.13.Followingthe establishmentof thecodingscheme, team members coded thematerialfrom

the records intoan electronic file. These secondary codes were organizedinto the following cate-gories: (a) grant source (e.g., foundation, government, religious), (b) specific grant source (e.g.,Needmor foundation), (c) grassroots fundraising source (e.g., donations from charity, member-shipdues), (d)technicalassistancetype (e.g., organizationaldevelopment,trainingof organizers),(e) technical assistance provider (e.g., industrial areas foundation, government sources), (f)



21/23

network name (e.g., IAF, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [ACORN],

PICO), (g) issues (e.g., housing, crime, environmental concerns), (h) goal accomplishmentmethods (e.g., protest, create alliances), and (i) issue focus.14. This included the following information for the board, staff, and membership: total num-

ber,number in poverty, number Asian, number Black, number White, number Hispanic, numberNative American, and the number from other racial/ethnic groups.

15. To collect these, coders were instructed to look through the file materials for past, present,or proposed usage of certain methods for goal accomplishment. The first 24 methods from thecomplete list that appeared in the group file were coded. The average number of methods notedper organization was approximately 11.

16. To determine percentages of each grassroots fundraising source, the total budget figureswere notused,as theydid notoften match thetotalamount of grassrootsfundraising. With this inmind, we decidedto ratheruse thetotalsbasedon theamounts created using thesum of allgrass-roots fundraising sources reported.

17. Many of the groups publish a book each year describing its accomplishments, which theorganization distributes among group members and others in the community. Advertisementsare included from local supporters as a means of raising funds.

18. The total membership figures for the organization membership and board of directors(Tables 1 and2) were calculated by summing the member frequencies by ethnic category for eachorganization. Thissummed figurewe refer to as the corrected total membership as opposed to themembershipas reported by the organization. We found that groupstendedto slightlyoverreporttheir total membership. There were no significant differences betweenthe corrected andreportedfigures forboardmembership.For purposes ofthe present analysis,we presentonlythe correctedfigures for organization and board membership. As a result of missing data, n sizes vary acrossthese analyses.

19.It shouldbe noted that there is no difference betweenthe twokindsof groupsin howmanymethodstheyclaimto pursue; coderssoughtindicationof effortin anyone ofthe 35methods cate-gories, and the first 24 encountered were coded.

20.The IMOs are older, on average,than theCBOs,and ageis positivelyrelatedwith thesizeofthe organizational budget. These differences, not shown in Table 5, are statistically significant.

21. The total grassroots funding figures reported by the organizations were often unreliable;thesum ofeachindividualsourceof grassrootsfundingoftendid notmatchthefigure reported by

the organization. We therefore based the proportions on the sum of all reported sources ratherthan the reported total grassroots funding figure.

22. In separate analyses, we compared the 30 IAF groups with the remaining 56 CBOs alongsimilar dimensions and found relatively little variation between them and those CBOs affiliatedwith other networks.

23. As noted earlier, the difficulties of enumerating poor peoples social movement organiza-tions led us to rely on samples of groups funded by CCHD.

References

Bailis, L. N. (1974). Bread of justice: Grassroots organizing in the welfare rights movement. Lexington,MA: Lexington Press.

Barger, W. K.,& Resa, E. M. (1994). Thefarm labor movement in theMidwest:Socialchange andadapta-

tion among farmworkers. Austin: University of Texas Press.Delgado, G. (1986).Organizing themovement: Theroots andgrowthof ACORN. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.Delgado, G. (1994). Beyond the politics of place: New directions in community organizing in the 1990s.

Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.DiMaggio,P.J., & Powell,W.W.(1983).The ironcagerevisited:Institutional isomorphismand col-

lective rationality in organization fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.



22/23

Edwards, B., & Foley, M. W. (2003). Social movements beyond the beltway: Understanding the

diversity of social movement organizations. Mobilization, 8, 85-105.Freeman, J. (1979). Resource mobilization and strategy: A model for analyzing social movementorganization actions. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), The dynamics of social movements(pp. 167-189). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

Gamson, W. A. (1990). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Greider, W. (1992). Who will tell the people: The betrayal of American democracy. New York: Simon &

Schuster.Hart, S. (2001). Cultural dilemmas of progressive politics: Styles of engagement among grassroots activ-

ists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lofland,J.(1993).Politeprotesters:TheAmericanpeacemovementof the1980s. Syracuse,NY: Syracuse

University Press.Lofland, J. (1996). Social movement organizations: Guide to research on insurgent realities. New York:

Aldine de Gruyter.McCarthy, J. D. (1987).Pro-life and pro-choice mobilization: Infrastructure deficits and new tech-

nologies. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Socialmovementsin an organizations society (pp.49-66). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

McCarthy, J.D.,& Castelli, J. (1995).Working for justice: Thecampaign for humandevelopmentand poorempowerment groups. Washington, DC: Life Cycle Institute, Catholic University of America.

McCarthy, J. D., & Shields, J. (1990).A comparison of funded and non-funded CCHD applicant groups:Structure and issues. Washington, DC: Life Cycle Institute, Catholic University of America.

Miller, M. (1987). Organizing: A map for explorers. Christianity and Crisis, 47, 1.Oliver, P. E., & Furman, M. (1989). Contradictions between national and local organizational

strength:The case ofthe John BirchSociety. International SocialMovementResearch, 2, 155-178.Oliver, P. E.,& Marwell, G. (1992). Mobilizing technologies for collective action.In A. D. Morris &

C. McClurg Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 251-272). New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1979). Poor peoples movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. NewYork: Vintage.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Reitzes, D. C., & Reitzes, D. C. (1987). The Alinsky legacy: Alive and kicking. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.Robinson, B.,& Hanna,M. G. (1994). Lessonsfor academics from grassroots community organiz-

ing: A case studythe Industrial Areas Foundation. Journal of Community Practice, 1, 63-94.Rogers,M. B. (1990).Cold anger:A storyof faith andpower politics. Denton: Universityof North Texas

Press.Rooney, J. (1995). Organizing the South Bronx. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Rothenberg, L. S. (1992). Linking citizens to government: Interest grouppolitics at common cause. New

York: Cambridge University Press.Russell, D. M. (1990). Political organizing in grassroots politics. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America.Schwadel, P. (2003). Neighbors in the pews: An empirical analysis of social status and racial diversity in

Christian congregations. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark.

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Skocpol, T.(1999).Advocateswithout members: The recenttransformation of American civic life.

In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 461-510).Washington, DC: Brookings/Russell Sage.

Speer, P. W., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to empowermentand power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 729-748.

Tilly, C. (1995).Popular contentionin GreatBritain,1758-1834. Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress.



23/23

Walker, J. L., Jr. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions and social move-

ments. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Walzer, M. (1979). The pastoral retreat of the new left. Dissent, 26, 406-411.Warren, M. R. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American democracy.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Warren, M. R., Thompson, P., & Saegert, S. (Eds.). (2002). Social capital and poor communities. New

York: Russell Sage.Warren, M. R., & Wood, R. L. (2001). Faith based community organizing: The state of the field. Jericho,

NY: Interfaith Funders.Wood,R. L. (1997). Social capital andpolitical culture: God meets politics in the inner city.Ameri-

can Behavioral Scientist, 40, 595-605.Wood,R. L. (2002). Faith in action:Religion,race anddemocraticorganizing in America. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press.

John D. McCarthy is professor anddirector of graduate studies in the Department of Sociology at Pennsyl-vaniaState University. Hiscontinuingresearchinterests include socialmovements, thesociologyof organi-zations, media processes, the dynamics of public protest, and the policing of protest.

EdwardT.Walker is a Ph.D.student in theDepartmentof Sociologyat PennsylvaniaStateUniversity. Hisresearch interests are sociological theory and social movements, with a particular emphasis on theinstitutionalization of social activity.


mccarthy walker nvs q

Documents