Strategic Approaches To Winning And Building Power

Traditionally when we plan campaigns the goal is to win, as it should be. But we should also be thinking about: what power is being built for the communities we fight for and with.

Victories are effective ways to build confidence within a community that has historically been positioned at the fringes of power. However, if the outcomes are not transformational and don’t become the catalyst for systemic change, we are in danger of under-girding the same system we are attempting to overturn.

Once the protest, strike or direct action happens — what’s next? In the planning phase to end a policy is an alternative or replacement policy being proffered? And that which is being proffered; has it been determined by the community that is being most impacted, whether or not that policy will bring them power and the demands laid forth. Directly impacted people have to be the center of gravity, if the campaign is to live on beyond the given life cycle of the issue. People keep the issue relevant, because people are experts in their own condition, but the transfer of power must begin in the planning phases.

Looking at the victory through a lens that provides the most people, with the most power and the most ability to determine their social, economic and in some cases justice outcomes, gives us the depth of vision to plan for what is to come after we win. This approach may feel counter-intuitive at best, but will ultimately provide the best use of resources and assets. Considering when legislation has gone as far as it can go and employing litigation is a decision that can’t be made by lawyers in the absence of folks who will be directly impacted by that litigation.

Centering directly impacted leadership should leverage lived experiences in pursuit of transformational criminal justice reforms locally, regionally and nationally. This leveraging of trauma shouldn’t be a glib exercise in tedium, it should be undertaken with authentic outcomes of transformation in mind. These approaches are deeply and imperatively rooted in the belief that: a win isn’t a win, unless it fundamentally changes the people and conditions present before our efforts.

Using every tool at our disposal is how we beat back oppressive policies and align system actors with the will of the people. But the people must lead, even when they don’t know how to — it’s our job to inject leadership opportunities into our calculus. Allowing bad system actors to control the tempo, timbre and tone of public opinion has worked to our detriment. While we have become quite adept at battling from a defensive posture, we must consider what it means to plan our victories, while we face defeat and loss of traction.

This memorandum is to help Campaign Coordinators, Organizers and Volunteers strategically map out campaigns, direct actions and advocacy efforts in pursuit of transformational change in their community.

Pathways To Victory

The first analysis employed when deciding whether or not to launch a campaign should be: can we win? The nuances of a win have to then be decided by those that are most impacted by that win, or loss. We must work in a way that may be counter-intuitive to some, but will build power along the way and isn’t dependent on a victory at the finish line.

• What does the victory bring? If it brings a change in ordinance and best practices, have we thought about what those changes should be?
• Thinking about how to implement the changes we are seeking, while we are seeking change is an approach that historically has not been the norm.
• Locally and at the state level we have to create a vision for what the changes look like, before and while we are fighting against what we don’t want.
• In the case of Fair Chance Hiring in local arenas.
• Data collection in how the ordinances are impacting unemployment.
• Robust advocacy measures to inform the public.
• Proactive enforcement measures at the city level that won’t allow chambers and public policy groups to dictate the rate of implementation.

When we find it easy to win in a certain arena the conventional wisdom is to keep working in that space. However, when working in a theater where elected officials are bending to the will of grassroots organizations they put themselves in the line of fire electorally. Therefore, our campaigns should be sophisticated, well thought out, but also practical.

If we are engaging in a campaign to decriminalize homelessness, are we also creating a plan to provide affordable housing? If the campaign is to remove a District Attorney that isn’t progressive and working with the community, are we working with groups that can position a candidate to take on the incumbent?

Theory of Change or What happens when we win?

In all of our efforts, positioning folks with the most lived experience at the front, in leadership and centered — the impact can be transformational. The system that is disenfranchising our partners, whether it be an extension of a local, state or national branch, must be fundamentally impacted by our efforts, if we are going to count the victory as a win.

If the fundamental state of the people we work with and the folks we fight for stays the same, what matters the victory? We set goals that are measurable, time-bound, audacious and attainable, but are we thinking about building as we are seeking to tear down. And what does that building process look like, who are we including in the leadership thought process as we make decisions that will impact whole communities.

A transference of power should be the ideal goal if not short-term, definitely as we look at lasting impact, we should be thinking about how to transfer power to the many from the few. As we think about our wins and our victories, are we considering the impact from the effort and how re-traumatizing folks contributes to same conditions we seek to change. What happens when we think about what can be built in place of that which we seek to topple or destroy. If the target is a private prison or a detention facility we must consider more than our interests, if we are going to be successful in moving our targets towards our goal.

If the goal is to close an institution, what are we building in its stead? How can we re-purpose a jail facility in a fashion that employs roughly the same number of people and provide our community with an alternative to incarceration and/or revocation. If the goal is to end the criminalization of the unsheltered, once that goal is reached, how are we changing the fundamental condition that created the issue. If we don’t address the conditions that are at the root of the issues, than we run the risk of planning a campaign to win, but not for the benefit of impacted communities.

After The Win — Implementation or Enforcement

A transference of power must be achieved at some point, in order for the fight to continue. Once the legislative or legal effort has been accomplished, the next fight is the continual drumbeat of stakeholder pressure on the targets to implement the win. In some instances that could look like making sure there are data collection instruments in place, enforcement is robust and the public is kept abreast of the progress of the effort.

Two-fold is the impact that the continuation of the campaign can have on base-building and transforming directly impacted folks into leaders. Initially, the directly impacted community may come aboard without the sophistication or the experience of staff, but as the campaign or action unfolds, if we are intentional about increasing their involvement — a shift can happen.

If the local effort is going to be challenged at the state level, conventional wisdom dictates employing the folks that have established relationships. However, the folks who helped passed the original ordinance are the ones closest to the issue, therefore their expertise should be considered when strategizing. The energy and passion, coupled with the practical experience of having lobbied local elected officials is a potential cocktail of advocacy that will drive transformational outcomes.

In conclusion, it is my belief that we must change how we fundamentally include folks who are directly impacted by the policies we seek to change, or implement. We can no longer be satisfied as organizations that are responsible for changing the conditions that create the worst issues for folks, to rely on directly impacted folks to just testify at hearings or share their stories at public events.

We have to loop the most impacted by policy in as early as possible, by creating mechanisms that can teach, train and transform not only the communities, but society itself, through the individual.