Jacqueline Mondros. The Handbook of Community Practice. Editor: Marie Weil. Sage Publications. 2005.
Social, legislative, and political action are the processes, methods, and practice skills of pursuing social change. The pursuit of change has been included, if not embraced, within the profession since its earliest days (Austin & Betten, 1990; Weil, 1996). Virtually all the typologies of community practice (Checkoway, 1995; Rothman, 1964, 1996; Weil, 1996) have encompassed various social action approaches as legitimate methods of practice. Some frameworks (Fisher & Kling, 1990; Grosser & Mondros, 1985; Mondros & Wilson, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 2001) have sought to further clarify the distinctions among each action approach. Hyde (1996) found aspects of social action in almost all organizations operating out of a feminist framework, and Rivera and Erlich (1995) described a variety of racial and ethnic communities using different approaches to social change. There are differences about what constitutes social action and the characteristics that best describe it, but there is consensus that this particular form of practice is a legitimate social work activity animated by our professional imperative for social justice.
This chapter first defines social, legislative, and political action and lists the activities associated with each of these approaches. As in many other works on the subject, the argument here is that it is more efficacious for organizers and organizations to consider these approaches not as distinct ways of operating, but as strategies to deploy based on an assessment of the change actors and the environmental context for change. Based on Hoefer’s (2000) notion of “insider versus outsider” strategies, this chapter delineates a streamlined assessment and action process to be employed by social action organizations, and ends by considering the characteristics of today’s environmental context and what they imply for the prospect of social change.
Three Approaches to Social Change
1. Social Action
Social action strategies are used by groups that organize to attain power to change conditions that are injurious to them (Mondros & Wilson, 1994) or to correct inequalities they experience (Rubin & Rubin, 2001). People who suffer from the adverse condition come together to pursue change. The targets of the change are those who have formal responsibility for the problem. Through meetings, confrontation, and direct negotiations, members of the social action organization attempt to pressure the targets into an agreement that will correct the condition. Most social action strategies are confrontational, based on the idea that this is the most effective means to resolution (Alinsky, 1971; Mondros & Wilson, 1994). Some recent literature, however, argues that conciliatory approaches to corporations and public officials and collaboration with decision makers are a more effective social action strategy (Eichler, 1995; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).
Social action includes eliciting people’s experience, helping them to choose a problem on which to work, building wide awareness of the problem, recruiting people as leaders and activists, researching the problem and its ramifications, identifying targets for change, holding meetings with the target to demand accountability, publicizing the cause to the broader community through the media, and monitoring progress and modifying strategies accordingly. Social action organizations often escalate their confrontation when decision makers resist their demands.
2. Legislative Action
Legislative action attempts to influence legislators and other elected officials (including their staff members) to pass legislation that will provide rights and protections. Commonly, collaborative and persuasive means are used. Because politicians need to be convinced that a large number of voters support a proposed law, legislative action often requires a broad coalition of organizations. Persuading public officials to enact a bill is a long, often tedious process of monitoring the bill as it moves through government, and it generally requires a good deal of legislative acumen. Consequently, legislative action is frequently carried out by expert lobbyists on behalf of an organization or group of people pursuing a change. Legislative action includes meeting with elected officials and their staff members, writing legislation and securing legislative sponsors, issuing reports and data on issues that can be used to formulate policy, educating and persuading the majority party to support the legislation, obtaining the support of the executive branch and related agencies, testifying at hearings in support of the bill, and using amendments to promote favorable outcomes (Dear & Patti, 1981; Hardcastle, Wenocur, & Powers, 1997; Haynes & Mickleson, 1997).
3. Political Action
Political action is aimed at electing a person to public office to pursue change. It assumes that the newcomer will advance the group’s issues and needs. In this model, activists contribute to campaign chests and work to get out the vote on election day. Political action can also include mounting citizen initiatives or working to include referenda on election ballots. Political action requires building support and persuading voters of the merits of voting for the organization’s issue or candidate. Electoral campaigns are increasingly costly, and organizations with scarce resources are often discouraged from taking political action. In addition, the tax laws restrict the direct political activity of nonprofit organizations. Consequently, political action is most often carried out by political action committees, which are “organizations designed to collect and disburse voluntary contributions for political purposes from members of a special interest group. In order to meet state and federal regulations, they must be independently organized and funded” (Haynes & Mickleson, 1997, p. 142).
Political action typically includes identifying candidates who support the organization’s agenda, making public the endorsement of candidates, informing members about the endorsement, canvassing for support of selected candidates, making and encouraging financial contributions, offering electoral training, and associating with other groups and political parties (Colby & Buffum, 1998; Haynes & Mickleson, 1997).
The three types of action have much in common. First, all have a commitment to transfer power and resources and improve conditions for a group of people. The differences are only in what is viewed as the most effective means to bring about change. Second, all these approaches also assume the existence of an organization that pursues the change. Social change requires persistent and continuous efforts that only a disciplined organization can provide, and there are organizational precursors for even such change activities as civil rights and gay and lesbian actions that appear to have arisen precipitously (Morris, 1984; Poindexter, 1997). Third, change actors differ solely in role (e.g., activist, petitioner, voter), and all actors have determined some interest (instrumental or altruistic) in pursuit of these changes. Change actors may also be working at any level (neighborhood, municipal, state, or national) in pursuit of the desired result. Although the degree to which activists are purposefully empowered by their activity may differ from organization to organization, there is nothing in any of the approaches that militates against such a process. Most organizations value and welcome the psychological growth and political sophistication of their members.
Furthermore, it does not appear that much is gained by treating these approaches as separate models. The reality seems to suggest that the practice of a pure approach is rare (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 1998; Simmons, 2000; Soifer, 1998; Soifer & Singer, 1999). Hyde (1996) remarked on her struggle to place examples of feminist organizations within any single approach. The typologies note the overlapping of approaches (Weil, 1996). Even Rothman’s (1996) latest formulation is an attempt to recognize the prevalence of blended approaches, noting that the distinction between radical and normative goals is seldom obvious.
Pragmatism also argues for diversity of approach. Current literature urges activists to “vary their strategic hands” by using “whatever works” to promote change (Mondros & Wilson, 1994). Rubin and Rubin (2001) made the point that most problems today are the responsibility of several levels of government, and therefore require simultaneous activities. Si Kahn wrote simply, “You need to know who the tactic is aimed at and what is likely to influence them” (1991, p. 167). For all these reasons, we agree with Hardina (1997), who used strategies as a way of discussing distinctions among social action organizations, and activists are encouraged to deploy them depending on the circumstances.
As social, legislative, and political action are treated as various strategies that can be potentially deployed by all organizations pursuing change, practitioners will need to think broadly about how they will react at any given moment. It is important for them to have some guidance about what might be most effective in each circumstance. I will suggest an assessment and action process that is streamlined and straightforward to guide a multistrategic approach to social change.
Assessment: Change Actors and Environment for Change
A basic and yet comprehensive assessment of amenability to change involves the examination of two factors: the activists who will pursue the change (the change actors) and the receptivity of the environment in which the change goal will be introduced. Each is briefly described below.
Change Actors
Perhaps the most important factor is the status or position of the people who will pursue the desired change, particularly their access to those who will make the critical decisions about the proposed change. How much contact have the activists had with decision makers? Are they known and respected by them? Are the activists viewed by the decision makers as people who require a response, or are they seen as people who can be ignored? Conversely, how do the activists view themselves? Do they see themselves as a group that is respected or ignored? The personal influence strategies of legislative and political action are more available to change actors with status and access. People with limited access need to find other avenues for influence and create the access they do not yet have.
The relative importance of the goal of empowerment for the organization and its members is also a critical consideration. Many organizations composed of people with low status have explicit goals for increasing the confidence and collective strength of their membership and at the same time raising the consciousness of decision makers and gaining their respect. If collective action as a means of empowerment is an explicit goal, then social action strategies that bring members into direct contact and negotiation with decision makers are more important.
Another question is the degree to which change actors have the time, knowledge, and resources to apply to the change effort. Legislative action is labor-intensive, requiring persistent contact with public officials and their staff. Lobbyists need to be quite knowledgeable about the intricacies of both the legislation and the legislative process. Political action usually requires intense periods of activity around election time and contributions to support candidates. In both legislative and political action, the timetable for work is not controlled by the social change organization, but prescribed by legislative and electoral calendars. With protest and direct action, activists can establish their own timetables, acquiring new activists, alliances, and information over the life of a campaign. Social action is also usually less costly than political or legislative activity.
Some change actors, then, have less status relative to other groups, that is, they have limited access, time, knowledge, and resources. Others have more status, with relatively available access, time, knowledge, and resources. Their status makes a difference in strategic selection.
In which group do social workers and their clients belong? When our clients are the change actors, the answer is clear: The poor, immigrants, people of color, and other groups with limited power belong to low-status groups. Social workers have had a hard time deciding “which side they are on” (Specht & Courtney, 1994). Although they work with the poor and vulnerable, they are educated and mostly middle class. During various historical periods, social workers have identified themselves differently, at times with the powerless and at times with the power holders (Fabricant & Burghardt, 1998). How they see themselves often determines the strategies they choose.
The Environment for Change
The study of social movements in the United States has emphasized the amenability of the environment for public protest and social change (Piven & Cloward, 1977). Relative deprivation, rising aspirations, and political realignments have afforded organizations opportunities for change that activists have seized. Conversely, events can radically alter the odds for a change effort. The September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, for example, fundamentally changed how many Americans view policies regarding privacy and civil rights. Consequently, an assessment of the environment is a critical factor in the practitioners’ selection of issues and strategy.
The demographics of the population in a geographic area or domain for change are important factors to assess. Decision makers must respond to large constituencies and attend to emerging groups. In today’s political environment, most politicians and decision makers must at least appear to be interested in the needs of minority groups, if only to gain the support of moderate white voters. Many politicians today include Spanish phrases in their speeches to appeal to the growing Latino populations in the country. An assessment of how one’s group members fit within the population of the total community and how their issue may attract or discourage alliances is critical.
The political acceptability of the group’s issue is a related variable. Older adults are widely considered a potent political force, and their issues are instantly recognized. Gay and lesbian issues, once anathema to most public officials, have increasingly gained attention. Regrettably, today the public and most decision makers seem uncomfortable with issues framed in terms of social class, making it difficult to get support for problems that affect the poor. Issues that are framed as basic rights and that concern a large majority of Americans are preferable.
It is critical to track major events, the public’s reactions to those events, and trends that suggest opportunities or arguments for action. For example, widely publicized shootings at suburban schools fueled concern about gun control. Energy crises in Western states will likely have the same effect. Both events affected diverse communities and increased the likelihood of broad support among a wide range of constituencies. Organizers and activists have always scanned multiple newspapers and journals to keep abreast of happenings; editorial pages are of particular interest when gauging public reaction. The Internet has increased the accessibility of information, and information about opinion polls and focus groups is now even more readily available.
What is known about the personal histories, backgrounds, alliances, associations, and positions of change targets is also important in the selection of strategies. These factors enable an organization to determine more accurately where decision makers stand in relation to the issue, if they can be influenced, by whom, and what arguments will be most effective.
An assessment of current demographics, events, public opinion, and decision makers can suggest whether the environmental context is favorable or unfavorable for social change. Taken together, the environmental context and the social position of the change actors suggest whether, in Hoefer’s terms, an insider or outsider approach is warranted: “An inside strategy tries to influence policy by ‘working through the system’ and approaching legislative and executive branch decision-makers directly. An outside strategy tries to influence … by indirect means, including litigation and protest” (2000, p. 87).
Insider strategies, that is, legislative and political action, are appropriate when change actors have access to and the respect of decision makers; when they have time, knowledge, and resources; and when the environment suggests that the public will be a receptive audience and decision makers will be amenable to the actors’ ideas. Insider strategies are successful by virtue of the fact that both the petition and the petitioner are attractive, a situation that affords special entrée.
Outsider strategies, that is, social action and protest, are thought to be more effective for groups that are easily ignored or dismissed by the decision makers and that therefore have restricted and infrequent access to them. Outside strategies are also warranted when there is limited time and knowledge, few resources, and when the environment is less auspicious for change and decision makers are indifferent to the group’s interests and arguments. In these cases, conflict and protest are necessary to bring attention to the cause. These groups must grab attention through means other than access.
At most times, groups with limited power will face conditions that indicate the utility of outsider strategies. Thus, it is not surprising that most of our client groups—welfare recipients, African Americans and Latinos, the mentally ill, and other members of low-status groups—are most likely to meet with success when they use outsider strategies. On the other hand, because social workers identify themselves as both low and high status, they have supported both insider and outsider strategies at various times (Colby & Buffum, 1998; Hoefer, 2000; Hyde, 1996), sometimes using both at once and sometimes “borrowing on” the status of other groups by joining with either lower-status client groups or higher-status public interest groups.
Many campaigns—perhaps even most—face situations in which the two factors of change, actor and environment, are not consistently either encouraging or adverse. For example, low-status change actors can be effective using insider strategies, as long as the environment is sufficiently favorable for the change. Beginning in the 1960s, political conditions were so favorable that older people could seek and gain access to decision makers, resulting in policy changes that are today accepted and supported by most. In fact, seniors have become such insiders that their power is assumed.
The obverse is also true; high-status actors may fail with an insider strategy during unfavorable times. For example, celebrities such as Rosie O’Donnell and James Brady were unable to make gun control a significant national issue during the 2000 election, despite the heightened visibility of the problem after several horrifying school shootings.
Groups of lower status should seek access to decision makers to assess the environmental climate. Groups must test whether decision makers’ receptivity to their issue will allow them a hearing. If access is granted and decision makers are responsive, legislative and political action should be continued. If, on the other hand, the group is ignored and access denied, the group can organize an outsider strategy of protest and social action. This escalation of tactics is used by many grassroots organizations. They politely seek redress in the first round, and “up the ante” when their demands are denied (Hanna & Robinson, 1994; Mondros & Wilson, 1994).
High-status actors should always first attempt to talk with decision makers and test their access, even if the environment seems unfavorable. If nothing else, such discussions will tell them more about their opposition and the difficulties they will face in pursuing the change. Ultimately, an unfavorable environment will require even high-status actors to bring attention to the issue through public exposure or protest. High-status actors sometimes fear they will lose their access to decision makers if they participate in public protest (Ehrenrich, 1990). In these cases, coalitions are helpful. Outsider strategies can be carried out by low-status groups, while the high-status group continues to press for change using insider means. The campaign to halt military bombing at Vieques in Puerto Rico is an example of such an approach, which resulted in a compromise that could be claimed as a victory. Such coalitions and combinations of strategies have often been encouraged by the literature (Hoefer, 2000; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 1998; Mondros & Wilson, 1994; Soifer, 1998). Table 14.1 shows the preferred strategies with the relevant variables.
Table 14.1 Conditions for Insider and Outsider Strategies Conditions for Insider and Outsider Strategies
| Low-Status Actors | High-Status Actors | |
| Favorable Environment | Escalation | Insider Strategies |
| Unfavorable Environment | Outsider Strategies | Coalitions |
Ultimately, to accomplish their goals, social change organizations must move from outsiders to insiders. Even the most low-status social change organizations using the most disruptive strategies ultimately seek to come to the negotiating table with decision makers and receive the acclaim of the public. Organizations with explicit goals for empowerment of members use their newly established access as evidence that members are receiving the respect and recognition they deserve. It is a measure of how far they have come.
When the environment is unfavorable to change, low-status groups using outsider strategies introduce new ideas into the public consciousness and discussion. Over time, the views of the organization become more acceptable, and the opposition weakens. Such was the case with Act Up and Greenpeace, organizations that were at first vilified for their activity and then praised for their foresight on treatment for AIDS sufferers and safeguarding the environment.
Prospects for Social Change
The early years of the 21st century suggest conditions that are both encouraging and ominous for the prospect of social change. The 2000 Census documented the growth of the minority population, especially those of Hispanic origin, and this development is encouraging (Albacete, 2001; Schmitt, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Minority populations will account for nearly 90% of all population growth in the United States from 1995 to 2050, and they will likely be the majority population by the end of the next century (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999). Such trends bode well for a variety of change goals. Although the political leanings of new Americans, especially those who arrive from repressive leftist regimes, are not totally clear, they are potential supporters of progressive issues and possible constituencies for social action organizations. Because most social change strategies rely on either numbers of activists (social action) or broad support (lobbying and electoral politics), these demographic trends are extremely good news.
Another trend is the increasingly common practice of polling citizens on a range of domestic and foreign issues and the reliance of politicians on polls and focus groups to frame their positions. Although there is concern about the fluidity of candidates’ positions, it does mean that public opinion has influence on what public officials will support (Mitchell, 2000). This influence has at least the potential to balance campaign contributions and lobbying by moneyed interests. If activists can persuade the public of their positions, legislative action is possible.
The trend for issues to be decided at the state rather than the federal level, as we see it, raises both opportunities and difficulties for change. The shift means that targets for influence will devolve from Washington to state capitals. State capitals provide many more target points for activists, and states can be influenced by each other, as they were with antismoking legislation and as seems to be happening regarding the death penalty. State capitals should be more accessible to activists, especially in the smaller states, and state legislators and governors depend more on smaller segments of voters to be elected. Traditionally, however, the federal government has been more protective of rights and more generous with assistance than states, especially in the South and Southwest. For example, welfare benefits are typically lower in these states, and right-to-work laws diminish federal protections for unions to pursue collective bargaining. This may result once again in unfortunate regional differences. Finally, the focus on statewide rather than national campaigns will likely mean less attention to coalition building and collaboration among groups at the national level.
Other trends seem inauspicious for the prospect of social change. Overall, data appear to show that people are less likely to join together in civic groups (Putnam, 2000). Other data indicate that people, especially those of low and moderate income, have less time to engage in social action than once was the case (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995). Although the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and their affect on civic participation is not yet clear, in other historical periods of heightened patriotism and nationalism, and constrained civil liberties, organizing activity was understandably muted, especially among new Americans. Ethnic and racial groups, according to Rivera and Erlich (1995), understand issues of race and culture as more urgent than problems associated with class. This trend, too, has the potential to limit coalition building and cooperation with regard to common concerns. At one time, human service agencies were the breeding ground for new activism. Social agencies that once supported social change efforts have been increasingly defunded, privatized, restricted from political activity, and otherwise drained of energy (Fabricant & Burghardt, 1998).
Together, these trends suggest that there are many possible activists from ethnic communities who have the potential for greater influence than in the previous three decades. Demographics shifts portend a more favorable environment for low-status groups. However, given the other constraints, especially the suspiciousness and reticence that are likely to continue in the years immediately following the September 11th attack, the recruitment of new activists and the emergence of social, legislative, and political activity may be both more difficult and more important. In this climate, social change activity has the greatest chance of success if it takes advantage of the clustering of low-income and minority groups and targets issues that are also of concern to working-class and middle-income Americans in general. Neighborhood-based social action and electoral activities capitalize on the aspirations and political yearnings of new Americans who, by moving into middle-income communities, have the potential for political influence. By focusing on issues such as school reform and environmental justice, these groups can build common cause with their neighbors. In these ways, social change can be kept alive even during inauspicious historical periods.