Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Community Organizing: Practice, Research, and Policy Implications
Community Organizing: Practice, Research, and Policy Implications
193--222
Paul W. Speer
Vanderbilt University
Introduction
education (Mediratta, Shah, & McAllister, 2009), and public health and environ-
mental issues (Brown et al., 2003). Although the term is often used in the context
of shorter-term initiatives (e.g., electoral campaigns) and issue-based advocacy
efforts (e.g., grassroots lobbying, direct action, civil disobedience), this review
restricts the definition of community organizing to only those efforts whose issues
and strategies for action are selected by local resident-leaders, and whose goal is
to build power and sustain their organizing initiative over time and across multiple
issues.1 Moreover, although this review does draw on the interdisciplinary litera-
ture on community organizing, the primary focus is on psychological studies of
community organizing, which have been conducted from social, community, and
developmental psychological perspectives.
As a phenomenon, community organizing encompasses a number of potential
points of interest for social issues researchers, policymakers, and funders. These
include community organizing as a topic of study, as a source of new possibil-
ities for research design and methodology, and as a model for community and
systems-level interventions to tackle social issues. This review addresses each of
these points of interest, and consists of five main sections: (1) an introduction to
community organizing processes, which features a brief example of an organizing
initiative for the purpose of grounding further discussion (2) a review of research
on some of the major shifts that have occurred in the field of organizing practice,
in which particular attention is paid to tensions between traditional models for
organizing and more recent or emerging models, as well as the most promising
recent developments, (3) a review of the current state of research evidence on com-
munity organizing with a particular focus on psychological studies of organizing
processes and outcomes, (4) a discussion of implications and recommendations
for policy makers, and (5) summary and conclusions.
Community Organizing
for the city. At this point—over two years into a single congregation’s organizing
on housing in their neighborhood—a federated effort by all member congregations
in CCO worked together to press for policy changes. Many congregations within
CCO had worked on housing issues in their local communities, and they shared
some of the experiences of the congregation described here. Additionally, lead-
ers from other congregations realized the interdependent nature of housing with
various other social issues they worked on—improving schools, reducing crime,
access to credit. All were deeply influenced by local housing policies.
Together, the federated group of CCO congregations conducted additional
research with key actors around housing policy: city council members, officials
in charge of community development block grant expenditures, local housing
nonprofits, the city auditor, the home builders association, the Federal National
Mortgage Association, their U.S. senators, and others. Combining this research
with their shared experiences working for improved housing in their local com-
munities, the federated group of CCO congregations determined that systemic
change in the city’s housing policies would require greater accountability from
city government, a program to rehabilitate and repair existing homes, an approach
to dealing with absentee landlords, a better approach to dealing with predatory
mortgage lending, and a holistic approach to strengthening neighborhoods.
At a big public event in 2004, which provides an example of the third common
element of community organizing—action/mobilization—CCO pressed the city
manager and Mayor for these policy changes. As reported in local media (Horsley,
2004a):
More than 400 people packed the sanctuary of St. Therese Little Flower Catholic Church
on Tuesday night to demand reforms to Kansas City’s housing program. Saying they were
fed up with bureaucratic inefficiency and indifference, participants at the meeting called on
city officials to start spending the $18 million in annual housing dollars in a wiser, more
strategic way. The meeting was sponsored by CCO . . .
Two weeks after this public meeting, the city manager eliminated the Housing
and Community Development department. As reported in local media (Horsley,
2004b):
In a major shake-up, Kansas City Manager Wayne Cauthen eliminated the housing depart-
ment Wednesday, saying that it had suffered too long from weak leadership and haphazard
spending . . . Cauthen said he had concluded that the Housing and Community Development
Department was often controlled by outside special interests, that housing services were
fragmented and that there was no comprehensive approach for building and selling houses.
This case study is described in more detail elsewhere (Speer & Christens,
2012) and provides an analysis to demonstrate the central role that CCO played
in making this policy change. This case exhibits a successful organizing effort,
but also demonstrates key features of many initiatives that take place in the larger
field of community organizing.
Community Organizing 197
Congregation-Based Organizing
existing models for neighborhood organizing has profoundly changed the course
of contemporary community organizing.
The congregation-based community organizing model spread rapidly through
the United States and is today the preferred model of organizing for several of
the largest national organizing networks. Wood and Warren (2002) described
congregation-based community organizing as “one of the broadest based initia-
tives in the American public sphere” (p. 7) and a recent field scan (Wood, Partridge,
& Fulton, 2013) revealed continued growth, such that there are now nearly 300
active primarily congregation-based organizing initiatives in the United States.
Importantly, congregation-based models of organizing have demonstrated that
religious institutions can still be a source of progressive advocacy, despite the
strength of the relationship between some religious groups and right-wing poli-
tics. Organizing efforts have also added range to their cultural repertoire through
association with religious institutions. As an example, organizers often discuss
charity as an essential but overrepresented component of congregational activity
as opposed to justice, which, although strongly rooted in religious teaching, is
often ignored by religious groups. Organizers and leaders have become adept at
connecting organizing processes to religious traditions such as calls for justice
(Wood, 1999).
Today’s congregation-based organizing incorporates theology by linking or-
ganizing practice to religious teaching and faith traditions (Jacobsen, 2001).
Congregation-based organizing has drawn on religious values and teachings
to challenge the dominant market-based ideology that has driven the neolib-
eral policies negatively affecting local communities. The emphasis on values
is now so firmly rooted in contemporary practice that some local organizing has
been described as “values-based organizing” (Robinson & Hanna, 1994, p. 66).
Congregation-based organizing efforts have identified and emphasized values such
as community and justice (Jacobsen, 2001), and healthy communities and eco-
nomic fairness (Speer et al., 2014; Warren, 2001). The emphasis on these values
has led to leadership development and organizing practice that is infused with
a sense of human dignity, and a commitment to a holistic approach to human
development (Keddy, 2001).
Congregation-based organizing networks and the other organizing models
that they have influenced have also stressed the importance of interpersonal re-
lationships to a greater degree than other models of organizing. This focus on
relationships can be contrasted with other models of organizing, which may be
characterized as focusing on issues (e.g., traffic problems, environmental degra-
dation, public safety concerns; Collura & Christens, 2014). A relational focus
attends to these and similar issues but the organizing process prioritizes the con-
nections and relationships among members of the community. Hence, despite
fluctuations in the intensity of issue-based work, strong networks of interpersonal
Community Organizing 199
relationships allow a group to sustain the level of activity and trust necessary to
exercise the social power required to effect community change (Weymes, 2003).
Relational organizing cultivates connections among participants through the
practice of one-to-one meetings (Robinson & Hanna, 1994). Participants are
trained in methods for having one-to-one meetings that are intended to elicit
the experiences and stories of others and to build an understanding that personal
struggles and concerns are often shared with others. These connections are de-
signed to make links between the personal to the collective (Christens, Inzeo,
& Faust, 2014). On an aggregate level, this practice alters the social networks
within and between community institutions, and opens up what some have called
weak ties (Granovetter, 1973), social capital (Warren, 2001), or the social fabric
(Cortes, 1996). The relationships that are built can increase the civic capacity of
the organization. Relational organizing and values-based organizing are hallmarks
of the congregation-based models of community organizing, which have exerted
a profound influence on the field as a whole.
Youth Organizing
in schools and education systems has increased in recent decades, and dispari-
ties in educational outcomes have been compounded by the adoption of harsh
disciplinary and expulsion policies that have disproportionately been applied to
minority youth (Skiba et al., 2011). Youth who are pushed out of schools are also
increasingly likely to become involved in the justice system, which has simul-
taneously become more likely to treat juvenile offenders as adults, leading to a
phenomenon that is often referred to as the school-to-prison pipeline—through
which youth of color are disproportionately moved out of educational systems
and into correctional systems. An example of a youth organizing effort for ed-
ucational improvement is Voices of Youth in Chicago Education (VOYCE; see
Christens, Collura, Kopish, & Varvodic, 2014). VOYCE is a collaborative effort
by six Chicago community organizations that each house youth organizing efforts.
The groups have collaborated on youth participatory action research projects on
educational policies and practices in Chicago that have been closely integrated
with an organizing campaign to solve the dropout crisis, improve relationships
between school staff and students, and end zero-tolerance disciplinary policies.
Collectively, youth organizing efforts related to education have been high-
lighted as a valuable form of community engagement in educational decision-
making (Orr & Rogers, 2011). Although youth were once somewhat marginal
to community organizing—particularly among efforts affiliated with the larger
and more professionalized organizing networks—youth organizing is now widely
viewed as both a viable method for building power and capacity to make
community change, and as an important context for youth development. Many
congregation-based organizing initiatives have built youth and intergeneration or-
ganizing initiatives. In one example, an adult organizer in a congregation-based
initiative wrote of his group’s realization that their own organizing principle—that
the people closest to community problems should be part of the solution to those
problems—made involving youth an important priority (Stahlhut, 2003).
Strategic Partnerships
Historically, organizing efforts have most often been wary of partnerships with
other institutions and organizations. Today, it is not uncommon for organizing
groups to partner with local governments, human service agencies, nonprofit
organizations, universities, coalitions, and private organizations and foundations.
National networks receive funding from multiple foundations at a time, and staff
members of foundations often convey desired outcomes or ideas about how to
improve organizing practices. Local organizing groups have also increasingly
sought grants from foundations, both for special projects and for core operational
expenses. Many of these grants are small, yet they represent new opportunities as
well as vulnerability to outside influence (i.e., resource dependency).
Similarly, local community organizing groups have become more likely to
work collaboratively with researchers. The IAF has worked with academic re-
searchers to train organizing staff (Warren, 2001). As noted above, the Gamaliel
Foundation has collaborated with researchers to develop an analysis that has
altered the efforts and strategies of that network (Kleidman, 2004). ACORN de-
veloped an internal team of researchers on policy and social issues who developed
analyses for their local organizing efforts (Swarts, 2007). Other organizing ef-
forts have been developed from progressive think tanks that are directly tied to
local organizing (Pastor, 2001). Across the field, there has been an increasing
focus on measurable outcomes and evidence-based practice that is often driven by
evaluation components of external funding sources.
The past few decades have also seen an increase in the interplay between
organizing and community development practice. Whereas organizing has histor-
ically focused on building community and capacity to achieve policy concessions
from corporations, and more often, from local government, community devel-
opment is typically accomplished in partnership with local government to build
physical structures, services, and amenities in urban areas. Lately, community
development groups have explicitly sought to build community capacity (Glick-
man & Servon, 1998). Similarly, organizing groups have increasingly understood
the importance of community development, and have sought to influence—and
in some cases, implement—portions of the development process (Murphy &
Cunningham, 2003). For example, BUILD, an IAF affiliate in Baltimore, has
worked to blend their traditional organizing approach with a plan to develop a
worker-owned economic cooperative (Graf, 1995). Blending organizing and com-
munity development presents both opportunities and risks (see Stoecker, 1995).
New partnerships are similarly emerging between community organizing ef-
forts and the field of public health. Scholars and practitioners seeking to reduce
health disparities have increasingly agreed that interventions on the social deter-
minants of health are imperative (Hofrichter, 2006), and community organizing
has frequently been identified as an effective model (Minkler, 2012). Similarly,
Community Organizing 203
Summary
Behavioral Aspects
A study by Speer, Peterson, Zippay, & Christens (2010) reports results from a
mixed-methods study of civic engagement in a single community organizing ini-
tiative over a five-year period. The initiative, Congregations Building Community
(CBC), was organizing through congregations in Northern Colorado. During the
five-year study period, 10 congregations were consistently active in organizing
efforts, and another 22 congregations were active at some point during the five
years. The initiative held 724 meetings of various types (e.g., planning meetings,
research meetings, action meetings), and average attendance at these meetings was
9.4 people. A total of 1,919 uniquely identified individuals participated in meet-
ings organized by the initiative, each attending an average of 3.5 meetings over five
years. On an annual basis, between 400 and 600 unique individuals participated
in organizing activities, with an average annual participation rate that varied be-
tween two and four meeting attendances per year. Larger action meetings drew up
to 356 attendees. It is estimated that there are more than 200 congregation-based
initiatives like CBC that are active in the United States, some of which involve as
many as 80–100 congregations (Swarts, 2011; Wood, Partridge, & Fulton, 2013).
In fact, during the years of the study by Speer and colleagues, CBC was likely
at the smaller end of the spectrum of such initiatives, and it has since ceased
organizing activities. Nevertheless, the fine-grained study of participation in CBC
gives a sense of the depth and breadth of civic engagement that such initiatives
tend to produce.
The same study of CBC (Speer et al., 2010) used a quasi-experimental design
to assess overall levels of self-reported civic engagement (i.e., including civic
participation outside of organizing) of CBC attendees at two time points, compared
with a geographically balanced random sample of their neighbors at the same
two time points. The non-CBC members identified the type of organizational
setting in which they were most active (e.g., church/synagogue, neighborhood
group, no group, etc.). Approximately half of the non-CBC sample indicated that
their primary setting for involvement was a religious institution, making this by
far the largest category. Compared with non-CBC members across these other
categories, members of CBC were significantly more civically engaged than non-
CBC members at baseline. In addition, during the second wave of data, CBC
members were significantly more civically engaged than they had been during
the first wave, while no such difference was detected among non-CBC members,
many of whom were active participants in other organizational settings. These
results support the hypothesis that the civic focus of community organizing efforts
is likely to influence participants to become more active in community and civic
affairs.
Research has indicated that in addition to their focus on civic and community
issues, many organizing models encourage the development of specific organiza-
tional and setting-level features that may be particularly effective at cultivating
civic activity and engagement (Maton, 2008; Speer & Hughey, 1995). In a study
206 Christens and Speer
Relational Aspects
Affective Aspects
understanding that one belongs to a collectivity. McMillan and Chavis (1986) con-
ceptualized the construct according to four dimensions: membership—the sense
of belonging in a community, influence—the sense of mattering in that commu-
nity, need fulfillment—the sense that community members’ needs will be met,
and shared emotional connection—the sense of shared history and common bond.
This conceptualization has informed the study of sense of community in orga-
nizing contexts, which has often also used a framework and measure developed
specifically to assess sense of community for community organizations (Hughey,
Speer, & Peterson, 1999). Studies have consistently found that people’s sense of
community in community organizations is positively associated with their levels
of community participation, and that it is also positively associated with their
levels of psychological empowerment (Hughey et al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2008;
Peterson, Peterson, Agre, Christens, & Morton, 2011).
Psychological empowerment has been theorized as the psychological as-
pects of the mechanisms by which people and groups gain control over their
affairs (Zimmerman, 1995). The emotional/affective component of psychological
empowerment has been studied using a framework and a measure of people’s
self-perceptions of sociopolitical control (Peterson et al., 2006) according to two
dimensions: leadership competence and perceived policy control. Sociopolitical
control therefore captures one’s beliefs about one’s own skills and abilities for ex-
ercising agency and making concrete changes in the civic arena. It is increasingly
clear from research on community organizing processes that increases in sociopo-
litical control are an outgrowth of increased community participation (Christens,
Peterson, & Speer, 2011; Ohmer, 2007). Moreover, results from studies using
structural equations modeling have found that this relationship is mediated by
psychological sense of community (e.g., Hughey et al., 2008). Increasing partic-
ipation in community organizing is therefore a leverage point for enhancing both
affective connections to community and perceptions of agency in the civic arena,
both of which have been empirically linked to elements of psychosocial well-being
at the individual level.
Cognitive Aspects
rotate important roles and responsibilities among members (Robinson & Hanna,
1994). In addition to the skills and perspectives that are deliberately cultivated
among participants in organizing initiatives, learning occurs through groups’ ef-
forts to create change in real-world settings, and the group-based reflections and
participatory evaluations that often occur alongside these efforts (Speer & Hughey,
1995). Leaders in organizing efforts often become savvy policy analysts, action
researchers, and political actors. For these reasons, educational research has in-
creasingly identified organizing as a fertile context for civic learning and civic
development (Rogers, Mediratta, & Shah, 2012).
Civic learning taking place in community organizing settings is typically
distinguished by a critical social analysis that seeks to identify the structural
aspects of social problems, and connect them to personal experiences of those
problems (Watts & Flanagan, 2007). In this way, civic learning that occurs through
community organizing is often similar to Freire’s (1973) concept of education
for critical consciousness, in which people learn to uncover structural roots of
inequality and engage in reflective action to bring about change toward greater
social justice (see Watts, Diemer, & Voight, 2011). Importantly, this form of
reflective action in community organizing does not involve only collaboration and
democratic deliberation intended to bring about consensus, but also the strategic
use of power and public conflict to hold decision-makers to account (Schutz,
2011). The learning that takes place through organizing is therefore not only about
understanding complex systems and identifying possible points of intervention
to bring about desired changes, but is also about improvisation on a core set of
principles that are employed adaptively as necessitated by local power dynamics.
Studies of the cognitive component of psychological empowerment have
assessed the understanding of complex processes through which effective and
powerful action can be taken. This set of understandings—that conflict is often
a part of social change processes, that organized groups are more effective in
this arena than are individuals, and keen awareness of the many ways that social
power can be used to the advantage of those who possess it (Gaventa, 1980)—have
been assessed alongside the behavioral and emotional components of psycholog-
ical empowerment. The cognitive component of psychological empowerment has
consistently shown complicated relationships with the other components of psy-
chological empowerment, including a lack of covariance (Christens, Collura, &
Tahir, 2013; Speer et al., 2013). Some of the divergence of the cognitive compo-
nent appears to be related to demographic characteristics of participants, includ-
ing race, gender, and socioeconomic status (Christens, Speer, & Peterson, 2011;
Peterson, Hamme, & Speer, 2002). In general, those with less relative privilege
tend to score higher on measures of cognitive empowerment, while those with
more relative privilege tend to score higher on measures of emotional empow-
erment, suggesting the usefulness of tailored strategies in community organizing
settings (Christens, Speer, & Peterson, 2011; Peterson & Hughey, 2002).
210 Christens and Speer
Developmental Perspectives
Organizing has long been studied as a developmental context for adult partic-
ipants. For instance, a study by Kieffer (1984) takes an explicitly developmental
perspective on citizen empowerment through community organizing. Kieffer’s
study identifies different eras in the development of a citizen leader—an era of
entry into sociopolitical involvement, an era of advancement through supportive
peer and mentored relationships, an era of incorporation during which leader-
ship skills are honed, and an era of commitment which entails a fully realized
competence yet continued commitment to struggles in the sociopolitical arena. A
number of other studies of empowerment among adults in organizing have taken a
developmental perspective. These studies have focused on organizing as a context
for developing a greater understanding of social power dynamics (e.g., Speer &
Hughey, 1995), and for increasing involvement in civic affairs (e.g., Christens &
Speer, 2011). These studies have identified particular organizational characteris-
tics and processes (e.g., cycling of roles, one-to-one meetings) that are particularly
influential in the development of participants.
As it has become more common for young people to be involved in commu-
nity organizing initiatives, developmental psychologists, educational researchers,
and other scholars of youth development have become increasingly interested in
understanding the effects of involvement on young people. As a result, youth or-
ganizing has been identified as a catalyst for change at multiple levels of analysis
(Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Christens & Kirshner, 2011). At a systemic level, it fa-
cilitates changes in communities and schools (Camino & Zeldin, 2002; Mediratta
et al., 2009; Orr & Rogers, 2011). At an individual level, it facilitates civic identity
development and, more broadly, positive youth development (Rogers et al., 2012).
This understanding has brought a more prominent focus on community organiz-
ing as a developmental context, particularly for marginalized or disadvantaged
young people. A recent review by Kirshner and Ginwright (2012) delineates the
different domains in which researchers have identified positive developmental out-
comes associated with participation in youth organizing among African-American
and Latino adolescents: enhanced civic development, academic engagement, and
psychological wellness.
In many communities, youth organizing initiatives provide venues in which
young people can gain experiential education about social systems and social
change processes, as well as the participatory competencies associated with em-
powerment and critical consciousness (Rogers, Morrell, & Enyedy, 2007; Watts
et al., 2011). It has therefore been noted as an extracurricular setting that can attract
and engage youth who might not be attracted to more mainstream extracurricular
activities that do not foster concern or take action to address societal injustices.
Once they are engaged in organizing, youth often find a supportive community
of peers and adult mentors who provide social support, guidance, and links to
Community Organizing 211
resources beyond the organizing initiative itself (Zeldin, Christens, & Powers,
2013). As research has demonstrated, these youth organizers are much more likely
than their peers to achieve desirable personal outcomes (Conner, 2011). A report
by Terriquez and Rogers (2012) provides preliminary results from a large-scale
study of alumni of youth organizing (ages 18–26) showing that, when compared
with randomly selected youth from similar backgrounds, those who had been in-
volved in organizing were more than twice as likely to be registered to vote, more
than 2.5 times more likely to have volunteered within the last year, and five times
more likely to have worked on an issue that affects their community. Moreover,
those who had been involved in organizing were more than 2.5 times more likely
to pursue a postsecondary education than similar peers, over three times more
likely to enroll in a four-year university, and less likely, by about a third, to be
both out of school and out of work.
Summary
around different issues, or the best ways to sustain and deepen participants’ in-
volvement in organizing over time (Collura & Christens, 2014). In short, research
using a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods has convincingly shown
that participating in organizing tends to be beneficial for participants; yet, it has not
yet demonstrated that benefits accrue to nonparticipating residents. Furthermore,
relatively few research findings have been published that can effectively guide
decision-making in organizing practice.
Many gaps in knowledge remain, and major hurdles exist for those seeking
to fill these gaps. The complexity and fluidity of the phenomenon of commu-
nity organizing is a point of interest for many researchers, but presents numerous
challenges to systematic and comparative study. Furthermore, although there are
strengths to the interdisciplinarity of the research literature on community orga-
nizing, there is a tendency for research not to build on the work that is done from
other disciplinary perspectives. Additionally, many types of organizing exist, and
it can be difficult to discern whether findings from one context, issue area, or
model are likely to be translatable to others.
Particularly promising directions for future research on community organizing
include multilevel approaches that link psychological and developmental changes
in participants with the development of community capacity and outcomes at a
community level. Future research should harness technological innovations to ob-
tain richer longitudinal data sets on organizing processes, participation patterns,
social networks, and psychosocial dynamics, so that more specific mechanisms
of influence can be more effectively discerned. Organizing also provides an im-
portant context for researchers engaged in community-based and action-oriented
approaches (see Speer & Christens, 2013). Yet more comparative, systematic,
multisite research, utilizing experimental and quasi-experimental methods, will
be needed to achieve a more detailed understanding of the psychology and multi-
level impacts of community organizing.
their skills, beliefs, and self-perceptions are likely to change as a result of their
involvement in systems change efforts. We therefore recommend that decision-
makers scrutinize whether resources for education-oriented prevention programs
might be better allocated toward funding more widespread opportunities for mean-
ingful engagement and grassroots leadership in work to address social issues.
At the local, state, or regional levels, we encourage organizers and decision-
makers to continue to connect and align community organizing initiatives with
public and nonprofit efforts to improve social welfare, urban planning and public
and environmental health. As discussed in our review of practice, shared concerns
exist between many organizing initiatives and public health professionals around
increasing disparities in health outcomes between rich and poor populations and
different racial/ethnic groups. These shared concerns provide opportunities for
greater synergy between targeted health services and grassroots action on policies,
systems, and environments. We do not believe that these synergies have yet been
fully realized, and promising new models for alignment and integration of efforts
should be tried and evaluated systematically when possible (see Speer et al., 2014).
Yet we also encourage greater strategic attention to the difficulties of aligning the
goals of grassroots organizing groups and public agencies. There is a need for
policies, programs, and funding mechanisms that creatively connect and align
the strengths of community organizing with those of other public and nonprofit
agencies working to improve community well-being. A simple first step toward
such alignment is to ensure that leaders of grassroots organizing initiatives are
included on the task forces, councils, boards, and other decision-making bodies
that determine strategies and approaches to addressing social issues.
With these recommendations, we must caution against neoliberal appropri-
ations of community organizing, which might view organizing and associated
community-based activities as possible substitutes for the provision of basic ser-
vices by state and nonprofit agencies. Community organizing initiatives them-
selves generally shy away from the direct provision of services—not because
organizers view such services as unnecessary—but because of a clear understand-
ing of organizing’s role as building power for more marginal groups to assert
themselves in decision-making processes. This power is used, in some cases, to
secure resources and services that are needed to improve quality of life in these
communities. The purpose of organizing is to alter community environments and
contexts so they are more responsive to the needs and values of people, whereas
the purpose of service provision is to accommodate individuals to better func-
tion in and adapt to the circumstances they are confronting. Hence, community
organizing cannot serve as a substitute for services and programs.
At the national and international levels, we echo calls for policies that create
more “receptive social environments” (Campbell, Cornish, Gibbs, & Scott, 2010,
p. 964) for community voices to be considered by powerful decision-makers. In
many places around the world, the political system does not guarantee sufficient
Community Organizing 215
freedoms (e.g., the freedom to publicly challenge political leaders) for the models
of community organizing that have been described in this review to be effective
vehicles for changing systems. Even in places where such freedoms are guaranteed,
there is typically a lack of access to decision-making venues for people with fewer
resources. Similarly, in nongovernmental efforts to encourage participation, those
with greater power are often overrepresented in decision-making processes. A
principle of community organizing (mentioned earlier in this article) that policy
makers and practitioners would do well to keep in mind is that the people closest
to the problem should be a part of the solution to that problem. Discussions
about potential solutions to community issues should, whenever possible, involve
the grassroots community organizing initiatives that are seeking to build power
to address these issues. We therefore recommend incorporation of organizing
initiatives and organizing perspectives into attempts to achieve collective impact
(Kania & Kramer, 2011), and other issue-focused problem solving and advocacy
efforts.
For foundations and NGOs interested in supporting social change and com-
munity development, community organizing represents a promising model. There
are, however, many differences between supporting grassroots organizing initia-
tives and more traditional models of service or program delivery. For one thing,
organizing initiatives often fluctuate in terms of the pace and scale of activities, so
deliverables associated with more programmatic activities may be inappropriate.
It is particularly critical to tailor evaluation efforts specifically to organizing initia-
tives in ways that provide useful information to the leaders of the initiative and have
the potential to contribute to and advance the current state of research evidence on
community organizing (see Speer & Christens, 2013). Our recommendations for
funders include increasing the timelines of funding commitments to community
organizing groups, while simultaneously carefully considering the processes and
outcomes to be assessed in evaluating organizing initiatives. As described in the
review of organizing research, data are needed to understand the links between
specific organizing processes and positive outcomes at the individual, organiza-
tional, and community levels. More systematic research and evaluation are needed
on organizing to account for differences in organizing processes and outcomes,
and to translate these findings for practice.
Community organizing involving young people is making tremendous strides
as a field of practice, and early research on the topic demonstrates very promising
influences on individual young people who participate. Moreover, case studies
indicate that youth organizing initiatives have the potential to become sustainable,
powerful community actors that are capable of altering policies and systems so that
they are more responsive to youth and community needs. Policy makers, funders,
educators, and youth workers should therefore carefully explore youth organizing
as an underutilized strategy for addressing both positive youth development and
positive community change. The existing evidence is extremely promising. Yet, it
216 Christens and Speer
is nevertheless very preliminary when compared with the data available on other
models for youth development and prevention of risk behavior. There is therefore
a particular need for investments in rigorous research on youth organizing in
multiple locations and at multiple levels of analysis.
Finally, the types of grassroots community organizing reviewed in this arti-
cle should be studied more closely by leaders of organizations seeking to produce
large-scale changes in sociopolitical systems (e.g., reducing inequality or respond-
ing to global climate change). Many large, advocacy-oriented organizations have
models for public engagement that are more top-down and campaign-style. Al-
though they may invoke the rhetoric of community organizing, they often offer
few opportunities for members or volunteers to play meaningful roles. Community
organizing groups have been able, in many cases, to achieve more effective and
sustainable mobilization with far fewer resources than large nonprofit and politi-
cal action organizations. We suggest that this is largely due to the ways in which
community organizing engages people as potential leaders, rather than simply as
supporters. Organizations interested in producing social and policy change should
learn from and adapt strategies from community organizing to practice deeper
forms of public engagement.
Finally, for those engaged in policy-oriented work, there is much that can
be learned from grassroots organizing, and much that can be done to support the
field of practice. Public-sector entities can sometimes find shared purposes with
grassroots organizing groups. More generally, they can design policy-making pro-
cesses that allow for increased engagement with grassroots groups. In addition,
they can often support the local community institutions on which organizing de-
pends. For nongovernmental organizations, community organizing groups should
be considered as promising partners for community-driven health promotion and
community development efforts. Community organizing also serves as a model
for deeply democratic work oriented toward change in policies and systems.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Albanesi, C., Cicognani, E., & Zani, B. (2007). Sense of community, civic engagement and social
well-being in Italian adolescents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5),
387–406.
Boyte, H. C. (2004). Everyday politics: Reconnecting citizens and public life. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Brown, P., Mayer, B., Zavestoski, S., Luebke, T., Mandelbaum, J., & McCormick, S. (2003). The
health politics of asthma: Environmental justice and collective illness experience in the United
States. Social Science & Medicine, 57(3), 453–464.
Camino, L., & Zeldin, S. (2002). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic engagement in
the day-to-day life of communities. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 213–220.
Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action
research in motion. New York: Routledge.
Campbell, C., Cornish, F., Gibbs, A., & Scott, K. (2010). Heeding the push from below: How do
social movements persuade the rich to listen to the poor? Journal of Health Psychology, 15(7),
962–971.
Checkoway, B. N. (1995). Six models of community change. Community Development Journal, 30,
2–20.
Chetkovich, C., & Kunreuther, F. (2006). From the ground up: Grassroots organizations making social
change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Christens, B. D. (2010). Public relationship building in grassroots community organizing: Relational
intervention for individual and systems change. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(7),
886–900.
Christens, B. D., & Kirshner, B. (2011). Taking stock of youth organizing: An interdisciplinary
perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 134, 27–41.
Christens, B. D., & Speer, P. W. (2011). Contextual influences on participation in community orga-
nizing: A multilevel longitudinal study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3–4),
253–263.
Christens, B. D., Peterson, N. A., & Speer, P. W. (2011). Community participation and psycholog-
ical empowerment: Testing reciprocal causality using a cross-lagged panel design and latent
constructs. Health Education & Behavior, 38(4), 339–347.
Christens, B. D., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (2011). Social class as moderator of the relationship
between (dis)empowering processes and psychological empowerment. Journal of Community
Psychology, 39(2), 170–182.
Christens, B. D., Collura, J. C., & Tahir, F. (2013). Critical hopefulness: A person-centered analysis
of the intersection of cognitive and emotional empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 52(1–2), 170–184.
218 Christens and Speer
Christens, B. D., Collura, J. J., Kopish, M., & Varvodic, M. (2014). Youth organizing for school and
neighborhood improvement. In K. L. Patterson & R. M. Silverman (Eds.), Schools and urban
revitalization: Rethinking institutions and community development (pp. 151–166). New York:
Routledge.
Christens, B. D., Inzeo, P. T., & Faust, V. (2014). Channeling power across ecological systems: Social
regularities in community organizing. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(3-4),
419–431.
Collins, J., & Koplan, J. P. (2009). Health impact assessment: A step toward health in all policies.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(3), 315–317.
Collura, J. J., & Christens, B. D. (2014). Perspectives on systems change among local change agents:
A comparative study across models. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology.
doi:10.1002/casp.2192.
Conner, J. O. (2011). Youth organizers as young adults: Their commitments and contributions. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 923–942.
Conner, J. O., Zaino, K., & Scarola, E. (2013). Very powerful voices: The influence of youth organizing
on educational policy in Philadelphia. Educational Policy, 27(3), 560–588.
Cortes, E. (1996). Community organization and social capital. National Civic Review, 85(3), 49–53.
De Clercq, B., Vyncke, V., Hublet, A., Elgar, F. J., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Currie, C., . . . Maes, L.
(2012). Social capital and social inequality in adolescents’ health in 601 Flemish communities:
A multilevel analysis. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 74(2), 202–210.
Fisher, R., Brooks, F., & Russell, D. (2007). “Don’t be a blockhead”: ACORN, protest tactics, and
refund anticipation loans. Urban Affairs Review, 42(4), 553–582.
Flanagan, C. A., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. (2005). Social participation and social trust in adolescence:
The importance of heterogeneous encounters. In A. M. Omoto (Ed.), Processes of community
change and social action (pp. 149–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.
Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Glickman, N. J., & Servon, L. J. (1998). More than bricks and sticks: Five components of community
development corporation capacity. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3), 497–539.
Graf, A. (1995). Economic development or social development? A strategy for rebuilding inner cities.
Review of Black Political Economy, 24(2/3), 251–255.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–
1380.
Green, G. P., & Goetting, A. (Eds.). (2010). Mobilizing communities: Asset building as a community
development strategy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Hofrichter, R. (Ed.). (2006). Tackling health inequities through public health practice: A handbook for
action. Washington, DC: National Association of County & City Health Officials.
Horsley, L. (2004a). Group calls for housing reforms. The Kansas City Star, p. B1.
Horsley, L. (2004b). Cauthen cuts KC Housing Agency: Auditor, others applaud shake-up. The Kansas
City Star, p. A1.
Horwitt, S. D. (1992). Let them call me rebel: Saul Alinsky: His life and legacy. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Hughey, J., Peterson, N. A., Lowe, J. B., & Oprescu, F. (2008). Empowerment and sense of community:
Clarifying their relationship in community organizations. Health Education & Behavior, 35(5),
651–663.
Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community, sense of community, and networks. In A. T. Fisher,
C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and
implications (pp. 69–84). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Hughey, J., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (1999). Sense of community in community organizations:
Structure and evidence of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(1), 97–113.
Immergluck, D. (2004). Credit to the community: Community reinvestment and fair lending policy in
the United States. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Jacobsen, D. A. (2001). Doing justice: Congregations and community organizing. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press.
Community Organizing 219
Jarrett, R. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Watkins, N. D. (2005). Developing social capital through participation
in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights from three programs. Journal of Community
Psychology, 33(1), 41–55.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2011(Winter),
36–41.
Keddy, J. (2001). Human dignity and grassroots leadership development. Social Policy, 31(4), 48–51.
Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. In J. Rappaport & R. Hess
(Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action (pp. 9–36). New York:
Haworth Press.
Kirshner, B., & Ginwright, S. (2012). Youth organizing as a developmental context for African
American and Latino adolescents. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 288–294.
Kleidman, R. (2004). Community organizing and regionalism. City & Community, 3(4), 403–421.
Maton, K. I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community
betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 4–21.
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings:
A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 631–656.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.
Mediratta, K., Shah, S., & McAlister, S. (2009). Community organizing for stronger schools: Strategies
and successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minkler, M. (Ed.). (2012). Community organizing and community building for health and welfare (3rd
ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Murphy, P. W., & Cunningham, J. V. (2003). Organizing for community controlled development:
Renewing civil society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ohmer, M. L. (2007). Citizen participation in neighborhood organizations and its relationship to
volunteers’ self- and collective efficacy and sense of community. Social Work Research, 31(2),
109–120.
Orfield, M. (1997). Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Orr, M. (Ed.). (2007). Transforming the city: Community organizing and the challenge of political
change. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Orr, M., & Rogers, J. (Eds.). (2011). Public engagement in public education: Joining forces to revitalize
democracy and equalize schools. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Osterman, P. (2002). Gathering power: The future of progressive power in America. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Osterman, P. (2006). Community organizing and employee representation. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 44(4), 629–649.
Pastor, M. (2001). Common ground at ground zero? The new economy and the new organizing in Los
Angeles. Antipode, 33(2), 260–289.
Pastor, M., Benner, C., & Matsuoka, M. (2009). This could be the start of something big: How
social movements for regional equity are reshaping metropolitan America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Peterson, N. A., & Hughey, J. (2002). Tailoring organizational characteristics for empowerment:
Accommodating individual economic resources. Journal of Community Practice, 10(3), 41–
59.
Peterson, N. A., Hamme, C. L., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Cognitive empowerment of African Americans
and Caucasians: Differences in understandings of power, political functioning, and shaping
ideology. Journal of Black Studies, 32(3), 336–351.
Peterson, N. A., Lowe, J. B., Hughey, J., Reid, R. J., Zimmerman, M. A., & Speer, P. W. (2006).
Measuring the intrapersonal component of psychological empowerment: Confirmatory factor
analysis of the sociopolitical control scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3–
4), 287–297.
Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., Hughey, J., Armstead, T., Schneider, J. E., & Sheffer, M. A. (2008).
Community organizations and sense of community: Further development in theory and mea-
surement. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(6), 798–813.
220 Christens and Speer
Peterson, N. A., Peterson, C. H., Agre, L., Christens, B. D., & Morton, C. M. (2011). Measuring youth
empowerment: Validation of a sociopolitical control scale for youth in an urban community
context. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(5), 592–605.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6,
65–78.
Robinson, B., & Hanna, M. G. (1994). Lessons for academics from grassroots community organizing:
A case study – The Industrial Areas Foundation. Journal of Community Practice, 1(4), 63–94.
Rogers, J., Morrell, E., & Enyedy, N. (2007). Studying the struggle: Contexts for learning and identity
development for urban youth. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 419–443.
Rogers, J., Mediratta, K., & Shah, S. (2012). Building power, learning democracy: Youth organizing
as a site of civic development. Review of Research in Education, 36(1), 43–66.
Rusk, D. (1999). Inside game, outside game: Winning strategies for saving urban America. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Schutz, A. (2011). Power and trust in the public realm: John Dewey, Saul Alinsky, and the limits of
progressive democratic education. Educational Theory, 61(4), 491–512.
Shlay, A. B., & Whitman, G. (2006). Research for democracy: Linking community organizing and
research to leverage blight policy. City & Community, 5(2), 153–171.
Sites, W., Chaskin, R. J., & Parks, V. (2007). Reframing community practice for the 21st century:
Multiple traditions, multiple challenges. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(5), 519–541.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. -G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not
neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school
discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107.
Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life.
Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Speer, P. W., & Christens, B. D. (2012). Local community organizing and change: Altering policy
in the housing and community development system in Kansas City. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 414–427.
Speer, P. W., & Christens, B. D. (2013). An approach to scholarly impact through strategic engagement
in community-based research. Journal of Social Issues, 69(4), 734–753.
Speer, P. W., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to empowerment and
power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 729–748.
Speer, P. W., Ontkush, M., Schmitt, B., Raman, P., Jackson, C., Rengert, K. M., & Peterson, N. A.
(2003). The intentional exercise of power: Community organizing in Camden, New Jersey.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13(5), 399–408.
Speer, P. W., Peterson, N. A., Zippay, A., & Christens, B. D. (2010). Participation in congregation-
based organizing: Mixed-method study of civic engagement. In M. Roberts-DeGennaro & S.
J. Fogel (Eds.), Using evidence to inform practice for community and organizational change
(pp. 200–217). Chicago: Lyceum.
Speer, P. W., Peterson, N. A., Armstead, T. L., & Allen, C. T. (2013). The influence of participation,
gender and organizational sense of community on psychological empowerment: The moderat-
ing effects of income. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1–2), 103–113.
Speer, P. W., Tesdahl, E. A., & Ayers, J. F. (2014). Community organizing practices in a globalizing
era: Building power for health equity at the community level. Journal of Health Psychology,
19(1), 159–169.
Stahlhut, D. (2003). The people closest to the problem. Social Policy, 34(2/3), 71–74.
Stoecker, R. (1995). Community organizing and community-based redevelopment in Cedar-Riverside
and east Toledo: A comparative study. Journal of Community Practice, 2(3), 1–23.
Stoecker, R. (2009). Community organizing and social change. Contexts, 8(1), 20–25.
Swanstrom, T., & Banks, B. (2009). Going regional: Community-based regionalism, transportation,
and local hiring agreements. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, 355–367.
Swarts, H. J. (2007). Political opportunity, venue shopping, and strategic innovation. ACORN’s Na-
tional Organizing. In M. Orr (Ed.), Transforming the city: Community organizing and the
challenge of political change (pp. 134–161). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Community Organizing 221
Swarts, H. J. (2008). Organizing urban America: Secular and faith-based progressive movements.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Swarts, H. (2011). Drawing new symbolic boundaries over old social boundaries: Forging social move-
ment unity in congregation-based community organizing. Sociological Perspectives, 54(3),
453–477.
Terriquez, V., & Rogers, J. (2012). Social justice organizing and the educational, labor market, and
civic trajectories of low-income youth – Study update. Los Angeles: UCLA/IDEA.
Theiss-Morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review of
Political Science, 8, 227–249.
Torre, M. E., Fine, M., Stoudt, B. G., & Fox, M. (2012). Critical participatory action research as public
science. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (pp. 171–185).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Torres-Fleming, A., Valdes, P., & Pillai, S. (2010). 2010 field scan. Brooklyn, NY: Funders’ Collabo-
rative on Youth Organizing.
Warren, M. R. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American democracy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Warren, M. R. (2009). Community organizing in Britain: The political engagement of faith-based
social capital. City & Community, 8(2), 99–127.
Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental
and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779–792.
Watts, R. J., Diemer, M. A., & Voight, A. M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and future
directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 134, 43–57.
Weymes, E. (2003). Relationships not leadership sustain successful organizations. Journal of Change
Management, 3(4), 319–331.
Wood, R. L. (1997). Social capital and political culture – God meets politics in the inner city. American
Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 595–605.
Wood, R. L. (1999). Religious culture and political action. Sociological Theory, 17(3), 307–332.
Wood, R. L. (2007). Higher power: Strategic capacity for state and national organizing. In M. Orr
(Ed.), Transforming the city: Community organizing and the challenge of political change (pp.
162–192). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Wood, R. L., & Warren, M. R. (2002). A different face of faith-based politics: Social capital and
community organizing in the public arena. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy, 22(9–10), 6–54.
Wood, R. L., Partridge, K., & Fulton, B. (2013). Building bridges, building power: Developments in
institution-based community organizing. Longmont, CO: Interfaith Funders.
Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partner-
ship: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 385–397.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581–599.