Our Mission and Goals
Since 1993, the Grassroots Policy Project (GPP) has been working with a broad cross-section of organizations, networks, coalitions, advocacy groups, policy shops and think tanks that are part of the progressive social movement landscape in the United States. In particular, we work closely with grassroots- and/or coalition-based social justice groups that are serious about contesting for power in legislative, legal, electoral and cultural arenas, and that are committed to democratizing social and political practices and institutions in this country. We see these groups as vital actors in civil society, and we focus on ways to help them become more effective and democratic vehicles for social transformation.

At the heart of all of our work is a vision of radical, participatory democracy. We believe that governing power should reside with communities and workers. We believe that social and political life can be organized around principles that recognize the intrinsic worth and value of all human beings, and that we are stronger when everyone participates fully in our political, social and economic institutions, and when everyone enjoys the benefits of our shared prosperity. We work with organizations that share some approximation of this vision.

Our programs combine political and popular education with strategic planning, leadership and organizational development. We believe that a set of long-term goals for social transformation (and for governing power) can make a difference in how groups work day-to-day. Our programs help organizations link their short-term organizing and campaign work with their mission and goals.

GPP’s Conceptual Framework
In all of our work, we weave together three related concepts--power, worldview and strategy. Our analysis of power is based on a conceptual framework called the three faces of power: 1) direct political involvement; 2) organizational infrastructure; and 3) ideology and worldview. We have developed activities and tools based on these core concepts. With our framework for understanding power and building progressive power, we help groups make strategic shifts toward putting resources into work that has a longer-term payoff even while they seek more immediate legislative and electoral successes. We use this framework to talk about more integrated issue campaigns, deeper relationships among coalition partners and community groups, and about re-framing issues in the context of a larger, compelling progressive worldview.

One of our most significant contributions to movement theory and practice is our work on the third face of power: using worldview (referred to by social movement scholars as ‘shaping meaning’). Framing and reframing the political debate through better communications and message development is a part of this work, but only part. We go beyond framing by emphasizing the larger context in which people make sense of social and political issues – the larger world of meaning, or worldview, and by emphasizing the need to develop critical political consciousness among members and leaders of social movement organizations. Our work on worldview explores the ways that progressives can transform the larger world of meaning, building upon progressive themes and values while introducing new ones, as they bring their members, allies and progressive officials into an expanding dialog about ideas, beliefs, shared values and unifying principles. For an example of how our work on worldview brings together organizing, coalition-building, strategic framing and, beyond framing, reshaping worldview, and developing critical consciousness, please take a look at our writings and sessions designs on healthcare and worldview, as well as the description of our work with the Gamaliel Foundation.

Our conceptual framework reflects our theory of social change, which is based on these assumptions: In order to build power in the long-term, more social change groups need to build an ever-expanding, politically-engaged, critically-conscious base that is committed to sustained social action. For example, long-term electoral success depends upon our collective abilities to connect progressive activities with more engaged constituencies that come together at the local and state levels. Therefore, work to improve base-building is necessarily work to expand social justice and democracy. And, work that brings together base-building groups, coalitions, networks, intermediaries and progressive funders into an infrastructure that can aggregate our power also is necessary if we are to succeed in shifting the political agenda and expanding the scope of democracy. Movement groups and networks must deal head-on with the things that keep us fractured and divided, including issues of identity and differences in strategic emphasis. Beyond identity, movement groups must confront racism and the central role that race has played in shaping our nation’s history, including our institutions, approaches to governance and government programs, and how racism limits our collective ideas and experiences about freedom and equality.

Bridging the Gaps with Strategy for Organizers
Another way of describing GPP’s work is as follows: we bring together social movement concepts (theory), tools and frameworks with social movement practice, which includes organizing, advocacy, networking and coalition-building. Our work is informed by and tested in the field, through collaborative relationships. We develop and refine our concepts and tools in consultation with staff and leaders. The cycle begins with conceptual tools, which are then applied by and with member-based organizations and networks. This is followed closely by evaluation and reflection, which lead to further refining and re-development of the concepts and tools. For us, this cycle of analysis, action and reflection is the essence of strategy, and we try to model this kind of strategy in the ways that we work. In this way, we hope our work enlarges both social movement practice and social movement theory.

Our collaborative relationships with organizers and leaders seeks to bridge several divides that we see with our movements; divides that keep us fragmented, that limit our collective power. These include: activist/intellectual, short-term/long-term, thinking/doing, ‘expert knowledge/tacit knowledge, professional advocates/grassroots leaders, social movement groups and the academics who study and write about them. For more on our efforts to bridge the academic/activist divide, please see our essay in Rhyming Hope and History, called “Movement Strategy for Organizers.” i

Who We Work With
The groups we work with are putting resources into movement-building because they want to move beyond the treadmill of tactical responses, to build together a new level of power for social change. We develop long-term relationships with staff and leaders so that we can be part of their cycles of dialog, action and reflection. As a result, we choose groups who fit certain criteria. The qualities we look for in groups include: leadership that is committed to serious strategic development; a level of stability and capacity to be there for the long haul and stay intact as they make these shifts; a willingness to be part of a larger social movement and to struggle with other kinds of groups around networking, developing shared strategies, better coordination; and, most importantly, a general commitment to similar long-term goals and vision for a better society as the ones we believe in.

Examples of the kinds of groups we are talking about include faith-based networks like the Gamaliel Foundation, community-based organizations like Tenants and Workers United, WISDOM (as part of the Gamaliel network) and Citizen Action of Milwaukee, statewide organizations and coalitions like TakeAction Minnesota, Ocean State Action and the Iowa Citizen Action Network, regional and national networks like Northeast Action, the Midwest States Center and USAction, and community/labor alliances like the Connecticut Center for a New Economy. We also collaborate with groups offering intellectual resources and technological and policy support, like the Movement and Media Research Action Project (MRAP), the Tomales Bay Institute, the Center for Social Inclusion and the Commonwealth Institute.

Concluding Thoughts
We are encouraged by the many openings that we see around us: healthy debate among movement groups about what it takes to build progressive infrastructure, the role of ideas and ideology in building lasting power, more strategic approaches to framing and message development, and what it means to take racial justice seriously. We also see that forces on the Right are starting to unravel, that their much-vaunted political unity is fraying, and their ideas are becoming less palatable. We see pockets of resistance and evidence of critical political consciousness developing in many places, as well as openings on several critical issues, like healthcare, immigration, climate change and green development, marriage equality, alternative approaches to international relations, and a renewed interest in addressing inequality. We also see and hear more conversations about democratic renewal, and about what more authentic and participatory democratic practices would look like. GPP works from this sense of hope and possibility, helping groups take advantage of even the smallest openings, moving from the margins of opposition and into the center of democratic action, where ordinary people can come together and make history. ii

i Rhyming Hope and History: Activism and Social Movement Scholarship, edited by David Croteau, William Hoynes and Charlotte Ryan. 2006: University of Minnesota Press.

ii We use this term as defined by Richard Flacks in Making History: The American Left and the American Mind. 1988: New York: Columbia University Press.