Civil Rights Advocacy on Behalf of the Poor

2. Assessing and Explaining Shifts in Organizational Priorities

C h a p t e r 2 Assessing and Explaining Shifts in Organizational Priorities MEMBERSHIPS ARE N[umber] 1. No matter what successes the NAACP Branches have had in meeting local problems, the general public over the nation will judge the whole NAACP . . . by one question: ‘‘Did the total membership go up or down?’’ . . . If it goes up, the NAACP is a going concern. . . . If it goes down, the NAACP is dying on its feet. You know that is not a fair way to judge, but that is how it is today. The newspapers, the editorial writers, the columnists, the radio and TV commentators will judge the NAACP by the total membership. You know you did a good job in your city and state on several projects. You know you have backed the national program. . . . But they go by memberships. So—you must go by memberships. —Roy Wilkins, NAACP Executive Director, to NAACP branch and Youth Council leaders, September 28, 1966 Before exploring why civil rights organizations advocated on behalf of the poor during some periods and not others, it is necessary to establish when, and to what extent, such advocacy occurred. When did civil rights organizations shift their level of attention to representation of the poor? As I discuss in the previous chapter, my analysis of organizational decision -making is based on the archives of five civil rights organizations: CORE, NAACP, NUL, SCLC, and SNCC.1 After explaining my approach to assessing priority shifts, I discuss why these shifts may have occurred. I then present my theoretical expectations about the factors that may 24 Chapter 2 lead organizations to shift their priorities. Finally, I present my model of decision-making based on existing literature on interest group decisionmaking . Method: Establishing and Explaining Shifts Establishing Shifts in Organizational Priorities Sometimes it is clear when an organization is prioritizing an issue—local affiliates are mobilized, organizational representatives make public speeches, and media attention is focused on the organization’s activities. Such an impressive campaign on an issue gains publicity for the organization spearheading the effort, and can be quite beneficial for the group in the long-term. In the short-term, however, it is quite costly. Only an organization that is financially comfortable and has a presence in multiple states or urban areas, access to media attention, and the ability to attract participants to public gatherings could conceive of such a campaign . Smaller organizations, or even large ones that do not wish to devote all of their resources to one issue, may prioritize advocacy on issues without embarking on an all-consuming campaign. To determine shifts in organizational priorities, it is necessary to measure the level of priority each organization devoted to anti-poverty policy during distinct time periods. However, quantifying an organization’s level of commitment to an issue is not simple. Organizations engage in many different types of activities, and for many different reasons. Factors distinct to each organization, such as whether it generally relies on direct action tactics, mobilizes local organizations, or has local branches, will affect how it prioritizes an issue. As Table 2.1 illustrates, I have included various types of activities at each level of priority.2 According to my scales of priority, indicators of an organization’s high level of commitment to an issue include explicit statements of the issue as an organizational priority, internal structural changes aimed to make the organization’s activities concerning the issue more effective, and activities that involve the mobilization of membership, or an organization ’s constituency. These reflect an organizational commitment to the issue that is financial, but also involves membership. Without some evidence of membership involvement, an organization’s commitment to an issue is not classified as a high priority. When the NUL decided to make the War on Poverty a high priority, it underwent organizational restructuring: it notified its affiliates of the new organization-wide priority, retrained affiliate leaders to work with and advocate on behalf of low-income African Americans, and worked Assessing and Explaining Shifts in Priorities 25 Table 2.1. Organizational Activities as Indicators of Priority Low-priority indicators (1 point each) • Position taken on issue (statement, convention resolution) Mid-level priority indicators (2 points each) • Staff, or organizational committee, assigned to issue as one of several, or only, assignments • Internal evidence of funding for activities concerning issue • Communications to policy-makers about...