STATES OF CHANGE: ASSESSING POSSIBILITIES FOR AND PATHWAYS TO PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE IN U.S. STATES

STATES OF CHANGE: ASSESSING POSSIBILITIES FOR AND PATHWAYS TO PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE IN U.S. STATES 1.23.15 Manuel Pastor, Jennifer Ito, Vanessa Carter, Madeline Wander, Jared Sanchez, Alejandro Sanchez-Lopez 1 REMEMBER WHEN? The 2008 election of President Obama seemed to signal a breakthrough moment for progressives Unprecedented scale of grassroots action and activism New sense of hope and possibilities among labor, communities of color, LGBTQ advocates Traditional and new forms of organizing and leadership development DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 2 1

WASSUP, AMERICA?..but a groundswell of activism erupted and disrupted from a movement with a very different set of values and visions. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 3 MISTAKING A MOMENT FOR A MOVEMENT The 2008 election was indeed momentous, but did not build a movement Attention turned to Washington and federal policy opportunities, instead of to the grassroots base The hope of 2008 didn t translate into sustained civic participation to support a broader vision of social justice DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 4 2

PERE S ARC OF RESEARCH Defining social movements Youth leadership and movements Alliances and movementbuilding Measuring movements DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 5 MOVEMENTS AND GOVERNANCE As movements gain maturity, sophistication, and capacity to affect change, the big questions will be: Where are conditions and capacities most promising for achieving progressive change? Once we successfully push for and pass progressive policies, what is needed to implement and protect them? What infrastructure is needed in order to sustain change and transformation? DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 6 3

PURPOSE AND AGENDA FOR TODAY To present and discuss a preliminary analytical framework for assessing the progress towards, and pathways for, progressive governance in the U.S. states I. Introductions II. III. IV. Project Overview States of Change Framework An Empirical Analysis of States: Initial Results V. Next Steps and Closing DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 7 INTRODUCTIONS 4

PROJECT OVERVIEW GOALS To develop an adaptable analytical framework and tools for assessing the progress towards, and pathways for, progressive governance in the U.S. states To provide an assessment of states to ground the analysis, demonstrate its application, and facilitate discussion among funders, organizers, and other strategists DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 10 5

AUDIENCES Organizers and coalition builders: Provide linkages between inside and outside players and across policy/issuesiloes Strategists and advisors: Inform decision-making about where and how to deploy resources Funders and donors: Identify common goals and synergies between institutional priorities and portfolios DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 11 FRAMEWORK Living: To be a working document that can be updated and evolve over time Flexible: To be adapted and tailored to reflect institutional priorities and purposes Transparent: To be widely available and easily adopted to support strategic discussion DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 12 6

FRAMEWORK WHAT IT IS NOT A recommendation on what states funders and strategists should focus An argument for any particular policy issue, constituency base, or social change model A strategy for political partisanship or for the immediate election cycle DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 13 METHODS Literature review: Academic and popular literature to define progressive governance and to identify key factors Empirical analysis: Quantitative analysis of the states based on select indicators and factors Strategic advisors: Consultation with experts to shape the project, to give feedback on early findings, and to share the results Field visits: Field interviews in 4 states to test and refine framework Deliverables: Final report and assessment tools DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 14 7

TIMELINE January December 2014 January Summer 2015 Fall 2015 Winter 2015 January 23, 2015: Strategic Advisors Convening #1 Fall 2015: Strategic Advisors Convening #2 Winter 2015: Strategic Advisors Convening #3 Background Research Field Research and Interviews Final Analysis Dissemination Preliminary Framework & Empirical Analysis Refined Framework & Empirical Analysis Final Framework & Empirical Analysis DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 15 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS While we present, please keep the following questions in mind: With regards to our theoretical States of Change framework 1. What audiences could find this useful? 2. How could it be used? 3. What s missing? With regards to our empirical analysis of U.S. states 1. What are other tools we should be aware of? 2. Which states should we focus in on? 3. What s missing? DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 16 8

STARTING DEFINTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE A commitment to justice and equity Structures and processes that shape decision making For the purpose of this project, we define Progressive Governance as: The ability to implement and sustain long-term change that can further social justice DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 18 9

PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE Based on vision and values of justice Economic inclusion Democratic participation Transparency and accountability About broadly-held power to consistently Push Pass Implement Protect progressive policies and systemic change DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 19 STATES OF CHANGE What is the State of Change conditions and capacities for progressive change Where are the States of Change geographies that are ripe for change States are the starting point for our analysis but will also consider other geographic scales, specifically, metropolitan regions DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 20 10

STATES OF CHANGE Yet states are key battlegrounds for experimentation in new ideas, policies, and strategies Strategic scale for linking local grassroots engagement with greater impact and for building towards national impact Authentic participation in democratic processes are fundamentally local activities DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 21 STATES OF CHANGE FRAMEWORK DRAFT 11

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS While we present, please keep the following questions in mind: With regards to our theoretical States of Change framework 1. What audiences could find this useful? 2. How could it be used? 3. What is missing? With regards to our empirical analysis of U.S. states 1. What are other tools we should be aware of? 2. Which states should we focus in on? 3. What is missing? DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 23 TOWARDS PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE PROMISE OR PITFALLS: Conditions for Change Demographic Economic Political POLITICS AND POLICIES: Arenas of Change Electoral Legislative Judicial Administrative Communications Corporate POWER: Capacities for Change Robust organizational landscape Depth of alliance building Sustainability of political pipeline infrastructure Strength of resource base for progressive action DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 24 12

PROMISE OR PITFALLS CONDITIONS FOR CHANGE CONDITIONS FOR CHANGE The Conditions for Change set the context for social change efforts and shed light on both opportunities and challenges for achieving progressive governance. These conditions include: 1. Demographic 2. Economic 3. Political For each condition, we focus on diversity, complexity, and pace of change. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 26 13

CONDITIONS FOR CHANGE Condition Sample Factors Demographic Current population growth Population growth projections Foreign-born growth Racial generation gap Ethnic churning Economic GDP & jobs to population ratio Job and wage growth Working poverty Gini coefficient Political Voting registration and turnout Union membership rates Progressive network density DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 27 POLITICS AND POLICIES POLITICS AND POLICIES: Arenas of Change Electoral Legislative Judicial Administrative Communications Corporate ARENAS OF CHANGE 14

ARENAS OF CHANGE The Arenas of Change are where power is contested and the struggle for social justice happens. Theses arenas include: 1. Electoral 2. Legislative 3. Judicial 4. Administrative 5. Communications 6. Corporate For each arena, we look at: Key decision makers Barriers to progressive governance Factors to help measure possibilities for progressive governance DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 29 ARENAS OF CHANGE The ELECTORAL Arena Key decision makers (or organizing targets): Voters It s where voters shape policy indirectly through electing representatives or directly via ballot initiatives. Some barriers include: Voter suppression tactics reinforcing racial inequalities Economic inequality and access to campaign resources Unlimited restrictions on private contributions DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 30 15

ARENAS OF CHANGE The ELECTORAL Arena Factors to Consider in Assessing Pathways to Progressive Governance Degree to which electoral laws enfranchise the most people Administrative ease of voter registration and voting Availability and ease of using ballot initiatives Fairness of re-districting in terms of minimizing race-, partisan-, and prison-based gerrymandering Availability of public campaign financing Degree to which laws limit secret political spending and encouraging disclosure DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 31 ARENAS OF CHANGE The LEGISLATIVE Arena Key decision makers (or organizing targets): Elected Officials and Policymakers It s where electeds propose, craft, and approve (or disapprove) laws, and provides avenues for participation beyond voting through structures like public fora and lobbying. Some barriers include: Use of campaign contributions by the wealthy Limited public participation venues Keeping elected officials accountable to grassroots constituencies Source: http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/21/what-family-members-told-presidentobama-about-their-harrowing-immigration-experiences/ DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 32 16

ARENAS OF CHANGE The LEGISLATIVE Arena Factors to Consider in Assessing Pathways to Progressive Governance Authenticity of dialogue between legislators and constituents Strictness in lobbying registration and reporting rules Existence and effectiveness of participatory budgeting Capacity and professionalism of state legislators DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 33 ARENAS OF CHANGE The JUDICIAL Arena Key decision makers (or organizing targets): Judges and Courts It s where judges and courts are charged with safeguarding democratic processes from bias and special interests, and set precedents that impact future decision making in the other arenas. Some barriers include: Lack of gender, ethnic, racial, and sexual orientation or professional diversity among judiciary Minimal enforcement of judicial ethics Source: http://www.losfelizledger.com/article/target-petitions-california-supreme-court-toresume-construction/ DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 34 17

ARENAS OF CHANGE The JUDICIAL Arena Factors to Consider in Assessing Pathways to Progressive Governance Method of judicial selection (elections vs. appointments) Enforcement of ethics and monitoring the role of money in appointments and within judicial decision making Accessibility of courts to consumers and employees Fairness of sentencing laws Demographic and professional diversity of the judiciary DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 35 ARENAS OF CHANGE The ADMINISTRATIVE Arena Key decision makers (or organizing targets): Bureaucrats and Government Staff It s where government agencies implement laws, coordinate between agencies, and administer public participation processes. Some barriers include: Administrators are fairly shielded from public input Innovative participatory models are far from widespread Public administrators tend to value cost effectiveness over accountability to constituents DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 36 18

ARENAS OF CHANGE The ADMINISTRATIVE Arena Factors to Consider in Assessing Pathways to Progressive Governance Resources, education, and robust mechanisms to engage constituencies in participatory budgeting / monitoring implementation Capacity and resources to collaborate across departments and sectors Enforcement of ethics and rules ensuring accountability to public Demographic diversity among leadership and staff (a representative bureaucracy) DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 37 ARENAS OF CHANGE The COMMUNICATIONS Arena Key decision makers (or organizing targets): Public-at-large It s where special interests, via the media, to shape and shift societal values, perceptions, and priorities and so shapes what gets put on the table for public discourse. Some barriers include: Consolidation of media ownership Limited alternative or independent outlets U.S. government surveillance of internet traffic Under-developed progressive messaging DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 38 19

ARENAS OF CHANGE The COMMUNICATIONS Arena Factors to Consider in Assessing Pathways to Progressive Governance Presence of legally-, politically-, and economically-independent media Diversity in media content, coverage, and ownership Public accessibility to information relevant to decision making Existence and depth of media watchdog infrastructure Depth of progressive / conservative narratives and frames DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 39 ARENAS OF CHANGE The CORPORATE Arena Key decision makers (or organizing targets): Corporate Management and Stakeholders It s where business management and stakeholders make decisions that directly affect workers and families as well as shape power relations or policy priorities within a state. Some barriers include: Corporate sector is highly unified and consolidated Corporations disempower organizations and government actors meant to regulate them Overall decline in union density DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 40 20

ARENAS OF CHANGE The CORPORATE Arena Factors to Consider in Assessing Pathways to Progressive Governance Degree to which corporations play active roles in regional growth Existence of internal and external agents empowered to regulate corporate activities, such as unions and government agencies Presence of socially and environmentally-responsible corporations DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 41 ARENAS OF CHANGE EXAMPLE: CA Senate Bill 535, which directs cap-and-trade revenue to disadvantaged communities suffering from environmental injustices LEGISLATIVE ELECTORAL JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 42 21

POWER CAPACITIES FOR CHANGE ARENAS OF CHANGE The Capacities for Change refer to the social-movement infrastructure necessary to contest for and win power in the arenas. To assess the infrastructure and identify gaps we suggest looking at the following capacities: 1. Robustness of Organizational Landscape 2. Depth of Alliance Building 3. Sustainability of Political Pipeline Infrastructure 4. Strength of Resource Base for Progressive Action DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 44 22

CAPACITIES FOR CHANGE Robustness of ORGANIZATIONAL LANDSCAPE Factors to Consider Existence of groups working toward equity and justice for disenfranchised communities Existence of local and regional organizations with base-building and scaling capacities Institutions with technical capacity to effectively research and message policy solutions DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 45 CAPACITIES FOR CHANGE Depth of ALLIANCE BUILDING Factors to Consider Key instances of sustained dialogue and relationships among diverse interests Intermediary institutions that serve as network hubs Common language and shared data among allies DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 46 23

CAPACITIES FOR CHANGE Sustainability of POLITICAL PIPELINE Infrastructure Factors to Consider Leadership development programs with visioning and experiential learning Integration of leadership development into participatory governance mechanisms Strength of youth-led organizing capacity that concurrently builds longterm leadership pipelines DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 47 CAPACITIES FOR CHANGE Strength of RESOURCE BASE for Progressive Action Factors to Consider Philanthropic institutions integrated with active social movements Local elites supportive of progressive governance Diverse everyday people mobilized through grassroots fundraising Alternative business models for organizational sustainability DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 48 24

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS With regards to our theoretical States of Change framework 1. What audiences could find this useful? 2. How could it be used? 3. What is missing? With regards to our empirical analysis of U.S. states 1. What are other tools we should be aware of? 2. Which states should we focus in on? 3. What is missing? DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 49 AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF STATES INITIAL RESULTS 25

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS While we present, please keep the following questions in mind: With regards to our theoretical States of Change framework 1. What audiences could find this useful? 2. How could it be used? 3. What is missing? With regards to our empirical analysis of U.S. states 1. What are other tools we should be aware of? 2. Which states should we focus in on? 3. What is missing? DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 51 PURPOSE Examine basic conditions and define an analysis along multiple dimensions to anticipate both the promise and pitfalls for progressive governance Assess where places states stand out along the dimensions of change and their ripeness of change to progressive governance. Source: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~magla20j/classweb/wp/votingfacts.html Not about states only, but is one geography of several to examine changing conditions DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 52 26

METHODS CONDITIONS FOR CHANGE: SELECT INDICATORS Condition Sample Factors Demographic Current population growth Population growth projections Foreign-born growth Racial generation gap Ethnic churning Economic GDP & jobs to population ratio Job and wage growth Working poverty Gini Coefficient Political Voting registration and turnout Union membership rates Progressive network density DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 54 27

DATA SOURCES U.S. Census Summary data 1990 to 2010 Pooled American Community Survey data 2008-2012 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Union Stats Current Population Survey U.S. Election Atlas DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 55 BEHIND THE SCENES DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 56 28

Condition METHOD I: QUADRANT ANALYSIS To compare state, regional, and national data To simplify state change data but maintain rigorous results To incorporate change over time into the analysis DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 57 METHOD I: QUADRANT ANALYSIS 50% 45% 40% 35% I. Above national average; changing slower than national average II. Above national average; changing faster than national average 30% 25% National Average 20% 15% 10% IV. Below national average; changing slower than national average III. Below national average; changing faster than national average 5% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Change over Time DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 58 29

Total Population Growth from 2000-2010 (Percent Change) Total Population Growth from 2000-2010 (Percent Change) QUADRANT ANALYSIS: EXAMPLE 70% 40% Population Population Change, Change, 2000-2010 2000-2010 60% 35% NV 50% 30% 25% UT Nevada's population has grown rapidly with POC attributable to most of that growth 40% ID TX 20% NC CO NV GA FL SC 30% 15% WY WA DE AK NM AZ VA HI TN CA MT TX OR 10% 20% NC CO KY SD MN MO AR OK GA FL MD IN NH NE AL WI CT 5% ME IA KS VA ND NJ WV MS CA PA 10% MA IL VT LA OH NY 0% RI 0% 2% MA 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 0% Percentage Point Change of Population of Color from 2000-2010 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% AZ East North Central East North Central East South Central East South Central Middle Atlantic Middle Atlantic Mountain New England Mountain Pacific New England South Atlantic Pacific West North South Central Atlantic West South West Central North Central National West Average South Central National Average Percentage Point Change of Population of Color from 2000-2010 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 59 FOR EASE, FOCUS ON 10 STATES DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 60 30

METHOD II: MAPPING ANALYSIS DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 61 PRELIMINARY RESULTS: FOCUS ON SELECT INDICATORS Condition Sample Factors Demographic Current population growth Population growth projections Foreign-born growth Racial generation gap Ethnic churning Economic GDP & jobs to population ratio Job and wage growth Working poverty Gini coefficient Political Voting registration and turnout Union membership rates Progressive network density DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 62 31

Total Projected Population Growth from 2010 to 2040 DEMOGRAPHY TOTAL POPULATION GROWTH POPULATION OF COLOR GROWTH ETHNIC COMPOSITION FUTURE TRENDS IN GROWTH 70% Population Projections, 2010-2040 60% Arizona's population will grow rapidly but POC less so compared to national average AZ 50% 40% GA TX NC NV CO CA FL East North Central East South Central Middle Atlantic Mountain 30% New England Pacific South Atlantic 20% West North Central West South Central MA National Average 10% VA 0% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Projected Percentage Point Change of People of Color from DO 2010 NOT to DISTRIBUTE 2040 January 2015 65 32

CHANGE IN ETHNIC COMPOSITION Ethnic Churning: Provides a value for the aggregate change in ethnic composition, calculated by summing up the absolute value of the change in share of each racial group. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 66 WHAT IT MEANS WHY IT MATTERS Places of rapid demographic change offer great opportunities but also great risk Inter-ethnic organizing strategies are needed to leverage the new demography DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 67 33

A QUICK LOOK: NORTH CAROLINA Quadrant II: Growing faster than national average in total population growth and in percentage people of color Rapid growth in Latino and Asian immigrant population Continued growth in African-American population Emerging swing state Conservative political reaction Rise of Moral Monday protests & multi-issue coalitions Enduring progressive movement spreading - Georgia & South Carolina DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 68 ECONOMY JOB AND WAGE GROWTH GINI COEFFICIENT 34

Job Growth from 1990 to 2010 JOB GROWTH VS. WAGE GROWTH 100% 80% NV Nevada's overall economic growth has not meant higher earnings in jobs Jobs and Wage Growth, 1990 to 2010 ($2010) AZ East North Central 60% 40% FL GA TX CO East South Central Middle Atlantic Mountain New England Pacific South Atlantic NC VA West North Central West South Central National Average 20% CA MA 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Average Earnings Per Job Change from 1990 to 2010 ($2010) DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 70 CHANGE IN INCOME INEQUALITY DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 71 35

WHAT IT MEANS WHY IT MATTERS Change often comes not only from distress but also from rising expectations These conditions offer organizing opportunities around economic inequality DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 72 A QUICK LOOK: NEVADA Quadrant I: Job growth is much higher than the national average, but wage growth is much slower Led job growth consistently before recession and is now 3 rd in nation 16.7% union density in 2014 Largest union movement in a right-to-work state - Las Vegas Culinary Union Active in national Fast Food Workers Strike, living wage activism DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 73 36

Average Registration Rate Among Citizen Voting-Age Population POLITICS VOTER REGISTRATION AND VOTER TURNOUT ORGANIZING NETWORK DENSITY RECENTLY NATURALIZED MID-TERM VOTER REGISTATION AND TURNOUT 85% Turnout Rate by Registered in Mid-Term Elections (2002,2006,2010) 80% Texas shows up with the lowest turnout rate and below average voter registration 75% MA East North Central 70% East South Central 65% 60% TX NC VA FL AZ CA CO Middle Atlantic Mountain New England Pacific South Atlantic West North Central West South Central National Average 55% NV 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% Average Turnout Rate Among Registered Voters DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 75 37

PROGRESSIVE NETWORK DENSITY RECENTLY NATURALIZED 38

RECENTLY NATURALIZED WHAT IT MEANS WHY IT MATTERS Lower rates of voter registration and turnout in states with growing populations of color Voter engagement and leadership pipelines are needed to ensure political representatives and policy priorities reflect the new demography and exciting new state-level integrated voter engagement (IVE) strategies DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 80 39

A QUICK LOOK: TEXAS Quadrant IV: Voter registration rates and turnout for midterm elections both well below the national average Youth represent nearly 25% of Texas voters Latinos expected to surpass whites in state voting pop by 2025 Activists challenging strictest registration and voter ID laws in U.S. Groups like Texas Rising focusing on new generation of voters DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 81 NEXT STEPS 40

NEXT STEPS Further empirical analysis and theoretical formulation Develop an analytical tool for states undergoing change that offer insights into different dimensions of our framework Finalize specific states for in-depth analysis (both quantitative and qualitative) and site visits DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 83 SELECTING THE STATES Initial criteria: Significant change e.g. below or above the national average Different forms of change e.g. demographic, economic, political Leading edge (clearcut cases) of common trends National political or economic significance or attention Geographic variation DO NOT DISTRIBUTE January 2015 84 41