If you think the widening chasm between the rich and the rest spells
trouble for American democracy, have a look at the growing gulf between
the information-rich and-poor.
Earlier this year, a Harvard economist’s jaw-dropping study of American’s
beliefs about the distribution of American wealth became a viral video. Now a new Pew study of the distribution of American news consumption is just as flabbergasting.
According to the Harvard study, most people believe that the top 20 percent ofthe country owns about half the nation’s wealth, and that the lower 60percent combined, including the 20 percent in the middle, have onlyabout 20 percent of the wealth. A whopping 92 percent of Americansthink this is out of whack; in the ideal distribution, they said, the lower 60 percent would have about half of the wealth, with the middle 20 percent of the people owning 20 percent of the wealth.What’sastonishing about this is how wrong Americans are about reality.
In fact, the bottom 80 percent owns only 7 percent of the nation’s wealth,
and the top 1 percent hold more of the country’s wealth – 40 percent – than 9 out of 10 people think the top 20 percent should have. The top 10 percent of earners take home half the income
of the country; in 2012, the top 1 percent earned more than a fifth of
U.S. income – the highest share since the government began collecting the data a century ago.
But America’s information inequality is at least as shocking as its economic inequality.
Pew sliced the TV news audience into thirds: heavy, medium and light. In my Jeffersonian fantasy, that distribution would look like a bell curve; in fact, it looks like a cliff. Heavy viewers watch a little over two hours of TV news a day, but medium viewers barely watch a quarter of an hour and light viewers average only two minutes a day. The top third of the country does 88 percent of the day’s TV news viewing; the middle third watches only 10 percent of the total time; the bottom third sees
just 2 percent of the minutes of news consumed. Two-thirds of Americans live in an information underclass as journalistically impoverished as the minuscule bazillionaire class is triumphant.This month, the Pew Research Journalism Project reported how Americans get their news at
home. If you think it’s from the Internet, you’ll be surprised that the 38 percent of us who access news at home on a desktop or laptop spend an average of only 90 seconds a day getting news online. America’s dominant news source is television, and the disparity between heavy viewers of TV news and everyone else is as startling as the gap betweenthe plutocrats and the people.
As for those heavy news viewers, says Pew, “There is no news junkie like a cable junkie.” A
heavy local news viewer watches about 22 minutes of it a day at home,
and a heavy network news viewer watches about 32 minutes a day. But a
heavy cable news consumer averages 72 minutes of it a day. The gap
between heavy, medium and light cable news viewers is especially stark.
If you’re reading this, you’re probably in that 72-minutes-of-cable-news-a-day class.
But medium cable news viewers see barely more than three minutes of it a day, and
light cable news viewers see about 12 seconds of it a day. In other words, either you
live in the country that watches more than an hour of Blitzer, O’Reilly,
Maddow, et al, a day – or in the country that watches virtually none of
them at all.
If you want to know where this is heading, consider another cheery piece of Pew research.
Americans 67 to 84 years old spend 84 minutes a day watching, reading
or listening to the news. Boomers (48 to 66) are close behind, at 77
minutes a day. But Gen Xers (33 to 47) spend 66 minutes, and
Millennials (18 to 31) spend only 46 minutes a day. The kids are tuning
out. I love it that 43 percent of “The Colbert Report” audience, and
39 percent of “The Daily Show” viewers, are 18 to 29 years old;
the young audiences of those fake news shows get real news from them.
But fewer than a million and a half Americans under 50 are watching
them.
Much has been made of the ideological news bubbles we live
in, where we see the world exclusively through Fox-colored lenses, or
filters manufactured only by MSNBC or CNN. The Pew study upends this
belief. It’s true that about one-quarter of American adults watch only
Fox News, another quarter watch only CNN and 15 percent watch only
MSNBC. But 28 percent of Fox News viewers also watch MSNBC, and 34
percent of MSNBC viewers watch Fox. More than half of MSNBC viewers,
and nearly half of Fox viewers, watch CNN, and of CNN’s viewers, about 4
out of 10 also watch Fox, and 4 out of 10 also watch MSNBC.
It’s encouraging that our self-segregation into polarized news ghettos is a
bit of a myth. But whatever joy there is in that finding is blunted by
the disparity between people who watch a lot of news and people who
watch almost none of it, and by the trend toward an even deeper division
ahead. The danger democracy faces isn’t so much that different
segments of our country inhabit alternative realities constructed from
different data delivered by different news sources. It’s that a
minority of the country watches a fair amount of news, and a majority
may as well be living on the moon.
Herman is 71 years old and has advanced liver cancer. He and fellow
prisoner Albert Woodfox have been held in solitary confinement longer
than anyone else in modern U.S. history. The men have spent the past 41
years of their lives alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, deprived of
any meaningful human interaction.
No human being deserves to live like this. Herman Wallace should not die alone. Why wouldn't Louisiana officials simply release an elderly prisoner with advanced cancer on humanitarian grounds? Evidence
suggests that it is in part because Herman, Albert, and King, 3 black
panthers dared to organize and speak out against inhumane treatment and
racial segregation inside one of United States' most brutal prisons,
Angola.
Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox are the two imprisoned members of the ‘Angola 3', three
young black men who were thrown in solitary confinement after working
against continued segregation, systematic corruption, and grave abuses
in the infamous Angola prison. Originally imprisoned for unrelated
cases of armed robbery, Herman and Albert were later convicted for the
murder of a prison guard in 1972. However, no physical evidence links
either man to the murder. In fact, King was 150 miles away in another
prison when the murder happened.
In the decades since Herman and Albert's conviction, numerous legal
concerns have risen to the surface from the racially charged underbelly
of the U.S. prison system. These are just a few glaring flaws we
documented in our report ‘100 Years in Solitary: The 'Angola 3' and
their Fight for Justice' :
DNA evidence that might have established the men's innocence was somehow "lost"
Outcomes were based on questionable inmate testimony
Prison officials bribed the main eyewitness
One witness later retracted his testimony
The prison guards widow is convinced these men were set up and her
husbands murderers were never identify. She as well has worked for years
for their release.
Prison authorities have broken their own
policies to justify Herman's continued incarceration in harsh and
inhumane conditions. After decades in these conditions, a highly questionable conviction that continues to be challenged by the courts and the now a tragic prognosis of terminal cancer, the next step seems all too clear: Herman Wallace should be released.
To quote from this clip filmed in New Orleans with Herman’s attorney
Herman Wallace, one of the remaining two imprisoned members of the
Angola 3, has been diagnosed with liver cancer. Wallace’s attorney
believes it is time for him to be let out of solitary confinement and
more importantly receive a compassionate release.
Attorney Nick Trenticosta detailed his client’s condition on Saturday’s Melissa Harris-Perry.
“He’s lost about 55 pounds in four months, and he is being treated
completely negligently. I would say he’s being killed through
intentional neglect.”
Currently 71 years old, Wallace has been in solitary confinement for
more than 41 years for his 1972 conviction in the murder of prison guard
Brent Miller. It is a conviction that he and the other members of the
Angola 3 have fought because they have maintained their innocence in the
brutal stabbing.
Given his critical diagnosis, his lawyers and organizations like Amnesty International are pushing for a compassionate release.
Asked whether he thought there was any chance that Wallace would receive
a compassionate release, Trenticosta’s response was telling. “I don’t
think so, and part of the reason is the state of Louisiana in the past
six years has spent $6 million dollars in lawyer fees to keep a
71-year-old man in solitary confinement.”
PBS recently premiered “Herman’s House” about the relationship between
Herman Wallace and artist Jackie Surell who learned about Herman from a
class on solitary confinement where Robert King, the only release
member of the Angola 3 was lecturing. Ironically, it was not premiered
in north Louisiana with the rest of the country. You can stream this
documentary here.
Buddy Caldwell, the attorney general involved in this case has stated
he will not release Herman and Albert because, “If he releases these
men, he will have to release the others” but in the same breath states
they were never in solitary confinement.
Please help us contact the governor of Louisiana
and ask him to release Herman on compassionate release. He doesn’t have
much time left. You can use this form to do it.
Another documentary that tells the complete story to date on the Angola 3 is
"In the Land of the Free" narrated by Samual Jackson. The trailer is here
http://youtu.be/Zkr03dYtlQQ
And Attorney General Caldwell is correct. If Albert and Herman are
released from long term solitary confinement in Louisiana, it could set a
precedent and hundreds of others in solitary will be released.
More information
One of the most comprehensive Angola 3 sites on the web http://www.angola3.org/
In addition to concern for Herman Wallace, the worsening conditions of
confinement for Albert Woodfox in David Wade Correctional Center, near
the town of Homer in Louisiana.
For approximately two months, Woodfox has been subjected to additional
punitive measures, including strip-searches each time he leaves or
enters his cell, being escorted in ankle and wrist restraints,
restricted phone access, and being limited to non-contact visits
through a perforated metal screen. Temperatures in the cells are
reportedly extremely high, regularly reaching up to 38 degrees Celsius, a
serious health risk for inmates confined to their cells for up to 23
hours a day. These risks are even greater in the case of the elderly or
infirm, as their bodies are unable to adjust to the heat as quickly as
those of healthy, younger adults.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Peanut Butter Bar
No-Stick Cooking Spray
1 (18.25 ounce) package Butter Cake Cake Mix
1 cup organic Peanut Butter
1/2 cup water
1 large egg
Peanut
Butter/Chocolate icing
1/3 cup butter, softened
1/3 cup creamy peanut butter
1-1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
2-1/2 cups confectioners' sugar
1/3 cup baking cocoa
1/4 teaspoon salt
4 to 5 tablespoons almond milk
Directions
Peanut Butter Bar
Heat oven to 350 degrees F. Lightly spray 13 x 9-inch pan with no-stick cooking spray. In large bowl, combine cake mix, 1 cup peanut butter, water and egg on low speed, mixing 2 minutes on medium speed. Spread into prepared pan.
Bake at 350 degrees F for 20 to 25 minutes or until puffed
and light golden brown. Cool completely.
Icing
Mix all ingredients together until blended. Spread over
cooled bars
Cupcakes 1 box Betty Crocker® SuperMoist® lemon cake mix
1 box (4-serving size) lime-flavored gelatin
3/4 cup water
1/3 cup Key lime juice
1/3 cup vegetable oil
3 eggs
2 or 3 drops green food color, if desired
Glaze
1 cup powdered sugar
2 to 2 1/2 tablespoons Key lime juice
Frosting
1 package (8 oz) cream cheese, softened
1/4 cup butter or margarine, softened
1 teaspoon vanilla
3 1/2 cups powdered sugar
Grated lime peel, if desired
Heat oven to 350°F (325°F for dark or nonstick pan). Place paper baking cup in each of 24 regular-size muffin cups. In large bowl, beat cupcake ingredients with electric mixer on low speed 30 seconds, then on medium speed 2 minutes, scraping bowl occasionally. Divide batter evenly among muffin cups, filling each about two-thirds full.
Bake 19 to 24 minutes or until toothpick inserted in center comes out clean. Cool in pan 10 minutes. Remove from pan to cooling rack. With toothpick or wooden skewer, pierce tops of cupcakes in several places.
In small bowl, mix 1 cup powdered sugar and enough of the 2 to 2 1/2 tablespoons lime juice until glaze is smooth and thin enough to drizzle. Drizzle and spread glaze over cupcakes. Cool completely, about 30 minutes.
In large bowl, beat cream cheese and butter on medium speed until light and fluffy. On low speed, beat in vanilla and 3 1/2 cups powdered sugar until mixed; beat on medium speed until fluffy. Frost cupcakes, mounding and swirling frosting in center. Garnish with lime peel. Store covered in refrigerator.
"8" premiered in L.A. with a star-studded cast that included supporters of marriage equality like Brad Pitt and George Clooney. The Shreveport performance will feature local celebrities.On February 17th at 7:30 pm at the Karpeles Museum, River City Repertory Theatre will do a 1-night only performance of "8", the play based on the Prop 8 trial.
Tickets can be purchased by calling 318-868-5888 daily from 11-4. All seats are $30. Profits go to the American Foundation for Equal Rights.
AFER is the nonprofit that spearheaded the court challenge to Prop 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. This court challenge drew lots of attention because our side (proponents of marriage equality) had as its legal representation the dream team of liberal icon David Boies and conservative icon Ted Olson, who were on opposing sides in the landmark Bush v. Gore which decided the 2000 election. Boies and Olson were successfuland Prop 8 was overturned. This court decision has been appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which has agreed to hear the appeal.
Why "8"
Uncover the truth about marriage for gay and lesbian Americans. "8"-a new play by Academy-award winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk, J. Edgar)-demystifies the debate around marriage equality by chronicling the landmark trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Hollingsworth v. Perry). Learn about the historical context of marriage from expert testimony. See the human cost of discrimination. Uncover the arguments used to justify bans on marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Using the actual court transcripts from the landmark federal trial of California's Prop. 8 and first-hand interviews, "8" shows both sides of the debate in a moving 90-minute play.
See video from the original play at AFER's web site: http://www.8theplay.com/ and at River City Repertory Theatre's web site: http://www.rivercityrep.org
The Rep is being supported by P.A.C.E. and the ACLU of Louisiana
"AIDS is essentially a crisis of
governance, of what governments do and do not do to and for their people – we
have the drugs to treat HIV infection, we have the tools to confront the risks
that drive HIV transmission and prevent infection itself – what we don’t have
is national political will necessary to scale-up our response. We have demanded
too little from our leaders, excused far too much." Gregg Gonsalves,
speech at the 2006 Toronto AIDS Conference.
I became an HIV/AIDS activist in 1986
when I was in my twenties. Personal loss, anger, and a vow to see the end of
HIV/AIDS has kept me moving towards this goal for twenty five years. To be
young and idealistic and following a calling, so many have, it’s what young
people do, but what happens when the stakeholders are so affected they continue
into the years that follow? Strides are made along the way, small victories,
with as many setbacks. There is nothing more compelling than losing a love one
to a disease perceived as a moral justification to sin. It was the loss of one
special person that moved me into the realization of what social injustice is.
Up until that point, I had never been affected by anything so compelling as to
be driven beyond my comfort zone and shake my fist at the status quo.
The interesting part of my leadership is
that it came from a collective action organization. Many of the leaders of
ACT-UP Shreveport went on to become executive directors and project managers of
HIV/AIDS resource centers. It was a tricky migrating from fighting the system
to working to build a system. Leaders of a grassroots organizations experience
major milestones as their organization builds their culture and history.
Unfortunately, not every change process leads to permanent expected results.
This is where leadership skills play at major role in how leaders and followers
deal with setbacks and accomplishments. Change processes and change projects have become major milestones in
many organizations’ history.
Due to the dynamics in the external environment, many organizations find themselves in continuous change. For those who are new to leadership, building skills to facecrisis’ that many times involved life or death to those they serve can be extremely terrifying. The scope reaches from smaller change projects in each department of the organization, up to organization wide transformation processes but effects many individual lives the most. Our motto had become, “Change is the only constant.” This
article will outline my first experience as a leader and an agent of change,
describe who was affected, where it took place, the change model that was used,
and how we rewarded failed policies and victories.
The Beginning
ACT-UP Shreveport at the Action on NIH
AIDS Coalition to Unleash
Power(ACT UP) is an international direct action advocacy group working to impact the lives of people living with AIDS, (PWAs) and the AIDS pandemic to bring about legislation, medical research and treatment and policies to ultimately bring an end to the disease by mitigating loss of health and lives. ACT UP was organized as a leaderless and effectively anarchist network. This was intentional on the founder of the group, Larry Kramer's part; he describes it as democratic to a fault. “We used a simple formula for recruitment, to a certain extent, this is how democratic politics is supposed to work in general. You convince people of the validity of your ideas. You have to go out there and convince people"(actupny.org, 1987).
My loss of a dear friend probably isn’t much different than every AIDS activist who is either infected or affected by HIV/AIDS. Those who are personally affected or traumatized, combined with a social environment, usually are people who will find themselves “answering the calling”. I found myself as one of five founding members of the newly formed ACTUP Shreveport, with the idealist notion that we would see the end of the AIDS epidemic.
ACT-UP Shreveport was considered one of the leading local
branches of the national network. Quoting from the National Institute of
Health’s history of HIV/AIDS website that features ACT-UP Shreveport, “The
original ACT-UP group from New York inspired numerous other branches
nationwide, as well as campaigning in their own states, local groups from
across the country attended major rallies” (NIH.com). Hundreds of people
locally responded to the call. Along with one sympathetic local physician, we
were able to bring forth the first HIV/AIDS resource center, The Philadelphia
Center (Philly) and clinic in north Louisiana, The Viral Disease Clinic at LSU
Medical Center. It was an amazing accomplishment for those initial six people,
two of which were diagnosed with AIDS, and three people who loved them dearly,
and the very compassionate doctor, Marcus Spurlock (D-Demaree, 2011).
Part
of ACT-UP Shreveport’s agenda was to assist in acquiring funding for an AIDS
Resource Center. As we lobbied and protested at the state level, we eventually
saw funding available for the center we envisioned. As many activists, I chose
to work within the system and not protest against it. With funding available, lower
income clients would receive their medication, housing, and other basic needs.
It was a victory in our eyes. In the early years, HIV/AIDS took many lives due
to the lack of antiviral medications, Social Security set up harsh restrictions
disallowing those infected to receive disability income unless they were near
death. More than often, people were too sick to work, therefore too sick to
afford medication, food or housing. The need for ACT-UP Shreveport, The Viral
Disease Clinic, and the Philadelphia Center in Shreveport, Louisiana, was growing
expedientlyweek by weekand month by month.
The Organization
The Philadelphia Center’s mission is to provide supportive services for people who have AIDS and who have contracted HIV as well as prevent the spread of HIV with education and prevention programs. The center also works to improve the quality of life for those who have contracted HIV. Several of the ACTUP Shreveport members went on to help build the Philadelphia Center from the vision to a grassroots organization. In an era of stigma and fear, there were many obstacles to over come. We were determined as a grassroots organization to overcome the barriers before us and reach the mission of the organization.
People Centered Change
People centered change
alters the behavior and skills. For there to be people centered processes,
communicating, motivating, leading, and interaction within the group must be
ongoing (Dougherty, 2002). As leaders, encountering
answers to solve problems, and educate internal and external forces in order to
build the organization. Open communication between the different entities .opened up many questions that would be addressed before
making any steps towards building the structure of the organization.
Leading Strategic Change
The first step was to research
foundations and federal grants that would provide funding in these areas. Once
national and community foundations were identified, the process of application
submission and grant writing began. The Philadelphia Center was able to acquire
the new Ryan White funding the federal government was issuing to assist those
living with HIV/AIDS. With the Viral Disease Clinic newly formed, clients could
be segregated from other patients at the hospital and not withstand further
stigma and scrutiny. This was a major accomplishment for clients. Once someone
tested positive for HIV antibodies, we could work together getting them into
the clinic for follow up tests and then back to our case managers for other
needs such as housing and basic needs.
The criteria in most grant applications are there has to be evidence of
collaborative efforts with other community agencies. This ensures that the work
of a nonprofit will have cross beneficially effect with more than just one
agency’s demographic. This was a major instrument in bringing in other local
agencies who were dependant on grant and foundation funds. Once other agencies
realized they could document and profit from collaboration with the center,
they publicly accepted the organization, and in turn public opinion began to
shift. This is how we were able to motivate others to join us in acceptance
within community agencies and with individuals and fostered collaboration and
we were aspiring others to achieve. In the beginning, The Philly was looked at as a model
HIV/AIDS organization because of the history we had established, building it
from a vision into a grassroots HIV/AIDS organization.
Change
Model
There were two change models applied to
achieving establishing the “Philly Center.” Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model
was used initially. Midway through the change process the Tipping Change Theory
was applied. The first discussion of the change model will be Kotter’s Eight
Step Change Model and the steps taken.
Kotter’s
Eight Step Change Model
The first step
we took in the Eight Step Model was to create urgency for change. This began
when the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and employees of the Philly
tapped into the intellectual capital of the
shareholders and employees by brain storming different paths to take when
scouting out new income sources. We then went to external forces by inquiring
from those affected by the disease, sister organizations, and other community
agencies to assess and evaluate the needs. According
to Kotter, for the change to be successful, 75 percent of the organization
needs to buy into the change (Farris, et al, 2009). We were able to
become more accepted in the community, being invited to come and teach HIV
transmission and prevention within the community and in return began to see
community financial support, as well as forming a powerful coalition locally,
regionally, and nationally.
As
we learned to lead in the community, we were able to understand what our vision
should be. By creating a vision and urgency, those affected could internalize
the change. Each time we went into the community, we would communicate our mission
statement. We spoke of it often, internally and externally.
Removing obstacles
Once
the vision buy in was complete, obstacles to the change became apparent. We
were able to identify the change leaders and what their roles would be to deliver
the change. We set up a system to recognize and reward people who were making
change happen. Case managers were given bonuses if they exceeded their monthly
quota in units billed to the Ryan White funding source. HIV testing counselors
were rewarded bonuses based on the number of people they tested in the
community. Once we identified those who were resisting, we worked to remove
barriers to the change, which was establishing the resource center’s place in
the community, the state, and the country.
Create
Short-term Wins
Nothing
motivates more than watching the success of change. One way to do this is to
create mini goals and short term wins. Some of the ways we created short term
wins was to find full proof projects that were perceived as non-threatening to
those involved. The organization grew slowly and did not jump into goal targets
that were expensive. As funding came in, each department grew until other
projects like the Mercy Center, a residential facility; The Mercy Center for
homeless people living with HIV was acquired by a local hospital system.
Building confidence as Leaders
Kotter stated that change projects fail because
victory is declared too early. Real change runs deep and there are no short
cuts to lasting change (Farris, et al, 2009). As leaders of the Philly Center,
we did this by analyzing what went right and how to improve the change. We
continued to remove obstacles and set goals to a path of achievement. Once the achievements toward
change were met, we engrained it as part of the organizations culture. We made
sure constant efforts to ensure that the change permeated
through every aspect of the Philly
Center. By doing this, it gave the change a solid hold in organization's
culture.
The
Role of the Leader
There are three leadership
qualities of leadership; visionary, participant, and
transactional, which produce effective organizational change (Manz, et
al, 1991). When leaders act as advocates for change,
they won’t allow the process of change to falter from lack of attention. They
are willing to invest their political capital to rally those affected. They
must be the role model for those in the organization. They must be the decision
maker and take responsibility for those decisions. They must be the voice, motivator,
and enforcer. Others in the organization need someone to look up to while
processing the change they are going through. A good leader will be assessable
to them making the process seem easy.
I am convinced
because we came from a collective action activist background, we were
instinctively grounded in these leadership qualities. We were visionary; we
still are. We led by example; we had only ourselves to follow up with tasks.
The day we heard Ryan White funding was granted a second funding cycle, we
celebrated the victory and then went out and distributed condoms at truck stops
and gay bars. We led by being followers and in return, rallied many volunteers
and supporters.
Lessons
of Leadership Learned
I continue to learn many lessons as a leader, but in the early
days of ACT-UP Shreveport and the Philadelphia Center, experiences that were
new stuck with me the most. In the beginning many emotional components were the
important characteristics of leadership. I was desperate for knowledge about HIV/AIDS for effective
decision making and relied on others to help me with it. I learned there was
more than one right solution and learned to evaluate facts from various points
of view. I learned to listen to clients, their needs came first, and I saw
anti-gay and anti-AIDS policies as something to rebuke, not something to bow
to.
The
most important thing I learned, the importance of transferring ownership to
everyone I worked with and to proclaim everyone as hero. This in my opinion is
the most important precondition for success; the buy in and involvement of
others. I learned to hate the word subordinate and replaced it with co-hero.
Everyone in this battle is a hero, the struggles are beyond belief, with the
backdrop being the Deep South. Commitment can only be gained when others are
given the opportunity to give. That leads me to the final lesson; “The Ask.” Asking
for what you need to make others lives better. It is a gift to give and most
people want to give, they just don’t know how. Everyone needs to know their
contribution is important and valued. When they do, they own successes everyone
has worked together to achieve.
Conclusion
As one of the leaders of ACT-UP Shreveport and The Philly Center, I
learned how to progress from one milestone to another
by creating a plan to overcome barriers that mapped out structure and time restraints.
There were many plans. Work plans that were subject to change based on whatever
crisis happened that day. Service plans for clients to meet their needs, even
though ultimately those needs were never met because they died too soon.
Funeral plans and helping grieving families and partners through the months
that followed. Plans were the only way we were going to meet the demands of so
many variables.
Barriers
to implementation were preoccupation with the day to day details, lack of
teamwork, conflicting priorities, and funding issues. I learned that execution
takes time, especially when grant requirements usually demand evidence based
outcomes that must be documented over time. By implementing the “tipping point”
theory of change, which was scribbled on our things to do chalk board, improvements
that appeared to be small, functions that needed to empower consumers, were better
executed to reach our mission; to serve more people with greater outcomes.
Over thirty three million men, women, and children are thought
to be living with HIV. Even with the strides made today, discrimination,
stigma, ignorance and the lack of effective preventive measures are still huge
barriers that stifle reaching the ultimate goal; the end of HIV/AIDS. We just
can’t afford the enormous medical expense and the loss of life. Twenty five
years and counting, and the battle is still as enormous. I always knew it wasn’t going to be easy. I always knew it was
going to be worth it.
References
Against The Odds:A New Disease. (n.d.). Retrieved
from
The Siren's Call: Agent of Change- HIV/AIDS Activists Demand the End to the Madness. (n.d.).The Siren's Call. Retrieved
from http://d-demaree.blogspot.com/2011/12/agent-of-change-hivaids-hope-for-and.html
To elect a master or many, for a long or short time, is to
resign one's liberty.
Call it an absolute monarch, a constitutional king, or a
simple M.P., the candidate that you raise to the throne, to the seat, or to the
easy chair, he will always be your master. They are persons that you put
"above" the law, since they have the power of making the laws, and
because it is their mission to see that they are obeyed.
For the first time in my life, my right wing conservative
father and I have decided neither of us are voting for Obama or Romney.
"Who should we vote for then," he asked. Never been asked that of my
father, I had a suggestion, "Let's just not vote".
Bad Leaders or Bad System?
The Democratic party bemoaned the fact that Obama
"immediately made huge concessions to forces
to the right of him." Rather than
place this action in an institutional context,
the forces placed on the elected person by the state machinery and
pressures from big business, the Republicans portray these decisions are the
failings of an individual. They argue we "need to keep up the pressure to
demand Obama listens to ordinary workers and not to business."
As well as economic pressures from capitalists resulting
from capital flight, withdrawal of support, and so on, representatives also
face pressures within the state itself due to the bureaucracy that comes with
centralism. There is a difference between the state and government. The state
is the permanent collection of institutions that have entrenched power
structures and interests. The government is made up of various politicians. It
is the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence, not
the representatives who come and go. We cannot expect different politicians to
act in different ways to the same pressures. However, this is all ignored by
the Democrats in favour of wishing Obama was more a liberal and could ignore
the demands of the dominant class in society while in charge of one part of its
protector and creation, the state.
They also argue that the low level of turn out in the
elections indicate "a sign of deep alienation that millions of people feel
from the whole political system, one which does not reflect their views or give
them a voice." Presumably, the
Democrats seek to give these people "a voice," to involve them in the
political system by getting them to vote on various social issues. They can
only do that by overcoming the alienation people feel towards the capitalist
system by ensuring that it does "reflect their views." If that is the
case then surely this implies that the Democrats will be working within the
capitalist system, trying to influence it from within and, by necessity,
subject to the same institutional pressures that generated reformist, unless,
of course, they argue that it is the ideas of the party leaders that are the
decisive factor rather than the social environment in which they operate?
What is significant, however, than Lenin's arguments were
fundamentally idealist in nature, looking to the intentions and will-power of
the individuals involved rather than a materialist analysis based on the nature
of the capitalist state, the way it is structured to protect and enforce
bourgeois rule, the influences and pressures of the permanent state apparatus
on the elected representatives, the economic pressure exerted by capital, and
so on.
Parties and Power
The use of electioneering has a centralising effect on the
movements that use it. Political actions become considered as parliamentary
activities made for the population by their representatives, with the 'rank and
file' left with no other role than that of passive support. Only the leaders
are actively involved and the main emphasis falls upon the leaders. It soon
becomes taken for granted that they should determine policy (even ignoring
conference decisions when required -- how many times have politicians turned round
and done the exact opposite of what they promised or introduced the exact
opposite of party policy?). In the end, party conferences become simply like
parliamentary elections, with party members supporting this leader against
another.
Soon the party reflects the division between manual and
mental labour so necessary for the capitalist system. Instead of working class
self-activity and self-determination, there is a substitution and a non working
class leadership acting for people replaces self-management in social struggle
and within the party itself takes shape. Electioneering strengthens the leaders
dominance over the party and the party over the people it claims to represent.
And, of course, the real causes and solutions to the problems we face are mystified
by the leadership and rarely discussed in order to concentrate on the popular
issues that will get them elected.
Working in the state ensures a statist perspective becomes
dominant. Everything is seen in terms of state intervention, following the
decisions of the leaders and quickly results in radicals "instead of
weakening the false and enslaving belief in law and government . . . actually
work[ing] to strengthen the people's faith in forcible authority and
government." [A. Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 84] Which has always proved deadly
to encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help -- the very
keys to creating change in a society.
Thus the 1870 resolution of the Spanish section of the First
International seems to have been proven to be totally correct:
"Any participation of the working class in the middle
class political government would merely consolidate the present state of
affairs and necessarily paralyse the socialist revolutionary action of the
proletariat. The Federation [of unions making up the Spanish section of the
International] is the true representative of labour, and should work outside
the political system." [quoted by Jose Pierats, Anarchists in the Spanish
Revolution, p. 169]
Instead of trying to gain control of the state, for whatever
reasons, anarchists try to promote a culture of resistance within society that
makes the state subject to pressure from without. Or, to quote Proudhon, we see
the"problem before the labouring classes . . . [as] consist[ing of] not in
capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly, -- that is, in generating
from the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a greater authority,
a more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the state and subjugate
them." For, "to combat and reduce power, to put it in its proper
place in society, it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce
some variation into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination
must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become
its slave."[System of Economical Contradictions, p. 398 and p. 397] Direct
action is the key way of doing this and the means of creating such a
"combination."
State and Structure
The simple fact is that the bourgeois state has been
developed to enforce minority rule. Its structure is no more an accident than
the structure of a bird's wing. The wing has evolved to enable flight. The
state has evolved a structure based upon minority, top-down rule that ensures
the continence and protection of that rule. And as Kropotkin argued, anarchists
"maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to which
minorities resorted for establishing and organising their power over the
masses, cannot be the force which will serve to destroy these privileges."
[Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 170]
The same means cannot be used to serve different ends as
there is an intrinsic relationship between the instruments used and the results
obtained -- that is why the bourgeoisie do not encourage participatory
democracy in the state or the workplace! Just as the capitalist workplace is
organised to produce proletarians and capital along with cloth and steel, the
capitalist state is organised to protect and reinforce minority power. The
state and the capitalist workplace are not simply means or neutral instruments.
Rather they are social structures which generate, reinforce and protect
specific social relations. These social relations are based on delegating power
to others, letting leaders act for you, letting others fight for you. These
have an impact on those who use these tactics, both the individuals and the
organisations.
The "essence" of state is, to use Luigi Frabbi's
words, "centralised power" and "hierarchical despotism." It
is based on delegating power into the hands of a few -- in a democracy, elected
representatives and the state bureaucracy. It should be a truism that elections
empower the politicians and not the voters. Parliamentarianism focuses the
fight for change into the hands of leaders by its very nature. Rather than
those involved doing the fighting, the organising, the decision making, that
power rests in the hands of the representative. The importance of the leaders
is stressed, as it must be in a centralised system.
Not voting? Not Enough!
As part and parcel of anarchist support on direct action is
abstentionism. This signifies the rejection of voting. However, there is more
than one kind of abstentionism. There is passive and active abstentionism. Passive
abstentionism is that associated with alienation, apathy and a-politicalism.
The one which bases itself on a "cannot be bothered," cynical
attitude and little else. This form of abstentionism easily leads to rejecting
all forms of struggle and politics, including direct action and anarchism.
Anarchists are against this just as much as any socialist voter.
Rather, anarchists see abstentionism as a positive
statement, a means of turning the natural negative reaction to an unjust system
into positive activity (i.e. direct action, solidarity, self-activity and
self-organisation). So, anarchist opposition to electioneering has deep
political implications which Luigi Galleani addressed when he wrote: "anarchists' electoral abstentionism implies not only a
conception that is opposed to the principle of representation (which is totally
rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute lack of confidence in
the State. . . Furthermore, anarchist abstentionism has consequences which are
much less superficial than the inert apathy ascribed to it by the sneering
careerists of 'scientific socialism' [i.e. Marxism]. It strips the State of the
constitutional fraud with which it presents itself to the gullible as the true
representative of the whole nation, and, in so doing, exposes its essential
character as representative, procurer and policeman of the ruling classes.
"Distrust off reforms, of public power and of delegated
authority, can lead to direct action [in the class struggle]. . . It can
determine the revolutionary character of this . . . action; and, accordingly,
anarchists regard it as the best available means for preparing the masses to
manage their own personal and collective interests; and, besides, anarchists
feel that even now the working people are fully capable of handling their own
political and administrative interests." [The End of Anarchism?, pp.
13-14]
I reject the view that society is static and that people's
consciousness, values, ideas and ideals cannot be changed. Far from it and
anarchists support direct action because it actively encourages the
transformation of those who use it. Direct action is the means of creating a
new consciousness, a means of self-liberation from the chains placed around our
minds, emotions and spirits by hierarchy and oppression. Therefore, anarchists urge abstentionism in order to
encourage activity, not apathy. The reasons why people abstain is more
important than the act. The idea that the USA is closer to anarchy because
around 50% of people do not vote is nonsense.
Abstentionism in this case is the product of apathy and
cynicism, not political ideas. So anarchists recognise that apathetic
abstentionism is not revolutionary or an indication of anarchist sympathies. It
is produced by apathy and a general level of cynicism at all forms of political
ideas and the possibility of change.
Not voting is not enough, and anarchists urge people
to organise and resist as well. Abstentionism must be the political counterpart
of class struggle, self-activity and self-management in order to be effective. Source
Developing an organizational structure that will transform an organization to meet the demands of its shareholders is difficult and challenging. One key to this process is communication. “An organization’s long-term survival may best be judged by its ability to manage change rather than by its current balance sheet” (Clampitt & Berk). Most organizations are more than able to crunch numbers and evaluate rates of return than they are capable of effectively measure implemented change efforts.
Here you will find an historical account of a nonprofit in need of reorganization, its challenges, the change model needed, and the changes needed to meet the demands of everyone affected by the change. David Hylan, the Executive Director of the Betty and Leonard Phillips Deaf Action Center in Shreveport Louisiana knew he would need to envision goals and create a new mission statement that would create income revenue from secure grant money as to create a continuum of care for the consumers they served. He understood that many of the consumers were in transition as well. Many were affected by governmental budget cuts to those who are disabled, as were the employees themselves. This article will outline how The Deaf Action Center in Shreveport Louisiana, transformed into a vital organization by reorganizing internally as well as externally.
The Organization
The DeafActionCenter in Shreveport, Louisianais the only agency of its kind in north Louisiana. Their innovative services are being accessed by other agencies throughout Louisiana and the country. They work with any agency in north Louisiana who requires hearing translation, which includes schools, government, hospitals, and social settings. Being one of the most innovative Deaf services agencies in the country, they rarely face duplication of services. Many programs are unique and are not offered anywhere else in the state and in some cases the nation. In addition to the wonderful service programs the Center now offers, they are continuously evaluating new research data and emerging technologies to develop innovative solutions that directly address their client’s needs.
The Mission Statement
The Mission Statement of a nonprofit organization informs employees, shareholders, vendors, and consumers how it will achieve the organizations mission. There is a tremendous amount of employee buy in when the mission statement is geared towards inspiring those involved (Brueckner, 2012). The mission of the Deaf Action Center is to serve as a provider of direct services and as a coordinating, cooperative and referral center utilizing the services of otologists, audiologists, counselors, educators and other professional personnel. The Deaf Action Center (DAC), seeks to cooperate with and not compete with, all present agencies and organizations working in the field of deafness and other hearing impairments. It constantly evaluates its own purposes and accomplishments in relationship to the current and future needs of Deaf and hard of hearing persons. It seeks to fill the needs which are not being fully met, as determined by objective evaluations, and/or through technical support, it encourages other agencies or organizations to meet these needs (Hylan).
Issues confronting the Organization
The organization was not in a financial well standing two years ago. Governmental budget cuts in the state of Louisiana had left DAC with nearly a fourth of the budget it has been working with. The closure of the organization was projected to happen by the end of the funding period. Compounded to the fiscal issues, a problem in the region, Louisiana lost 60% of its American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting workforce to migration since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Louisiana interpreters now number only 46 for the whole state. Yet, even before the effects of this loss of skilled interpreters, the National Organization on Disability conducted a 2005 special needs assessment following the Katrina emergency and concluded: “the most underserved group was those who are deaf or hard of hearing.” Having actual people to interpret for the Deaf was a huge crisis in the state (EEPHL, n.d.).
The Executive Director, David Hylan, decided to diversify and expand services outside of sign language interpretation that were being provided to various entities in the community as well as created an avenue to provide sign language interpretation as well as classes to teach interpreters through video conferencing and webinars. As with most other agencies, the DAC looked for other income outlets. The agency had been providing some American Sign Language training classes via video conferencing as well as some case management to clients, even though there was no actually funding in place to provide these services. It was then David Hylan decided to expand their services to provide webinars across the country to professionals to receive continuing education units (CEUs) which social workers, lawyers, and nurses all need for licensure renewals. The DeafActionCenter realized they would need extensive upgrades to expand services and create a vital income source for the organization. Due to the nature of American Sign Language (ASL) high definition equipment would be needed to offer regularly scheduled webcasts for the Deaf, more live training for interpreters & underemployed or unemployed deaf people.If this goal could be realized, then a viable continuing income source would be established that would be independent from relying on contractual restraints lasting two to five years of foundation grants.
Organizational and Structural Changes
Organizational structure is the base of operational policy development. The structure is responsible for the culture of the organization as well. The DAC found it necessary to change the structure of the organization to become more competitive, especially competing with so many other nonprofits who had suffered huge losses from government funding. The DAC would need to be unique and innovative when competing for foundation grant monies.
The first step was for Hylan to assess the type of change needed. When looking from the inside out, it is not easy to perceive the problem and the magnitude of the change. Those initiating change often underestimate the impact that the change will have. The upgrades needed to become a full video conferencing studio that needed professional guidance from similar service providers as well as educational needs of the staff. With all participants on board, an urgency was created, and along with it, an excitement for the upcoming change.
People Centered Change
People centered change alters the behavior, skills, and how productive employees are. For there to be people centered processes, communicating, motivating, leading, and interaction within the group must be ongoing (Dougherty, 2002). Hylan encountered a need to change how problems would be solved, the way employees would be educated in new skills, and a reconstruction of employee self perception.
Open communication between the different entities .opened up many questions that would be addressed before making any steps towards such an overwhelming change to the structure of the organization. Some of the questions that would need addressing were:
·Are the benefits readily observable?
·Will key relationships be adversely impacted?
·Is management prepared for employee reactions to change?
Strategic Change
It became evident that to add to an already underfunded over worked operation, it would be necessary to adjust the strategy of the former goals of the organization, including the mission statement, to foster the expansion of the new demands. By doing so, Hylan found himself considering adjusting the fundamental approach to how the DAC was doing business. To expand the presence of the DAC from a local community organization to a nationally respected cutting edge nonprofit, the kinds of products he would have available, how they would be sold would be as far reaching as state and national markets. It would also give partnering organizations the opportunity to provide CEUs in their prospective fields for a fee. This kind of collaboration is gold to prospective grantors. There is nothing a foundation loves more than to see than the money they grant be used as seed money for bigger projects, and become self containing. That is exactly what Hylan did; offer one or two nonprofit agencies an opportunity to buy in byeducating their demographics through webinars for a fee to those seeking to earn continuing education units (Clamped & Berk).
Process Oriented (Funding) Change
Expanding the capacity to a continuous revenue source by offering CEUs to professionals, creating the capacity to offer ASL classes online, as well as other webinar services that included English as a Second Language classes to the Deaf, would more than make up for the lost federal grants that had kept the agency afloat for many years. The first step was to research foundations that would provide funding in these areas. Once national and community foundations were identified, the process of application submission and grant writing began.
Create Boundary Crossing Partnerships
The criteria in most grant applications are there has to be evidence of collaborative efforts with other community agencies. This ensures that the work of a nonprofit will have cross beneficially effect with more than just one agency’s demographic. They would be expected to explain the differences and similarities of the DAC to other agencies providing similar services, and they would have to show any efforts undertaken to eliminate duplication of services. Most importantly they would have to be able to eloquently tell the story of not only their mission, but stand above all the other agencies that were battling for an ever decreasing amount of funds. In this economy, even foundations are feeling the effects and are unable to increase the amount they give or continue to give the amounts they had in the past (Chatfield).
Structural
It was evident there was a need to streamline structures and with that there would be staff changes and changes to the organizational chart. In one case, it was determined there would need to be staff layoffs or the combining of two positions into one. New staff would need to be hired to over see the functions of new equipment if funding for these innovative projects were met through foundation grants. With these new observations, Hylan began restructuring the organizational chart to reflect the changes to the organization’s staff requirements.
Change Model
There were actually two change models applied to achieving the reorganization of the DAC. Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model was used initially. Midway through the change process the Tipping Change Theory was applied. The first discussion of the change model will be Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model and the steps taken.
Kotter’s Eight Step Model
Step One: Create an Urgency
The first step Hylan took in the Eight Step Model was to create urgency for change. This began when Hylan tapped into the intellectual capital of the shareholders and employees by brain storming different paths to take when scouting out new income sources. He then went to external forces by inquiring from vendors, sister organizations, and other community agencies to assess and evaluate the needs. According to Kotter, for the change to be successful, 75 percent of the organization needs to buy into the change (Farris, et al, 2009). Once he accomplished this task, he moved to the second step.
Step Two: Form a Powerful Coalition
To create a powerful coalition, one must convince people that the change in necessary. To accomplish this, strong leadership and support for external and internal forces are needed. Most importantly, change cannot be delegated. Hylan didn’t dispense duties to department heads and expect them to follow through, leadership began with him. He was willing to put as much work into making the change as those he led. His way of leading was to form change coalitions and work as a team.
Step Three: Create a Vision for Change
He created a clear simple vision that could easily be internalized by those affected by the change. To create the vision of change, he determine the values that are central to the change and developed a short simple summary that captured what he saw as the future of the DAC. He then created a strategy to execute that vision. He made sure those involved in the change could describe the vision to ensure they would buy into it and he communicated his "vision speech" often to himself and others.
Step 4: Communicating the Vision
Communicating the vision would be determinate of his success. To ensure the vision was properly communicated, Hylan and staff talked about the change vision often. He created an open door policy where honest dialog and concerns were addressed. He applied all aspects of operations to incorporate the vision for change. And most importantly, he led by example.
Step 5: Removing obstacles
Once the vision buy in was complete, obstacles to the change became apparent. He thenidentified the change leaders and what their roles would be to deliver the change. He then set up a system to recognize and reward people who were making change happen. He then identified those who were resisting and removed barriers to the change.
Step 6: Create Short-term Wins
Nothing motivates more than watching the success of change. One way to do this is to create mini goals and short term wins. Some of the ways the DAC created short term wins was to find sure fire projects that were perceived as non threatening to those who would be critical. The organization grew slowly and did not jump into goal targets that were expensive. As funding came in, the studio grew with better equipment. It slowly evolved and Hylan was able to justify the investment with each project.
Step 7- Build on the Change
Kotter stated that change projects fail because victory is declared too early. Real change runs deep and there are no short cuts to lasting change (Farris, et al, 2009). Hylan did this by analyzing what went right and how to improve the change. He set goals to continue on the path of achievement.
Step 8: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture
Finally once the achievements toward change were met, he made sure it became part of the organizations culture. He made sure constant efforts to ensure that the change permeated through every aspect of the DAC. By doing this, it gave the change a solid hold in organization's culture.
The Role of the Leader
There are three leadership qualities of leadership, visionary, participant, and transactional which produce effective organizational change (Manz, et al, 1991). When leaders act as advocates for change, they won’t allow the process of change to falter from lack of attention. They are willing to invest their political capital to rally those affected. They must be the role model for those in the organization. They must be the decision maker and take responsibility for those decisions. They must be the voice, motivator, and enforcer. Others in the organization need someone to look up to while processing the change they are going through. A good leader will be assessable to them making the process seem easy.
The Plan to Overcome Barriers
Barriers to implementation include preoccupation with the day to day details, lack of teamwork, conflicting priorities, and funding issues. A good start is implementing a work plan to map out structure and time restraints. One of the strategies that were used at the DAC was an understanding that planning and execution is dependant on success. Execution takes time, especially when grant requirements usually demand evidence based outcomes that must be documented over time. Once those figures were in place, Hylan was able to reach out for funding in the private sector. The “tipping point” theory of change was implemented,, which means even with improvements that appear to be small and functions needed to empower consumers, they were able to serve more people with greater outcomes, financially as well as the quality of services with enormous impact that reached not only those who require our services locally, but also be a model for other agencies to implement when fulfilling their mission statements.
Conclusion
With these change theories in place, various foundation grant providers have given of over $1,000,000 since the financial crisis two years ago. The funding received has provided new jobs for professionals in this field, as well as acted as seed money for a lasting revenue source without outside assistance. Over the last year, just webinars alone, has generated nearly $60,000 in a year, not counting various classes via the web. As a community project and grant requirement, DAC has offered the use of the facility to other nonprofits to offer CEUs as an income generator. It is what grant givers dream of in a nonprofit organization. And here today is the final product of his and the organizations efforts. The video capibilities are exception and down right fancy.
References:
Brueckner, T. K. (2012). The importance of mission buy-in by staff and clients. Senior Market
Chatfield, M. (n.d.). Self-Directed and Self-Managed Teams. http://www.imetacomm.com. Retrieved September 10, 2012, from http://www.irism.com/selfteam.htm
