It's that time of year again on college campuses: final exams have given way to Frisbee on the quad, boxes are packed, and every telephone pole bears a bright yellow poster that says, "Summer Jobs with the Campaign to Save the Environment!"
There must be a better way.
Many a student has torn off that little yellow phone number, with its tantalizing promise of virtuous and exciting employment. Should students pursue the job, they'll find themselves quickly swept into a year-round operation -- an industry, almost -- of canvassers fanning out across well-to-do liberal neighborhoods and upscale pedestrian malls across America. This army, manned by divisions from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Public Interest Research Group, and others*, is burning shoe leather looking, searching, hoping for that next elusive eco-minded citizen to enlist in the movement.
When student canvassers find such a person, they pull out glossy materials detailing one environmental problem or another (focus-grouped to find the issues most worrisome to the targeted, wealthy audience), express the urgency of the situation, and -- drumroll, please -- drop the big "ask": a check, monthly if possible.
But what if a listener got so riled up by the canvasser's description of climate change, deforestation, or urban sprawl that he or she wanted to get active -- lobby! demonstrate! organize! -- rather than give money? This person might be a great public speaker, a natural organizer, or a talented artist who could contribute more value to the movement with a week of volunteering than with annual membership dues. The hastily trained canvassers would probably suggest checking out a group's website and signing up for emails, but they're not really sure -- all they've been taught to do is ask for money.
For decades, environmentalism has been suffering the ill effects of atrophying from a social movement into a line-up of mailing-list-driven interest groups. It certainly isn't for lack of knocking on doors -- but it's what comes after the knock that counts. When civil-rights organizers went through the Deep South to register black voters in the early 1960s, they didn't ask for donations to send to national headquarters. They talked, listened, pulled together meetings, and formulated plans for community action. When the national environmental groups put a real person face to face with a fellow citizen -- giving the issue the kind of exposure some advertisers pay millions for -- they just ask for money. Because they're trying to meet shortsighted fundraising goals, they waste the opportunity to truly engage people.
In a society that needs active citizens, every person that national environmental groups ask for money is one more person who hasn't been asked to become active in a more meaningful way. Instead, they receive the contradictory messages that the environment is in great danger, that we must act, and that the best way to avert this catastrophe is to write a $15 check -- and maybe change some light bulbs.
The same line appears in fundraising appeals in the mail. It's not hard to see how people might become disillusioned with the movement. They might stop contributing. They might lose hope that we can in fact make progress. They might not be surprised when the media reports the "death of environmentalism."
It doesn't make any sense -- strategically or tactically for the movement, and psychologically for those being asked -- to respond to a threat like climate change by writing a check. Everyone knows at some level that our society's institutions need to respond to climate change, and it only makes intuitive sense to be asked to help make that happen. It's practically an insult to ask people to do anything less.
When you factor in the expense of running canvassing operations, mailing out fundraising appeals, and sending out email alerts, the cost to the movement of asking for an annual check rather than time and energy -- and commitment and passion and love and rage -- turns out to be even greater. To top it off, each summer these operations churn out thousands of young people who pour their hearts into canvassing and walk away with the feeling that the movement is nothing but a soulless fundraising machine.
In recent years, environmental groups have tried to follow the organizing and fundraising successes of MoveOn.org with email "action alert" lists. But they've missed the key lesson from that group's success. What MoveOn.org has figured out -- in contrast to D.C.-based interest groups -- is that even in 21st century America, when people are asked to do more, to take action and express outrage commensurate with the problems we all see in our world, even the busiest respond enthusiastically. This is what the national environmental movement needs to relearn.
Every environmental organization sending canvassers to knock on doors this summer and sending emails asking for support should be talking to people about how we can really protect the environment -- not by writing a check or changing a light bulb. They should be asking people to get active in their own communities, and showing them how. They should create opportunities for citizens to contribute their time and talents to efforts that will in fact make change. That would truly be a Campaign to Save the Environment.
* [Correction, 02 Jun 2006: This article originally listed Clean Water Action among groups involved with the Campaign to Save the Environment. In fact, Clean Water Action is not affiliated with that campaign.]
Environmental education in Guinea Bissau
Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1
The Wind Kids: How high school students helped bring a wind farm to Milford, Utah
Comments
View as Flat
Nutella Posted 6:01 am
25 May 2006
My immediate thought was "Well, this is why Democrats are losing elections." But less cynically, I do think that many organizations are too quick to grab any available volunteer for their few moments of free time, and throw them into encounters with the public. Greater understanding of the issues and what one can do, outside of writing a check, is necessary to effect change in any organization.
Permalink
Sam Posted 6:03 am
25 May 2006
Money is important. Money shows that people care. And, money pays for students to spend their summers organizing.
Raising money is organizing.
Would Nathan prefer that organizations depend on foundations, super wealthy individuals or corporations for their support? How would groups pay these summer employees if fundraising wasn't a part of their job? And if they couldn't pay them, wouldn't that limit these jobs to the children of the wealthy? (How much is that Brown Univ. tuition?)
If groups didn't depend on regular individuals for support, and instead relied on the super-wealthy, who would they be beholden to?
The importance, and possibility, of raising money from small donors has been a major lesson of the MoveOn, Dean campaign, etc.
It strikes me that too many people, including this Ivy League student, think asking for money is beneath them. It's not- Karl Rove knows this, Ken Mehlman knows this, the Republican party knows this- Will environmentalists learn this someday too?
Permalink
MBerger47 Posted 6:12 am
25 May 2006
Yes, citizens should do more than write a check and forget about the problem. However, for many citizens, that is all they can do with limited time and awareness. Over time, with each new summer of canvassers, they may get more information and more awareness to actually do something beyond write that check.
This is what the canvassing movement is all about - cementing the desire to change with an action, albeit of just writing a check. From there, a citizen activist is often born to then act in ways that they believe is most progressive for their community and family.
And, the canvasser receives an enormous education in the issues which often deepens their personal comittment to the issues. Most importantly, they get a sense of SELF-EMPOWERMENT that is priceless. Getting complete strangers to write checks for a cause you beleive in is a VERY satisfying experience that paves the way for young canvassers to then pursue and tackle future issues over their lifetimes.
Yes, so much more can be done in the canvasssing experience. But the impact that young canvassers have had on this country has been great and has been under appreciated.
Permalink
rh Posted 6:22 am
25 May 2006
As someone who has been involved in starting up non-profit organizations, I think that having the very people who may be the best source of new ideas and energy for your organization standing on a street corner essentially begging for change is borderline insanity.
It shows an incredible lack of savvy on the part of environmental groups to send out students who are incredibly engaged on their own campuses out to arm-twist people who already get it. Why not have them really get to work on these issues instead of asking me to send the PIRGs a check each month?
I've stopped and had conversations with these kids more than once and I can tell they're really engaged, but I walk away with the feeling that they want to get more from it.
(and to add my own local note, for those of you canvassing Davis Square in Somerville, trust me, you're preaching to the choir!)
If this were such a great method to get people involved, then why aren't other groups of various political persuasions doing it?
Permalink
cjcg Posted 6:23 am
25 May 2006
First, it's a fact that most canvass operations only raise enough money to pay their own expenses. This may seem a little disturbing, but ask yourself why groups keep on doing it. The reason is that the canvass results in tangible, non-financial results that really do help the environment. It helps to generate and maintain the large bases of members that actually give groups like PIRG and the Sierra Club their clout, and that clout sometimes goes a lot further than me and my small network of enviro friends could take it on our own. We all know how to frown at "interest groups," but like it or not, these groups do a great deal of the heavy lifting in the policy world, and they are a real force when it comes to influencing big business to change its ways. The canvass also provides real skills--in leadership, communication, and more--to the students who take it seriously.
That doesn't mean canvass groups can't work better than they do, or that some canvassers don't know too little or focus too much on the money. Canvass groups should be held to a higher standard, but don't dismiss the crucial role they play, and don't bash the efforts of good-hearted people who are just as committed to the cause as you are.
Permalink
Ken1234 Posted 6:49 am
25 May 2006
I'll bet Nathan thinks that money grows on trees.
I'll title this essay:
"Asking people for money is so bourgeois- instead ask your rich parents for money so you can really just talk to people."
Permalink
Glenn Hurowitz Posted 7:04 am
25 May 2006
As for Mr. Wyeth's prescription that we should all just raise money through email, believe me, we try - but you can't fund a $500 million a year movement through email alone (even in the entire 2004 cycle, MoveOn raised only about $50 million - much of that from one big donor).
What's more, it's clear Mr. Wyeth has a lot to learn about organizing. The best way to get somebody invested in your campaign is to get them to contribute money first. This is why even organizations that work primarily with poor people often make their first ask a donation - it's a lot easier to get someone to turn up for an event when they've already put their money into it.
Mr. Wyeth is a good writer and his heart seems to be in the right place. He just needs to toughen up and stop gazing at his navel.
Permalink
DerekB Posted 7:05 am
25 May 2006
Door knocking is the essence of civic engagement, on this point we agree, no? Ok, so how do we get people to knock on doors? As volunteers or as paid staff. Well guess what - 1000s of college students aren't giving up their summer to knock on doors as volunteers. For a door to door operation to be run, people need to be paid, and people get paid by asking for donations.
Canvassing is hardly a cash cow operation. Often it barely breaks even. But the fact is that people are engaged by someone coming to their door. Most canvassers get post cards signed, most organizations that canvass also have volunteer activist components. We need people involved at every level - volunteer activists as well as paid door-to-door outreach and non-volunteer donors.
And finally, the most important aspect of Summer canvassing is the people it brings into the movement. I for one, would not be working as an environmental organizer if I hadn't canvassed after my freshman year. The tens of thousands of people who try canvassing before quitting for an easier job would never have the experience of either going door-to-door or doing environmental work if not for the yellow signs that say summer jobs for the environment. (And frankly, the most people of color I have seen engaged in enviromentalism was through canvassing - where people want a job regardless of race, and people can be any color of the rainbow behind a door.)
ps. Nathan you know i'm gonna grill you on this next time I see you!
Permalink
DerekB Posted 7:08 am
25 May 2006
Permalink
ascendency Posted 8:10 am
25 May 2006
Everybody who has canvassed knows how people's faces change when you ask them for money. Most veteran canvassers are dedicated activists, but to stay sane they often flout some of the rules about limiting conversations in order to educate the home-owners, or to tell them how to get involved in the community, or just to answer some environmental questions. Most groups actively discourage spending time talking to much to someone if they aren't donating, already donated, or simply want to know more. More groups have to realize that at some level, all politics is local and spend more attention to how they use their best local resource, their canvassers and members.
Permalink
rsmith02 Posted 8:22 am
25 May 2006
Activists we identify at the door (people who want to do more than give money) end up on my desk (I'm campaign staff, not canvass staff) and are personally invited to lobby their legislators at the state capitol, to come to a grassroots citizen meeting, or to otherwise take action. At the door, potential supporters are asked to donate and also to write a letter which we pick up the same night. This goes a long way towards helping citizens influence their political officials. Giving money is also essential as it sustains the operation, but the real purpose of canvassing and membership building isn't raising money, but raising public awareness and building a political base.
We don't canvass based on polls- we canvass to augment the organizing of our staff on issues like global warming and chemical pollution.
http://www.cleanwateraction.org/ct/
Permalink
Julieclipse Posted 8:39 am
25 May 2006
On the other end of things, I am frustrated by the fact that canvassing is always front and center when organizations want volunteers or min. wage jobs. I'm an introvert; slightly more than half the population is better predisposed to working phones than I am. When the local PIRG e-mailed a call for volunteers I responded immediately saying that I'd do anything but work the phones. I'm good with animals, I'm good with kids, I'm a decent public speaker, I'm a professional web developer and graphic designer, I can garden and lift heavy things, I can use GIS, I can research and write. I never got a reply. All they want is people to work the phones ...
So finding a healthy grass roots community seems daunting (especially, and a little ironically, since I'm a non-driver). I pursue my own eco work quietly by myself and with my friends.
Permalink
biggie green Posted 9:00 am
25 May 2006
What does this pseudo-arithmetic suggest? It implies that all donation requests are counterproductive. It proposes that donation requests never lead to non-financial investment in a cause.
Likewise, I question Nathan's experience with humanity as he contends, "when people are asked to do more, to take action and express outrage commensurate with the problems we all see in our world, even the busiest respond enthusiastically." Many of my hard-working, high-earning friends, neighbors and co-workers prefer to deal with the world's problems in two ways: address them with tax-deductible donations, and escape them by committing their personal time to family and hobbies. Helpful or not, they defy Nathan's contention.
Finally, while examining why environmentalism may be dead (at least to a disillisioned public), Nathan should consider the success of well-financed industry groups in relentlessly demonizing and discrediting tree-huggers, luddites and cassandras since dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Alas, that tidbit is not as satisfying as the meat on which too many environmentalists feed: the flesh of their own.
Criticism can be constructive, though credibility is almost always a prerequisite. I agree with Nathan that canvassing, along with everything that national environmental groups do, deserves scrutiny in light of an apparently growing demand for civic engagement. But his facile vision leaves little cause to think that his eyes have much wisdom in them... yet.
Permalink
andrew Posted 5:04 pm
25 May 2006
as the chair of a local group of the sierra club, i have gained a lot of members through the canvass. i have also had a lot of friends say they had someone coming to the door asking for money, not have any, and not be told how to get involved with us. it's fine: these friends know how to get in touch with me, but still, money is the only issue discussed at the door.
i have known more people to get burnt out from environmental action through working for the fund for public interest research (a.k.a. the "campaign to save america's environment") than through any other reason. i have also known more people to have a bad experience with that job than with any other job, period.
these bits of experience are certainly subjective: i did grow up in montgomery county, maryland, which derekb dismissed earlier, but i've lived in georgia for four years, now, and it's no less true here.
my simple response is that i think more would be done if people spent 20 hours a week making money at whatever and 15 hours a week volunteering for us than people spending 40 hours a week asking for money. it'll give them more free time, us better help, and leave us more cash for other things.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:11 pm
25 May 2006
I am disturbed by the situation of the young volunteer solicitor, going door to door or whatever, whose task is only to beg, not knowing how to direct the evidently sincere enthusiasm of some of those whom he/she encountered.
Clearly that is the fault of those higher up in the hierarchy. It is not the fault of Nathan, or of anyone putting himself/herself out in such difficult circumstances. We should all be so good!!!
The responsible organizer ought to make available to every contacted person, through these valiant volunteers, in the first place how to contact that organization. Secondly, as much information as possible should be printed up and distributable on the cause that the volunteer fund-raiser is collecting for. Thirdly, the volunteer should be prepared for every possible solicitation from contacted persons regarding other kinds of participation in environmental activism; he/she should be prepared to offer direction or counsel of one kind or another.
Frankly, I find it quite reprehensible that these inspired young people were sent out with such murky directions.
Permalink
rh Posted 11:24 pm
25 May 2006
I work on a college campus that is very engaged. I know that our students don't want to be standing on a street corner asking for money - they want to roll up their sleeves and do something. This is an incredibly engaged generation, but c'mon, asking for checks on the street? That's not where it's at for them, I can assure you.
I ask again, if this is so effective, then why in the hell are environmental groups so marginalized in the national debate? If they have so many of those check-writing members calling their senators and faxing their Congressperson, why does climate change rank below gay marriage in the national debate?
And to whoever mentioned the RNC, Focus on the Family, etc. as other groups who canvass - they grab people on single, visceral issues - immigration, gay marriage - not some undefined idea of the "environment" and the notion that it should be "saved."
Maybe it's time to say "Yep, this has worked in the past, but if we keep going with it, we're still going to be in the same place 10 years from now." And with climate change looming over our heads, we cannot be in the same place ten years from now. It's time to try something new to engage an electorate that is not engaged on this right now.
Permalink
greenmountainboy Posted 2:07 am
26 May 2006
Two of which I want to respond to...
Sam writes
"If knocking on your fellow citizens doors and asking them to make a financial commitment to an issue isn't important work- I don't know what is.
Money is important. Money shows that people care. And, money pays for students to spend their summers organizing. Raising money is organizing."
Wrong. Raising money can support organizing but it certainly isn't a very substantive form of organizing in and of itself. Organizing, grassroots organizing, was best defined by Saul Alinsky who listed its three principles as
Win real, immediate, and tangible improvements in people's lives
Re-align power relationships by building a strong and effective organization
Empower people to become active and effective in the political process, and in their communities
Nathan's piece does not suggest that raising money person to person is bad or that we shouldn't do it. It suggests that there are better ways to do it that won't disenfranchise people who have more to give. By canvassing solely for the sake of fundraising we are putting many of our best and brightest to work at something that only partially gets at the second principle. Nathan is suggesting that students and all other canvassers should be prepared with a broader ask that can work at the first and third of Alinsky's principles as well.
2) The worst response of the bunch however came from Democratic Courage who said "It's understandable that Mr. Wyeth is so inexperienced and lacks any kind of broad perspective when it comes to organizing, but please don't impose it on the rest of us"
As someone who has been doing community, campus, and political organizing since high school I am continually frustrated by the supposed "wisdom" of people like this who are so quick to dismiss brilliant minds like Nathan because he is young. Further, as someone who has organized and run campaigns with Nathan for over six years I can attest that he is anything but inexperienced.
More generally, all of the respondents who tried to hold their age over Nathan as some sort of rebuttal in and of itself need to check themselves and realize that youth have much to add much to these debates, not because of their youth but simply because they are smart people, period. That's right, we have more to give than simply "energy" or "creativity." Oftentimes the most talented and successful organizers and thinkers out there are youth who don't get the chance to show it because people like Democratic Courage see us through the lens of age and not the quality of our ideas and talents.
Further, arguing that we need to continue the traditional model of canvassing because we don't want to rely on corporations of big foundations is a false dilemma that again misses Nathan's point. There is a third way that Nathan hints at - using the canvass to cover all three of Alinsky's principles by giving the people behind those doors more than just an option to donate- say for instance an option to attend a Meetup or a Sierra Club and Beer event - the kind of organizing many Building Environmental Community organizers with the Sierra Club are doing. When I reference my experience on the Dean campaign later, you'll see why this sort of engagement can lead to greater fundraising.
When Nathan wrote "when people are asked to do more, to take action and express outrage commensurate with the problems we all see in our world, even the busiest respond enthusiastically." I can see why some adults dismissed this as pure idealism- their rich friends probably don't want to give more than their money. However, in the student organizing world, Nathan's description is fairly apt and most students are quick to volunteer their time- we're the most service oriented generation that has ever been mapped. The hook to our service? We don't want to feel that we're being used for something that doesn't honor our commitment or vision and we only want to join a community that genuinely values and respects what we have to offer.
Two related but distinct personal stories of my own might help illustrate the difference I think Nathan is trying to highlight - a difference that goes beyond canvassing methods and applies to how organizers in the progressive movement engage people at all levels.
In 2000 I volunteered for the Democratic Party in Lebanon, NH, mostly working on Jeanne Shaheen's Senate campaign. I spent my summer registering students to vote and contacting students who were back from college to make sure they were registered to get their absentee ballots. One idea that I and other students had was to make a "top-ten list" of reasons students should register to vote. It had reasons like "Because Mr. Kelly (the Civics teacher everyone from our city knew) says that if you don't vote you can't complain" and "It's our future that politicians are deciding- we deserve a voice." After finishing the list we sent it off to the Manchester campaign headquarters for approval. We got it back the next day and our list was unrecognizable. The list was no longer the "top ten reasons to vote" it was the "top-ten reasons to vote for Jeanne Shaheen." It included ludicrous and patronizing suggestions like, "because her name rhymes."
Fast forward to the summer of 2003 when I worked for Howard Dean out of his national headquarters in Burlington. When students - or anyone else for that matter - had an idea for how to organize locally, they did it through a meet-up or suggested it on the blog. They were part of a real community that was empowered to get engaged in substantive ways beyond just giving money. Furthermore, I can guarantee you that the people who were giving all those small donations were doing so in large part because they felt personally invested in the campaign - through Meetups and the blog etc. Essentially they were giving money because they were being asked to do more than give money. And they believed in it. That's what students and youth want and need- community where their ideas are shared and respected and can be utilized to organize for REAL change, not just quotas.
Permalink
MBNelson Posted 2:54 am
26 May 2006
I was unimpressed for a few reasons:
The campaigners are not well educated. While I agreed with the issues we defended, I felt I had to do my own research to answer questions I had that the staff could not answer.
The little education we had felt like indoctrination. "Here is why we are right and they are wrong." Sure, I believe in the issues but I have never been one to accept things based solely on faith or emotional attachment. I think this weak form of education for campaigners really weakens their ability to campaign. It also seems very dangerous and irresponsible.
I feel that we miss an opportunity to really reach out to the people who are actually doing the canvassing. If they had a better education on the issues they could have a better commitment to them.
This point is VERY important: The weakness in education also means they may lose opportunities to reach out to those we MOST need to reach. The people that are unsure, or who have serious questions about the issues are the ones we should focus on. We are unable to do that if our canvassers are not prepared to answer and address their questions.
I think we need to all admit that the asking for money thing is a bit of a sham. My understanding is that most of the money goes back into paying the people who canvass. And if I am someone giving money to a cause, I don't really want most of my money going to canvassers who are out collecting money and having conversations with people who already think like I do.
If the point is convincing politicians that people care, then maybe we need to think of some other strategies.
Despite these feelings about the canvassing process I admit I still give to Calpirg... Guess I'm just a softie.
But those are VERY real concerns and I hope someone out there reads them.
Permalink
Sam Posted 3:29 am
26 May 2006
Of course, it's a substantive form of organizing. Money means staff, materials, research, lobbying- take away the member support of these organizations and there goes their work and their politcal power. When a person gives money it helps build a connection (didn't you notice this on the Dean campaign?) It's a deeply politcal act, and incredibly powerful. Do you understand that politicans care about this? That they listen to environmental groups at all because they represent people who care enough to actually give a contribution.
The act of talking to people about problems, policy, politics and what they can do about it is accomplished on the most basic personal level-- face to face. Bypassing the corporate media filter, and allowing for a 2 way conversation.
Another important Alinsky principle is to organize people where they're at. When organizing college students it makes sense to ask for their time. When organizing suburban home owners with jobs and kids it makes sense to ask them for their money.
If people have time they're more than welcome to give it- The only thing that could possibly disenfranchise people is an inexperienced canvasser not knowing (the example in the first comment about the call from the DNC) the other ways for people to get involved. I wish people would stop thinking of these young organizers as service providers who have to have all the answers or they're useless. What a lame message to send to them! Nutella- Why not go to the DNC website yourself, or contact them yourself? Why are you waiting at home for someone to ask you to do something? All of these groups offer activist/volunteer opportunities to their members. Local chapters, citizen advocacy, attending rallies, letter writing, phone calls, house parties, petitioning, citizen canvasses, lte's, etc. And most canvassers should be asking.
And, of course, money doesn't grow on trees. Without paying for themselves through fundraising- none of these groups could either afford to hire students or afford to do much of the work they're doing now.
Frankly, I think it's callow, and a little country club liberal, to suggest that canvassing for money is somehow a less pure or ineffective form of organizing.
I would argue that it's about the only thing the environmental movement is doing right.
Permalink
emaharg Posted 4:48 am
26 May 2006
The real issue is how can we make it better so that it is working to build a movement. On that note, I think Nathan's observation about the distinction between volunteer participation and the membership canvass is really important. Whenever we can make connections to different parts of our organizations and work together in our outreach efforts we will only benefit. The Fund canvass should perhaps give up a bit of their efficiency, slow down, and train their canvassers on what the local organizations are doing on the ground so they can hook those people that are interested into volunteer opportunities.
I also think it is a fallacy to think that because these national organizations hire the Fund to run a membership canvass that on-the-ground movement building is not happening. As a matter of fact, I work for an environmental organization as a community organizer. Every day i am working with volunteers to engage their neighbors on local environmental issues, to go door-to-door to simply talk to people about actions they can take to protect the environment, and to pressure their decision makers to be more responsive.
When my job works, it is incredible. In all honesty, I have to admit that when i ask for people's time, most people ask if they can write me a check instead. This used to make me angry. Now I realize that everyone has a part to play in the movement for a healthier environment. Sometimes people can give money, sometimes they can give time. We should all realize we are part of the same vision for a better future, and figure out ways to make the different parts coordinate better, not condemn one or the other as being more important to the movement.
On a side note, the person who said they live in Portland. If that is the West Coast Portland, get in touch with me or your local Sierra Club if you want opportunities to participate in a grassroots environmental movement. We would love to have you!
Permalink
dhwert Posted 5:39 am
26 May 2006
Why? Because I don't want ~40% of my donation to go to the poor schmuck who is standing on my doorstep asking me for money, yet can't explain why xyz is such a problem, except for their memorized, simplistic talking points.
Also, because our local Sierra Club group suggests not giving to the "Sierra Club" canvassers (no money from the canvassing operation actually goes to our local group).
If a canvasser is coming to my doorstep, a long-time environmental activist with a graduate degree in Environmental Studies, they aren't coming to "educate" me. They're coming to ask me for money. Period. If they're actually focused on awareness-raising, then they should be preaching to someone other than the "choir." But they don't, because they want to actually make some money, which involves approaching people who are pre-disposed to their cause. But the only "work" this money supports is allowing them to continue asking for money from people pre-disposed to their cause, and so on...
If they're coming to "organize", I have to wonder why a group of outside canvassers is needed to motivate local people to take care of their own community. Maybe I live in a strange idyllic place, but people in Corvallis, Oregon tend to organize themselves pretty quickly if any tangible issue of concern arises. If the "organizing" is on some broad issue (i.e., "stop global warming now!"), then I have to wonder how useful this "local organizing" really is.
The one caveat is that if they are going door-to-door to get signatures and/or raise support for state ballot measures, then I'm all for it. A tangible political campaign where the individual being canvassed can actually do something then and there (i.e., add a signature), seems like a great use of time and money.
Dave
* Granted, I didn't do it very long, but it's gotta be some of the worst work out there. I've heard similar complaints from my friends who did the door-to-door canvassing. Quite similar to MBNelson's comments, actually. I'd really like to hear the pro-canvassers respond to the points s/he made.
Permalink
blue canary Posted 6:32 am
26 May 2006
Fast-forward to several years later, I was working as a community organizer for Americorps. This time, our door-to-door canvassing was to get people to tell us their concerns about the neighborhood, to hear what they wanted to do, to learn their strengths, to invite them to community meetings and get involved. Even in a low-income neighborhood like the one I was working in, after residents started to get involved, they started to donate as well.
Of course money is important. It pays for the websites, the fliers, the postage, the campaigners. But the environmental movement is about more than that. Hand out as many factsheets as you want, but if you're not getting that person at the door to call their congressperson, attend a protest, vote on a referendum, it doesn't matter how much money you're raising.
Permalink
Ken1234 Posted 7:21 am
26 May 2006
If you just gave on your own without forcing groups to pay someone to convince you- than all the money would go to the group. If you told all your friends to do the same, that would help to.
If good hearted volunteers, like yourselves, would do all the fundraising in their free time- would that solve your problem?
Permalink
ascendency Posted 8:42 am
27 May 2006
"Alas, that tidbit is not as satisfying as the meat on which too many environmentalists feed: the flesh of their own." - biggie green
"I don't think the real issue here is whether the Fund Canvass is good or bad." - emaharg
We are divided over the value of the canvass. One argument goes like this: Canvass operations provide vital money that allows env. groups to operate, is anti-elitist, some canvass operations are better, and that Nathan is young naif who will learn over time.
The other argument goes like this: Canvass operations mostly pay only for themselves, that canvassing the choir is counter-productive, that canvassers are exploited and often disillusioned, and that we should value new ideas especially as we aren't doing great as a movement.
Well, perhaps we can move beyond these arguments. I think we can all agree that the canvass can be better. How about, rather than yelling at each other, we get some suggestions about how to do it. Like with "The Death of Environmentalism", you don't have to agree with their diagnosis to admit we can and must do better. So, what kind of a canvass do we want to see?
Permalink
rosey Posted 2:35 am
28 May 2006
The campaign held interviews the same day of recruiting. Several students signed up, and attended the brief lecture on duties and information on the affiliation with well-know groups, such as the Sierra Club. After interviews were held, all students, to my knowledge, were hired on the spot. Students were told that they had great potential to become a field manager. This sparked enthusiasm and trust in some students. I witnessed one student outside the library on the phone with his mother, telling her about his potential to climb the ladder of canvasser hierarchy. Little did he know that I, and three of my friends, had been given that exact message.
What the recruiters failed to tell us was what the money actually funds. What percentage of donations is paid towards environmental causes? And what means can be paid for to solve environmental issues? Students were disillusioned by the paid commission and by the team-like atmosphere; they were committed to the notion that they would be saving the "environment!"
I actually went through with a portion of the training, but rescheduled for personal reasons. I was much disappointed by the broad statements made about environmental groups and problems, and was still confused by what the contributions actually aimed to solve. It is easy to tell people about facts, and the state of our world, but to what extent will they put that information to action? Learning facts will only hinder the public knowledge of the overall social-political-economic structures that is aiding to global warming, over population, urbanization, and numerous other leading environmental concerns. The driving causes and solutions must also be connected with the factual information. This is where the campaign fails to inform the public, and employees, through their canvassing. They disillusion the public with appealing knowledge and membership fees, convincing them they are doing their part for society.
But money never solves the problems. It is a necessary means to pay for research and restoration, but by drawing funds from the public, the drive to rally and create a movement is diminished. The power lies in the hands of the people to change society, and the state of our environment. This is after all why grassroots outreach is an essential ingredient for social-political-economic change, and for preventing and solving environmental problems. But simply asking for money is not educating the public in a effective way that will create a movement.
In Portland, OR, I see canvassers ignored for the most part. When these canvassers ask, "Do you have a minute for the environment?" I want to scream: "Do I have a minute? I think about it constantly! We are in it right now? What do you think is the meaning of environment? It is all around us. Why you don't consider the effectiveness of your claims, and actually go reach people on a level they will understand and act on." We need to have a great understanding of the interconnectedness of our environment as a whole. We have to all become educated, take part in grassroots outreach, and forget about simply fundraisers. But we will only begin to solve environmental problems together if a movement formed by the people begins.
Permalink
ron Posted 6:43 am
29 May 2006
A bit about me: I'm a former canvass director for Clean Water Action, straight from Nathan's current hometown of Providence, RI. I ran field canvasses in Rhode Island, southeastern Mass., and eastern Conn. for five years.
We organized by political district, not by empathy factor or wealth. If Nathan knows Pawtucket or Woonsocket, RI, he'll know that the neighborhoods there are working income to little or no income. We canvassed them just like anywhere else. The point was to reach people. And it was hard. Try to tell someone who doesn't know if they'll have food tomorrow that they need to help financially. But we organized those neighborhoods: they were voters and consumers of water, too. If they couldn't give, and if the canvasser was doing their job, they would ask the person to write a letter, or register them to vote, or persuade them to vote (we could do PAC activity when doing elections).
And when it came to elections, when our canvass would go into those districts and organize (yes, asking for money AND registering voters or doing GOTV), we could affect an election (or referendum in other states) by several percentage points. We had a stealthy, highly trained, savvy group of canvassers who understood the value of organizing, and we won many campaigns. If it wasn't elections, then it was citizen lobbying efforts through letter campaigns. We were a deadly tool.
How did we do it? We worked to retain good canvassers. We trained every day. We made sure we always kept up to date on our issues. Yes, we'd put untrained people out there, and they'd certainly botch the rap, but hopefully the person canvassed would understand and help out next year.
The job is hard, underpaid, thankless. But my job was to find those rare young idealists, with glint and fire in their eyes. I was one of them. We had many canvassers who washed out, and others who were, frankly, a bit skeevy (try to find Ivy league grads to do the work). But the ones who really cared, and who really knew how to canvass and connect and organize, could make up for ten of the others. And that is who is not being honored in Nathan's article.
Canvasses are expensive - of course their fundraising is mostly to pay for the canvassers. To keep people around, you'd have to pay them (and that's possibly with benefits, too). Environmental non-profits are notoriously underfunded and restricted in funds they can accept (by their very nature), so citizen funding is a vital component to a canvass' survival.
And you're giving that canvasser money to pay their income, but you're paying them to continue to go on and find more concerned people who may not give but can write a letter or go vote. With nearly every consumer product you purchase, you're paying for the marketing used to persuade others will buy that product. What's the difference?
In Rhode Island, we were the first state to ban mercury spewing trash burning municipal solid waste incinerators. How'd we do it? Letters! Members! Activists! All generated by our canvassers, who were learning exceptional organizing skills at the same time.
Some folks may not have time to donate, so they prefer to give money. Nathan shouldn't just assume that we all want to donate time. I can't afford to give time right now, so I give $ when I can.
How can canvasses change? Get unrestricted funds to organize. Organize by watershed or ecosystem or voting district. Organize ALL neighborhoods (and train people how to do it). And don't give lists of last year's donors to your canvassers! That is a model for cherry-picking and not for organizing - they should approach every neighborhood, every year, with a new perspective.
These are only a few suggestions, but they're a start.
Clean Water Action ran some of (if not THE) best canvasses in the country. So does Citizen Action. But I've seen some bad canvasses and Nathan has judged them all by that model (and hasn't really offered us any answers). I ask that others work to not do the same. Door-to-door organizing, even in the age of the Web, is still a very effective model. It just needs to be done better, like many aspects of the environmental movement (which I'll have to save for later).
Permalink
shannonbinns Posted 9:29 pm
06 Jun 2006
Also, as others have said, raising money in this way, is unfortunately, necessary. Where else will the money come from? The vested corporate interests?
Third, by your title alone you are discouraging action, which seems to contradict the point of your argument. You write that those who are interested and have the time to become active (mostly students, but not only students by the way) shouldn't because it sends the wrong message. But you do not propose an alternative way in which the thousands of people who canvass can find paid work in the environmental movement. I would argue that this is because there currently is no other alternative. Who else will hire (i.e. pay) thousands of students and others without professional environmental skills for the summer within the environmental community?
Permalink
Julieclipse Posted 4:22 pm
20 Jun 2006
Permalink