Progressive Roundtable :

A Convening to Build Marketing & Communications Infrastructure

March 2-5, 2006 Millbrae, California

SM

Report
Sponsored by

Commonweal Institute
And generously supported by the

A. H. Zeppa Family Foundation

With seed funding from the

California Teachers Association

325 Sharon Park Drive, Suite 332, Menlo Park, CA 94025 telephone 650-854-9796, fax 650-854-8132 www.commonwealinstitute.org

Report released November 25, 2007

Table of Contents Executive Summary Context The Convening Priority Areas Letters of Interest Advancements in Progressive Infrastructure Other Benefits to Participants Progressive Roundtable Metrics Learnings Recommendations Conclusion 3 4 5 6 7 7 14 15 17 21 22

Appendices Appendix 1: List of Participants Appendix 2: Conference Agenda Appendix 3: Priority Areas, Related LOIs, Observations & Status Appendix 4: List of Funders Appendix 5: Proposal Process Appendix 6: Letters of Interest Form Appendix 7: Comments on Funders and Funding 23 25 31 47 48 51 54

Progressive RoundtableSM Final Report

Executive Summary
Project Rationale: In todays information age, cultural values must be repeated, developed, and maintained in the public conversation, or they will disappear first from peoples lips, then from their minds. People can change the way they look at the world become more progressive but not without help. Progressives must organize into a movement that promotes the benefits of progressive values, in order to create a sustainable progressive majority in this country. The Commonweal Institutes first Progressive Roundtable proved a successful model for organizing crucial players in this emerging movement. Project Summary: In March, 2006, the Commonweal Institute (CI) convened 58 prominent progressive non-profit leaders, funders, academics, and experts from across the country to address priority needs for building the marketing and communications components of the progressive movements infrastructure. Priority Areas Identified: In order to help progressives communicate and market their ideas and values more effectively to the American public, the Progressive Roundtable identified six urgent infrastructure needs: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) A progressive media lab A research and coordination center A national strategic working group Investment in human capacity Progressive convener(s) Building connected capacity

Infrastructure Development: Both alone and in collaboration, Progressive Roundtable participants proposed 17 programs to address the above priorities for the progressive marketing and communications infrastructure. The Commonweal Institute collected Letters of Interest for these projects and sent them to 18 funding entities that had expressed interest in receiving them. Although none of these funders gave financial support to any of the 17 programs proposed, eight of the proposals are being carried out to some degree, thanks to other sources of support. Results: By convening the Progressive Roundtable, the Commonweal Institute was the catalyst for significant developments in progressives marketing and communications infrastructure. The results reported here map the beginnings of that infrastructure, while the gaps present significant opportunities for the Commonweal Institute and others to make important contributions to the progressive movement. The results also suggest an important lesson: progressive funders need to work more openly and collaboratively with each other and with progressive organizations and activists to build systems capable of winning hearts and changing minds in todays marketplace of ideas. 3

Context
The American conservative movement has moved public conversation steadily rightward over the last 30 years, with far-reaching consequences for the countrys political governance. The conservative movement has succeeded through the actions of a wellfunded and well-coordinated organizational infrastructure that follows a long-term, disciplined communications strategy. The conservative infrastructure provides conservative politicians with both ideas and specific language for use in public statements and campaigns. It also presents these words and the associated conservative messages to the public through multiple media, making it appear as if the politicians are simply expressing widely accepted ideas. Thanks to their institutional infrastructure and its affiliated media, conservative ideology has become the dominant force in public discourse, and thus in American politics. There is now widespread recognition among progressives that almost all of their programs, institutions, and activities are under attack by the Right, and that they have been unable, thus far, to mount an effective response. This has led to a growing awareness that progressives must build a social movement for the twenty-first century, with the power to fund, generate, package, and disseminate ideas that lead society forward. The indisputable success of the conservative infrastructure model serves as a continuing reminder that attention to marketing and communications, as well as organizational development, with coordination and appropriate funding, can yield enormous dividends. A strategic marketing approach by progressives will greatly enhance the value and reach of new policy ideas, new progressive media channels, and growing involvement of sectors such as Latinos, Southerners, and youth in the progressive movement. Given the conservative movements three-decade head start, progressives must build traditional infrastructure components in order to achieve parity. If they want to achieve dominance in the marketplace of ideas, however, they must also tap their strategic competitive advantages. Progressive advantages can be found in the creative sector, nonprofit organizations, academia, new media and the blogosphere, technology, and grassroots movements. A robust, highly effective progressive infrastructure will leverage these advantages. The Commonweal Institute was among the first to articulate the need for progressive infrastructure, and many organizations around the country have begun addressing various aspects of this tremendous task. To complement those efforts, the Progressive Roundtable SM began building a neglected aspect of this infrastructure: progressives marketing and communications capacity. It focused on marketing to specific audiences and coordinating progressive messaging. A number of communications and marketing efforts are underway among progressives, but they lack the infrastructure needed to enable effective coordination. Through the Progressive Roundtable, the Commonweal Institute and its many partners explored what it would take to develop an infrastructure capable of translating progressive ideas into persuasive messages in large-scale marketing campaigns. 4

The Convening
The 2006 Progressive Roundtable launched the development of a coordinated progressive marketing and communications infrastructure. The overarching goal of the 2006 Roundtable was to develop a clear understanding of what is needed to get this infrastructure up and running, and to elicit a shared commitment to make it happen. If fully realized and coordinated, the new marketing and communications programs outlined at the Progressive Roundtable would make a major contribution to the future of the progressive movement. Intended accomplishments of the convening were: 1. Identification of functional gaps in current marketing, communications, and coordination capacity 2. Plans for advancing specific issues through newly created programs and networks 3. Commitments from participants to work together, write proposals, and seek funding for the projects and institutions needed to fill the identified functional infrastructure gaps and carry out the specific issue projects 4. Clearly identified targets for solicitation 5. Mechanisms to maintain working group cohesion and ensure ongoing coordination 6. Plans for post-convening steps to promote broader participation. Fifty-eight participants [for a complete list, see Appendix 1] came from around the country to share their expertise in a variety of fields, including communications, marketing and market research, framing and language development, public relations, political strategy, public policy, media production, social action, academia, and progressive philanthropy. Under the guidance of facilitator Mary Berryman-Agard, they worked intensively in small teams and in large group sessions. Using case studies as a starting point, participants identified the top priorities for developing a progressive marketing and communications infrastructure [for the complete agenda, see Appendix 2]. First, participants laid out 10-year and 3-year progressive goals for four issue areas: global interdependence, energy/global warming, public education, and the role of government. These issue areas were chosen as examples of the types of major issues that progressives are involved with, issues that would benefit from marketing and communications. For each goal, they identified target audiences that would need to be reached and values to be communicated. They discussed key features of the communications that would be required for each of these audiences (market segments), such as key messages, messengers, communications channels, and nature of the promotional appeals. They then turned their attention to identifying the marketing, communications, strategy, and coordination capacities necessary to achieve these goals. During the second phase of the convening, participants used the aggregated input from the issue-focused case studies to identify overarching marketing, communications, strategy, and coordination needs for the progressive movement. They divided into new teams organized by marketing and communications functions. Each team prioritized the needs in its function area, then roughed out how these needs might be met. The group then met as a whole to discuss the needs identified and to establish overall priorities.

Following this, participants discussed organizational strategies for addressing the top priority needs, and assessed potential funding mechanisms. By the end of the Progressive Roundtable convening, the working group had identified gaps in marketing and communication infrastructure, specified new capacities needed to fill these gaps, and prioritized them. [Notes from the full sessions can be found on the Progressive RoundtableSM web site: http://www.progressiveroundtable.org.]

Priority Areas
The Progressive Roundtable developed a set of priorities for building progressive marketing and communications infrastructure based on the direct work and experience of people working in those fields. These priorities were the result of hands-on effort and deliberation, not an abstract exercise or the work of outside consultants. Participants identified twelve needed infrastructure capacities, which were then prioritized and narrowed to the six capacities most urgently needed. The top six priority needs identified by participants were, in descending order: 1. A progressive media lab to integrate messaging with new technology 2. A research and coordination center for marketing and communications efforts, both coordinating efforts across the progressive movement and linking national work with grassroots organizations and activists 3. A national strategic working group that conducts a one-time gap analysis, develops a strategic plan including funding considerations, and coordinates issue selections and legislative strategy 4. Investment in human capacity through programs such as new leadership development fellowships, an executive exchange program, and an incubator for transitioning leaders 5. Progressive convener(s) to bring together progressive groups on a regular, sustained basis to promote coordination on long-term strategy and specific issues 6. A network-based strategy to build connected capacity of individuals, organizations, issues and campaigns; mapping of progressive organizations and networks would be an initial step. In addition to these six top priorities, six other infrastructure capacity needs were identified by participants, as follow in ranked order: (7) progressive brand development and management; (8) progressive Google (Poogle) which would include information management, virtual coordination, and a whos who in the progressive movement; (9) progressive My Space or a social networking site that would use GIS mapping software to track and link progressive activists and organizations locally, statewide and nationally; (10) broadening audiences; (11) long-term research and development center; and (12) translating policy ideas for various audiences. All twelve priorities are described in greater detail in Appendix 3.

Letters of Interest
In an effort to advance projects that would address these priority areas, the Commonweal Institute developed a Letters of Interest (LOI) process. Using a process agreed upon by a group of progressive funders, the Commonweal Institute developed a proposal / LOI format based upon the format used by two of the most prominent progressive funding groups. Following the convening, the Commonweal Institute invited Progressive Roundtable participants, as well as several groups that did not participate, to submit LOIs in any of the six priority areas. A total of 17 LOIs were submitted to the Commonweal Institute, which were sent directly to 18 funders or representatives of foundations or funder groups whom had expressed interest in receiving these proposals. (Please see Appendix 4 for a list of funders to whom the LOIs were sent.) Proposers were provided with the list of funders, including contact information, to whom their LOIs had been submitted and the LOIs sent to funders contained contact information for the proposers. Both funders and proposers were encouraged to have further contact with each other directly, and proposers were also encouraged to seek other sources of funding that might be appropriate. Both an explanation of the proposal process and the LOI form can be found in the appendices. (Please see Appendix 5 for the proposal process, Appendix 6 for the LOI form, and Appendix 3 for information about the LOIs submitted for each priority area.) While LOIs were not invited in response to the other six infrastructure needs, which had not been designated as priorities, Progressive Roundtable participants were encouraged to develop these ideas independently. We also encouraged other interested parties to develop these independently and funders to consider supporting them.

Advancements in Progressive Infrastructure

In February and March 2007, as a one-year follow-up to the Progressive Roundtable, the Commonweal Institute conducted more than two dozen telephone interviews with participants and funders. These interviews included specific questions about the LOIproposed projects as well as more general queries about any new or expanded efforts in the priority areas identified during the convening. We learned that, in the past year, Progressive Roundtable participants and others have begun developing significant elements of the progressive marketing and communications infrastructure (PMCI). Eight of the proposed projects are being carried out to some extent, addressing major needs in the progressive movements values assessment, human networks, use of technology, and message distribution.

Following are capsule summaries of the status of the projects proposed in the LOIs and other advancements in each of the six priority areas, as reported in the interviews. Further details are available in Appendix 3. Priority Area 1: Progressive Media Lab to integrate messaging with new technology While no respondent reported the development of a full-blown, coordinated media lab, participants have identified alternative sources of funding and have partially implemented four of the six LOIs in this priority area: Progressive Communications Network Incubation Center (PCNIC), submitted by ProgressNow, ProgressNowAction, and Advancing Wisconsin. PCNIC proposed to expand Colorados ProgressNow modela state-wide, multi-level communications and advocacy network for the state's entire progressive movementinto multiple other states. Scaled back from its original scope, communications networks are being formed in Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington. Messaging for the Progressive Faith Community, submitted by Faith Voices for the Common Good and The New Press. This proposal would have created an echo chamber effect around new progressive ideas by developing a line of books on progressive religion, as well as developing new forms and uses of social software technologies to engage progressive audiences more deeply in values-related conversations. Scaled back, a portion of the project is being carried out to address some of the communication needs of the faith community, with at least four progressive religion books in progress and more in the pipeline. Netcentric Campaigns, submitted by Green Media Toolshed. This proposal was to develop the Netcentric MEDIA Campaign Hub for coordinating distributed media campaign activities among many collaborating groups in any progressive issue area, and providing training and support services for users. A portion of the LOI, development of software to capture the distributed work of volunteers (e.g., hundreds of volunteers across the country collaborating to build and maintain a large database of media contacts), is reportedly going well and the developers are seeking major partners as potential licensees of the software; issue areas with which they are currently dealing are peace and security, healthcare, and womens issues. Public News Service Expansion, submitted by Public News Service and Media in the Public Interest. Public News Service (PNS) proposed expanding its network of 15 state-based progressive AP-style news services to add local progressive coverage for five additional key states (FL, PA, MI, VI and TN); increase the number of nonprofit sources and the range of issues that PNS reports on; creating a new Congressional Progressive Caucus beat to localize and translate national stories; and (3) add new capabilities to its internet distribution, thus widening its audience. With funding from its existing sources, PNS is slowly expanding the number of states in which it works, but has not been able to raise funds to add the CPC beat. Blogtank/Blogpac, submitted by a group of prominent progressive bloggers, was intended to inject the values of speed, effectiveness, and accountability into the progressive movement by increasing the size, the legitimacy, and the reach of the progressive blogosphere. The goals of this proposal are being carried out by two

separate organizations. The Center for Independent Media, a 501c3 nonprofit, provides investigative journalism skills training and mentoring to bloggers and online journalists, many of whose stories are subsequently picked up by television, radio, and newspapers. CIM is expanding on a state-by-state basis, with operating programs in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota, and plans for a national program based in Washington, DC. Blogpac supports the development of progressive infrastructure and builds the movement by giving grants to two sets of emerging leaders: (1) activists on the internet who have a demonstrated record of success in creating progressive change outside of a traditional party or campaign structure, and (2) local bloggers who build community spaces for activists in their state. The following LOI has not been carried out, due to lack of funding: Progressive Media Lab (PML), submitted by a multi-organization collaboration. PML would have been a cross-functional effort to link organizations and experts in the development and delivery of innovative technologies for grassroots and net-roots organizing, communications development, blogosphere enhancement, and content creation. In addition to these proposals, a number of new developments have occurred during the past year with regard to more effective use of existing and new media. Among those mentioned by respondents were Opportunity Agenda, Media Consortium, Color of Change, LinkTV, the Womens Media Center, Mobile Voter, and efforts by Brave New Films and Balcony Films. The growing impact of alternative media platforms is changing the research and development aspect of communications, with emphasis on cultural impact of media. Concern was expressed that emphasis on new media may distract attention from the opportunities to use traditional media more effectively for progressive purposes. Coordination is evolving among different media platforms blogosphere, news, PSAs and other free (earned) media, etc. A serious unmet need, however, is coordinating content generation and targeting of content through the most effective media channels to appropriate audiences. A related need is to link communications to the grassroots and mobilization components of political and social action campaigns. Priority Area 2: Research and Coordination Center for marketing and communications efforts, both coordinating efforts across the progressive movement and linking national work with grassroots organizations and activists While some new research efforts are going on, no respondent reported having heard about development of a research center of the type recommended by the Progressive Roundtable participants, one that would coordinate marketing and communications research and ensure wide access to the results. None of the individual projects described in the three LOIs in this priority area is being carried out as proposed.

Annual Social Values Survey, submitted by American Environics. This proposal was to conduct a new type of annual social values survey tailored for tracking progressive social change in America; create and introduce cross-cutting strategic initiatives into contested political space; and bring together, in an annual meeting, the worlds leading values researchers to discuss new social change trends, the emergence of new values, and the withering away of old values. Instead, the organization is conducting its standard social values survey, which has been conducted every four years for the past 30 years, and is doing this in a more circumscribed, issue-specific fashion than had been proposed, due to lack of funding for a cross-issue survey, and without the additional proposed activities to track social values changes and influence them through strategic initiatives. Progressive Resource Center (PRC), submitted by the Commonweal Institute. The proposed PRC would (1) map, aggregate, and archive existing and new market and polling research from a variety of sources to create an online clearinghouse; (2) offer marketing resources and toolkits on the PRC web site; (3) build the capacity of independent voices to promote cross-cutting progressive values through spokesperson training incorporating the research findings; (4) train strategists and communications professionals in the use of market research data in the PRC database; and (5) conduct original market research in areas where research is not being undertaken. Progressive Index Research, submitted by American LIVES. This proposal was to conduct a national research study to discover what messages and issues hold the most power and the greatest chance of unifying the progressive movement, using three separate measures: (1) market segmentation using psychographics; (2) a Progressive Index, or a guide to political attitudes and awareness; and (3) a Political Activity and Involvement Index to reveal who is, and who is not, politically active and for what reasons. A number of organizations include research components in their work, with some new projects having been started during the past year. Among the specific research projects mentioned were the work coordinated by Demos on the role of government, progressive framing research and policy-related research by the Center for American Progress, and research by Spitfire Strategies on when individuals take action. Still unmet is the need for mechanisms that would facilitate wide access to research results and coordinate expensive research efforts in ways that would make more efficient use of opportunities to collect data that are vitally important to the progressive movement. Priority Area 3: National Strategic Working Group that conducts a one-time gap analysis, develops a strategic plan including funding considerations, and coordinates issue selections and legislative strategy No respondent reported having heard about the development of a national strategic working group of the type recommended by the Progressive Roundtable participants, one that would be multi-issue and would include representatives of various types of organizational entities (i.e., 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), for-profits, etc.). The respondents

10

responses indicated the difficulty that progressives are having in coming together as a cohesive movement, when their traditional pattern has been marked by deep divisions: Washington versus the states, separate issue silos, and political entities versus nonprofits. The one LOI submitted in response to this priority was not been carried out, due in part to a lack of funding, but also revision of the project concept: Progressive Synergy Network, submitted by two individuals who proposed to develop a model governance structure for cross-issue coordination, based on some of the progressive movements most successful collaborative efforts: the Partnership Project, the Forest Stewardship Council, and America Votes. This governance structure would provide a foundation for effective interaction between electorallyoriented progressive groups, creating a space for the strategic integration of resources and more effective messaging in order to win elections. The individuals involved have continued to research and refine their ideas and have written them up in a Yale University Masters thesis. Nevertheless, some positive signs are present. Strategic planning involving a number of organizations is occurring in several issue areas at the national level (e.g., environment, healthcare, media reform) and across issues within some states (e.g., Progressive States Network and the ProgressNow communications network). Some respondents perceive that some large funding entities may be starting to engage in long-term strategic planning, but it is not clear whether this is limited to single issues. The evolving progressive movement still lacks a national, cross-issue strategic planning group that includes representatives of various types of organizational entities (i.e., 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), for-profits, etc.) and can integrate the perspectives of the states with those inside the DC Beltway. Priority Area 4: Investment in Human Capacity through programs such as new leadership development fellowships, an executive exchange program, and an incubator for transitioning leaders As envisioned by the Progressive Roundtable participants, investment in progressive human resource development would include identifying talent, mentoring and training young activists, retaining established leaders, offering executive and mid-level management exchange programs, supporting roving management consulting, and providing fellowships and resources to leaders. Neither of the two LOIs submitted in response to this priority received funding, and neither has been carried out as planned: Progressive Think Tank Leadership Development, submitted by the Rockwood Leadership Program. This is a proposal to focus on skill-building for key progressive leaders, as a means of organizing national and regional think tank leaders and facilitating collaboration in visioning, messaging and programming across the boundaries of organization, issue focus, and geography.

11

The Iowa Project, submitted by the Center for Civic Participation and Chambers Lopez & Gaitan. This proposed project was to conduct grassroots outreach and training in civic participation among rural Latinos in Iowa. The concept has been picked up by another nonprofit entity and has evolved into an ongoing project in which the Center for Civic Participation is involved to a limited extent. Progressive human capacity development efforts that have been going on for some time include leadership training of nonprofit executives, youth training, politician and political campaign training, or issue-specific training. A small number of new or evolving human capacity development efforts were reported during the past year. An interesting one from the standpoint of developing progressive communications infrastructure is a Media Consortium fellowship program for multimedia training at the University of California, Berkeley. One investment in human capacity, which was the topic of considerable discussion during the Roundtable, is support for skilled progressive workers transitioning out of jobs or looking for adequate support between campaigns. The conservative movement aggressively invests in its human resources, and thus excels not only at initial recruitment and training, but also in retention. A robust movement requires that we nurture and retain committed progressives with equal vigor. Priority Area 5: Progressive Convener(s) to bring together progressive groups on a regular, sustained basis to promote coordination on long-term strategy and specific issues Although most of the recent progressive convening activities reported by the respondents focus on single issue areas or on political action, several infrastructure-oriented convenings have occurred or are presently being planned, including both of the LOIproposed projects: Progressive Communicators Network, submitted by Spirit in Action. The Progressive Communicators Network is continuing its proven approach of national and regional work on: (1) supporting networking between communicators; (2) building skills of communicators, with a focus on framing and messaging; and (3) fostering cooperation and collaboration and supporting the projects that spring from these collaborations. However, the rate of expansion of its work is less than would have been possible had funding been available for additional staff positions and program resources. Progressive Roundtable, submitted by the Commonweal Institute. Based on the strongly positive reaction to the initial event in 2006, CI is creating an ongoing series of results-oriented convenings. A local event in California is planned for late 2007 on the topic of infrastructure funding, and a larger event in the Midwest in 2008 on promoting progressive values through single-issue organizations and online interventions. A number of existing organizations have had some success as conveners and could serve as models for extending and expanding this aspect of progressive infrastructure. The need, therefore, is for substantial external funding to be channeled toward taking the best

12

models and making umbrella conveners permanent and central features of the coordination process. Priority Area 6: Building Connected Capacity of individuals, organizations, issues and campaigns, beginning with the mapping of progressive organizations and networks At the 2006 Progressive Roundtable, participants identified three central levels of connectivity in network building: group-to-group; staff-to-staff; and people-to-people. All of these forms of connectivity are needed to build up internal capacity in the progressive movement and strengthen the social networks that form the human basis of any successful political movement. Modest progress has been made on one of the projects described in the three LOIs in this priority area: Progressive Clergy Mobilization, submitted by FaithfulAmerica.org and Faith Voices for the Common Good. This proposal sought support to create a joint informationdelivery and technology infrastructure to reach mainstream religious people with progressive messaging through innovative social software; the joint infrastructure would provide clergy leadership training and a dynamic and a centralized interactive discourse service strengthening the moral public voice of the progressive movement. Interest in the online Synanim communication platform for the faith community, which is at the heart of this project, is increasing slowly due to limited resources. The other two LOIs have not been carried out, due to lack of funding and other reasons: Mapping and Strengthening of Progressive Networks, submitted by the Commonweal Institute. The Commonweal Institute proposed to increase substantially the connected capacity of the progressive movement by mapping and analyzing the social and organizational networks that presently exist among progressive infrastructure organizations and individuals, then intervening in specific ways to strengthen those networks through targeted networking events, creation of a public engagement networking site, and education and promotion to encourage network involvement. A pilot project mapping the social networks of Progressive Roundtable participants before and after the convening has confirmed the value of this type of event for expanding network connectivity, but it became evident that other methods would be needed to acquire the necessary data for mapping; further Progressive Roundtable events may include network mapping and strengthening as specific objectives. Mapping and Database of Progressive Organizations and Networks, submitted by two individuals. This LOI proposes to map progressive organizations and networks, and to use this data to create a web-based database listing communication vehicles, organizations, and networks willing and able to coordinate message distribution. This project was not pursued due to lack of funding and because the proposers thought it might overlap with the Commonweal Institute proposal described above. Networks are expanding and strengthening in several areas, according to the respondents, and much of this activity appears to be of recent origin. Notable advances are being

13

made in civic participation and election-focused networks (e.g., through Center for Civic Participation and MoveOn), state-level networks (e.g., ProgressNow and similar networks), and among individuals and groups in communications-related fields (e.g., Netcentric Communications and Progressive Communicators Network), including bloggers and online communities (e.g., a SPIN Project and Opportunity Agenda project). Mapping of progressive marketing and communications infrastructure is a serious unmet need; appropriate maps would facilitate the development of new ties to strengthen networks, giving them greater reach and making them more effective and able to respond rapidly to opportunities or threats. Additional Project Related to Progressive Roundtable An additional infrastructure need that was identified during the Progressive Roundtable, but did not make it into the top six priorities, was development and management of the progressive brand a coherent identity for the progressive movement. The Center for American Progress and the Glaser Progress Foundation are currently working on a progressive brand project, which followed upon discussions that took place between senior staff of those two organizations during the Progressive Roundtable convening. [See Appendix 3 for greater detail regarding each of the priority areas, the related LOIs, and comments from Progressive Roundtable participants on and information about new developments that have occurred during the past year.]

Other Benefits to Participants

In addition to specific questions around funding and progress on the projects that had been the subjects of the LOIs, we also asked the telephone interview respondents a series of questions around the benefits and value of the Progressive Roundtable. Respondents had a number of positive comments about the convening, which fell into three main categories: exposure to new/good ideas; the process of working with other progressives; and developing new relationships. These responses form the basis of a strong argument for the need for more focused working groups, such as the Progressive Roundtable, as a means of strengthening progressive networks. Exposure to New Ideas I refer to the Progressive Roundtable in conversation and look back at items on the Progressive Roundtable website for new ideas. What I valued most was all the thinking about the same things from different perspectives. The experience contributed to my thoughts about my own career and future directions; for example, about the lack of talk about diversity, need for diversification, and expansion of the range of those to whom we are talking. The idea of networks became more embedded in peoples minds. It was heartening to know that others were thinking about the need for coordination, too. 14

Strong Working Process I appreciate what it accomplished in getting such a diverse group to work together; thats one of the hardest things for progressives. I was impressed by the wide variety of people who attended and the great sense of community I felt there. I met folks in person who I had only known by name and we still keep in touch. As well, we are beginning to work collaboratively with some. Its very important to get a network going. It underscores the difficulty of coordinating. The good news is that we are starting to do it, the bad news is that it has taken so long. New Relationships Formed The biggest impact on me was the relationships I developed there with some really good folks. It made a difference in my thinking helped change my ideas, because of meeting the many people there. I bump into a lot of people in DC now whom I met at the Progressive Roundtable. I met key individuals we talk all the time. The Progressive Roundtable was very helpful to me for networking. I connected with, and have stayed in touch with, many new people. I met a lot of interesting people, some of whom I have worked with subsequently. I got a sizeable consulting contract through one of the contacts I made at the Progressive Roundtable. We heard from a number of participants that the networking piece was one of the most valuable outcomes of the convening; several individuals recommended that future Progressive Roundtables allot more time for such networking opportunities. The event not only introduced new people to one another, but also gave them a unique opportunity to experience working together. These experiences have led to new, ongoing collaborations. For example, Lark Corbeil of Public News Service is working with Michael Huttner to expand the media reach of his organization, ProgressNow, in Colorado. Also, Austin-based political strategist Rudy Malveaux and Lorena Chambers, a DC-area publicity specialist in Hispanic communities, are currently planning a major market research project in communities of color. New working relationships and networks like these promise to strengthen progressive infrastructure, and are therefore among the Progressive Roundtables most significant results.

Progressive Roundtable Metrics

From the outset, the Commonweal Institute developed a series of process and outcome metrics in order to measure what worked and what aspects / processes of the convening and post-convening activities would need to be refined or changed for future Progressive Roundtable convenings. The initial proposal for the Progressive Roundtable specified the following metrics: 15

Process Metrics 1. At least 40 participants (in addition to Commonweal Institute staff and volunteers) participating in the convening. 2. At least three funders (individual, institutional, or funder network representatives) participating in the convening. 3. Favorable responses on questionnaires completed by participants at end of the convening. 4. Within three months after the convening, representatives of at least 30 additional organizations (that were not represented at the convening itself) will have signed up for access to discussion groups on the PMCI website. 5. Within six weeks after the convening, Commonweal Institute staff and/or the facilitator will have at least two meetings with the funders who were present during the convening or other funders Outcome Metrics 1. Within four months after the convening, the plans that convening participants began during the event will have resulted in at least three proposals having been written for the creation of new PMCI components (programs or new organizations). 2. Within four months after the convening, at least three additional proposals will have been written for programmatic activities related to marketing and/or communications of the focal issues discussed during the convening. 3. Within six months after the convening, funding will have been arranged (via proposals or other means) for at least three new PMCI components and/or programmatic activities that resulted from the convening.

Performance on Process Metrics Three of the five process metrics were met unequivocally. There were 46 participants in the convening, in addition to Commonweal Institute staff and volunteers; the goal was 40. Six of them were funders (individual, institutional, or funder network representatives); the goal was three. Within six weeks after the convening, Commonweal Institute staff had two meetings with funders who had not been present during the convening. Both were heads of major funding groups (Democracy Alliance and Women Donors Network). The goal was two such meetings. While the evaluations that we received from participants were overwhelming positive, a true assessment of participants attitudes toward the convening were not able to be assessed via questionnaire due to a low sample size: only a handful of participants returned the questionnaire. In order to address this lack of data, when Commonweal 16

Institute conducted its one-year follow-up telephone interviews, participants were asked a series of questions about the Roundtable itself and recommendations for improvement (as described above in the Outcomes section). The final metric, dealing with online discussions, we learned was not appropriate. During the pre-conference period, Commonweal Institute staff recognized that virtually none of the participants were interested in online discussions, and that feature of the Progressive Roundtable website went largely unused. Consequently, efforts to recruit other organizations to participate in post-conference discussion groups were not made.

Performance on Outcome Metrics The first two outcome metrics were clearly met and exceeded. Within two months after the Progressive Roundtable convening, 17 Letters of Interest designed to meet the priority objectives identified by the participants were submitted, most from individuals/institutions that had been represented at the convening. The goal was a total of six proposals within four months. [See Appendix 3 for summaries of the LOIs by priority area.] The third outcome measure, funding will have been arranged (via proposals or other means) for at least three new PMCI components and/or programmatic activities that resulted from the convening, did not happen as expected. We learned that a progressive branding project, which was one of the six additional infrastructure capacity needs that were identified by participants (but not one of the 17 LOIs), is proceeding with funding from one of the Roundtable participants (a funder), with another of the PR participants acting as the lead agency. According to the funder, the Roundtable served to confirm his belief that such a project was needed and helped to advance the project. However, we have learned that while eight of the projects that emerged through the Progressive Roundtable process are being carried out, albeit in modified form, funding in all cases was obtained from sources other than the 18 funders to whom the LOIs were sent. None of those to whom the LOIs were sent provided support for the LOI projects. An assessment of why the funding piece was not successful may be found in the following Learnings section of this report; funder interviews and other funding comments may be found in Appendix 7. Data for this assessment were collected by personal telephone calls to Progressive Roundtable participants and to funders to whom the LOIs were sent.

Learnings
As we anticipated from the outset, the Progressive Roundtable convening, the first of its kind, proved a rich learning ground. Participants learned from one another, and the Commonweal Institute learned from the planning process, the execution of the convening, and the outcomes. Our discoveries divide into three ongoing needs: 17

(1) strong, clearly identified networks to drive the progressive movement; (2) proactive coordination of progressive messaging in the media; and (3) donor education and closer cooperation between progressive funders and organizations. Need for Network Building A strong theme throughout the Progressive Roundtable event was the need to identify and strengthen social networks among progressives and between organizations. A networkbuilding approach was seen as important for: Faster identification of potential problems; Faster implementation of solutions; Bringing more parties into the action; Reaching a greater diversity of audiences, and hence having wider influence; Encouraging use of over-arching frames and language across issue areas, in order to have greater effect on public opinion and politics; Achieving coordinated action; and Taking advantage of existing human and monetary resources. One participant noted, There is no way we can achieve the changes needed without a network to drive progressive change. The network has to have the capacity to synchronize around opportunities. We [therefore] need a healthy network and network leadership... network managers [who can look] at the state of health, security, and functionality of the network as a whole. Several respondents emphasized the need for creating or strengthening organizational hubs in the overall progressive network that could carry out infrastructure functions such as training, provision of resources, and cross-issue framing and initiatives. As well, network mapping and strengthening should be an early priority. Need for Coordination Coordination poses a related challenge for progressives, who currently lack the organization and strategic mechanisms to drive the agenda in the media. Without these mechanisms, progressives are stuck in a reactive posture on policy and social action agendas, political campaigns, and even funding patterns. Typically, progressives get stuck responding to whatever shows up in the mainstream media, which does not choose its topics based on a long-term strategy for advancing progressive values and ideas. Progressives need to develop a strategic, coordinated approach to proactively create and capitalize on advantageous media opportunities. The Progressive Roundtable, as a facilitated event with defined goals, proved to be a successful model for sharing ideas and responsibility, developing cooperation and trust, and achieving results. In advance of the convening, Commonweal Institute staff researched and developed case studies of other successful models for progressive coordination, including National Voice, the Living Wage campaign, and Wisconsin Blueprint. These illustrate factors that facilitate coordination among large, geographically 18

distant groups, working toward short- and long-term goals: (1) enticements to involvement in the form of resources, training, and opportunities to share with peers; (2) recognition of the unique knowledge and strengths of participant groups based on their geographic location and the populations with which they deal; (3) a core working group that meets at regular intervals to set strategy and make policy decisions (and in some cases, subsidiary core groups or nodes); (4) adequate funding for paid staff and program resources; (5) multi-way communications to facilitate coordination; and (6) webfacilitated communications. Need for Funder Leadership and Peer-to-Peer Donor Education Our third set of findings centers on the progressive donor community and the funding of progressive organizations and projects. One of the LOI proposers summed it up this way: The Progressive Roundtable was done fineit did all the right things. The funders say, You guys get together and come up with some ideas and pitch them to us. The Progressive Roundtable did thatpeople came together, they worked together on priorities and proposals, but then the funders didnt respond. It didnt work. Why? The failure of the LOI process to attract funding from donors who had said they were interested in supporting progressive infrastructure appears to have been related to both donor and proposer factors: 1. Inadequate follow-up by both proposers and funders Most of the LOI proposers did not follow through with the funders, as had been suggested. Only one proposer submitted a separate proposal for the same project described in the LOI directly to one of the funders on the list, the Democracy Alliance. The problem of inadequate follow-through is not unusual among non-profit organizations, whose operating capacity is often stretched to the limit. 2. Funders preference for short-term, project-specific investments Infrastructure funding does not fit readily into most progressive funders short-term, project-specific framework, as infrastructure functions would best be supported by unrestricted funding over a long period of time. The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and others have advocated a shift to more general institutional support, not restricted to specific projects, and the Progressive Roundtable proposers would agree with that recommendation. 3. Funders adherence to set, cautious application processes Foundations and other major donors are often guarded, and even excessively cautious, when moving into innovative and somewhat unfamiliar territory. In the for-profit venture capital world, angel (early-phase) investors may make risky investments, but they keep an eye on how their monies are being used by taking director positions in small new

19

companies in order to lessen their risk; a similar model may be appropriate for the funding of start-up infrastructure nonprofit organizations, as well. In terms of progressive institutional funders, a universal or standardized application form would be an enormous help for applicants, as it would save them a great deal of time and expense in the fund-seeking process. We attempted to address this with the Progressive Roundtables LOI process, but it was not satisfactory for some of the funders to whom LOIs were sent, as it was not clear to them how the LOIs fit into their usual processes. 4. Funders preferences for specific areas of interest over systemic investments Moderate and progressive funders (foundations and individuals) and many recipient nonprofits share a strong tendency to focus on single issues or narrow clusters of issues. This issue silo mentality can lead to greater efficiency in addressing discrete problems and lobbying for specific legislation. However, in recent years there has been growing recognition that much of the success of the conservative movement has been the result of their recognition that a set of underlying principles and values ties them together as a movement. Conservatives political infrastructure skillfully advances these principles in order to benefit simultaneously all the issues that conservatives care about, not just one at a time. As described in a number of publications by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, conservative funders of infrastructure organizations are known for providing ongoing general operating support to their grantees, not restricted by issue boundaries. The Commonweal Institute has done extensive analysis of how conservative think tanks and communicators tackle a wide range of issues, using common principles and values, and similar techniques, to advance all of them. These four factors highlight the need for closer cooperation between progressive funders and grantees. These personal relationships have always been central to funding decisions, and the Progressive Roundtable encouraged these relationships by involving donors as active participants working alongside the activists and organizations that drive social change. In order to build organizational capacity to effect that change, however, funders and grantees need to work closely to develop new criteria and processes for providing ongoing operational support. This key finding confirms reports on progressive funders published by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. As a first step, funders and other Progressive Roundtable participants alike agreed that progressive donors need significant education about the nature and necessary features of marketing and communications infrastructure, its value to the progressive movement, and the importance of a long-term, disciplined investment strategy. We recommend additional donor education in the following areas: The nature of the social/cultural change process; Movement thinkingrecognizing that progressive issues do not exist in isolation, but are part of an overall progressive way of thinking about the world and how issues and problems are defined and should be addressed; The value of a networked approach for speeding social change;

20

Specific functions that would be performed by progressive infrastructure organizations, such as coordination and strategic planning; The vital roles played by organizations that perform un-sexy ongoing functions, such as research, coordination, and staff development; The nature and importance of media and communications; Barriers to progressive action such as impaired media access, weakness of social networks, and issue silo thinking; and The need for ongoing funding, not tied to election cycles. Some efforts at donor education are already underway. We are encouraged by the New Progressive Coalitions recent announcement (in May 2007) that it will concentrate on providing prospective donors with tools to help them assess nonprofits and their compatibility with donors interests. Our experiences with the Progressive Roundtable, specifically with regard to the funding of the LOIs, confirm the vital and pressing need for these donor services within the progressive movement. In order to develop a more effective process for supporting the progressive movement, though, funder leadership is needed to organize donor education about infrastructure needs. Peer-to-peer outreach and analysis of best practices are necessary to remedy issues typical of many progressive funders and foundations, including risk aversion, heavy emphasis on process, and slow reaction to change. This is happening in some settings, for example with private funding circles and some of the events that have been hosted by Deborah and Andy Rappaport, but more such efforts are needed that bring in institutional funders. Shifting the paradigm of progressive funding will require leadership from within that community.

Recommendations
Based on our experiences and the foregoing analysis, we have two sets of recommendations. First, we recommend the following steps for the further development and maintenance of the progressive marketing and communications infrastructure: 1. 2. 3. 4. Map the progressive infrastructure and the progressive movement Multiple projects and events to strengthen and maintain progressive networks Increase progressives media access Increase coordination among progressives and mechanisms for long-term strategic planning and action across issue areas

Second, the Progressive Roundtable revealed a vital need for developing the community of progressive funders. To address this need, we make the following recommendations: 1. Substantial progressive donor education, ideally sponsored and planned by a team that combines donor(s) and nonprofit(s), addressing topics discussed in preceding section. Affinity groups, donor networks, and/or donor-oriented Progressive Roundtables might be a part of this process. 21

2. Examine funding guidelines and processes and modify them as necessary in order to support the development of progressive infrastructure. 3. Donor leadership in planning and supporting events around the country that bring together local and regional donors with potential infrastructure grantees. 4. A long-term campaign to broaden the funding base for the progressive movement, beyond major donors and to include more modest donors and possibly other funding mechanisms. Further Progressive Roundtable events of various sizes and formats could be designed to address several of these points: donor education; convening donors and potential grantees, done in collaboration with a lead donor; network strengthening events; and strategic planning and coordination across issue areas.

Conclusion
The 2006 Progressive Roundtable, convened by the Commonweal Institute and supported by the Alan H. Zeppa Family Foundation and the California Teachers Association, succeeded in meeting its immediate goal of determining the priority needs for building the marketing and communications components of the progressive movements infrastructure. The six priorities were based on the direct work and experience of senior people working in those fields. Following the convening, Progressive Roundtable participants, both alone and in collaboration, proposed 17 programs to address the priority needs. Eight of these programs are currently being carried out to some degree. This report summarizes the progress made, and also recognizes the infrastructure gaps that still remain. Important additional learnings from the Progressive Roundtable convening and from oneyear follow-up interviews reinforced the need for network building and coordination among progressive organizations, and exposed the need for considerable donor education about best practices for funding progressive infrastructure. Based on these findings, a number of specific recommendations have been made for further action.

22

Appendix 1: PR Attendees PROGRESSIVE ROUNDTABLE SM MEMBERS (including Commonweal Institute staff)

Convening attendees Craig Aaron, Free Press Joel Barkin, Progressive Legislative Action Network Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films Parker Blackman, Fenton Communications Darrin Bodner, Media Matters for America Robert Borosage, Campaign for Americas Future Patrick Bresette, Demos Rita Nakashima Brock, Faith Voices for the Common Good Lorena Chambers, Chambers, Lopez & Gaitan Martin Collier, Glaser Progress Foundation Lark Corbeil, Public News Service Carolyn Cushing, Progressive Communicators Network Kirstin Falk, New Progressive Coalition Ian Finseth, Commonweal Institute Katherine Forrest, Commonweal Institute Meg Gage, Proteus Fund duVergne Gaines, Feminist Majority Peter Glenshaw, Progressive Venture Fund John Halpin, Center for American Progress Randy Hayes, International Forum on Globalization Don Hazen, Independent Media Institute Connie Heller, Cagampang Heller Family Fund and Democracy Alliance Dennis Houlihan, AFSCME Michael Huttner, ProgressNow Vince Isner, Faithful America and National Council of Churches of Christ Marcus Jadotte, NASCAR Quintus Jett, African Americans for Democracy Dave Johnson, Seeing the Forest blogger Keir Johnson, A. H. Zeppa Family Foundation Steve Katz, Media Consortium and Mother Jones Marty Kearns, Green Media Toolshed Odette Keeley, New America Media Lorelei Kelly, National Security Fellow, office of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, US Congress Michelle Kraus, Technology & Politics Jennifer Lindenauer, MoveOn Bob Loeb, Netcentric Campaigns John Luongo, Democracy Alliance Rudolph Malveaux, Texas Black Magic Productions

23

David Mermin, Lake Research Associates Pamela Morgan, American Environics Mike Pogue, Last Mile Research Pam Porter, Wisconsin Blueprint Juan Proao, Plus Three, Inc. Jerome Ringo, Apollo Alliance Paul Rivera, Unidos Project Ethan Rome, AFSCME Patricia Rucker, California Teachers Association Erik Sahlin, Rockridge Institute Leonard Salle, Commonweal Institute Joseph Sandler, Sandler, Reiff & Young Laura Saponara, University of California, Davis Laurie Spivak, Commonweal Institute Suzanne Stenson OBrien, Center for Civic Participation Matt Stoller, MyDD blogger Dave Tanner, Democracy Alliance Brooke Warrick, American LIVES Eddie Wong, Democracy Alliance Sophia Yen, Yen Chuang Foundation Progressive Roundtable SM members who were not able to attend convening Susan Bales, FrameWorks Dan Carol Andre Carothers, Rockwood Leadership Program Toby Chaudhuri, Campaign for Americas Future Sandy Close, New America Media Donna Edwards, Arca Foundation Dan Geiger, Act Now Productions Elizabeth George, Fenton Communications Donna Hall, Women Donors Network Jay Harris, Mother Jones Sarah Ingersoll, Democracy Alliance Celinda Lake, Lake Research Partners George Lakoff, Rockridge Institute Mike Lux, Progressive Donor Network Holly Minch, SPIN Project Ted Nordhaus, American Environics Mark Ritchie, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Justo Robles, II, California Teachers Association Mark Steitz, TSD Communications Rebecca Wharton, Schumann Center for Media and Democracy Lisa Witter, Fenton Communications

24

Appendix 2: Agenda Progressive Roundtable SM Convening Thursday, March 2 - Sunday March 5, 2006
THURSDAY 7:30-9:00 PM FRIDAY 7:00-8:00 AM 7:30-8:00 AM 8:00-9:00 AM Just outside the Bayshore Ballroom Bayshore Ballroom Registration Aspen Room Reception and Early Registration

BREAKFAST

Bayshore Ballroom

Welcome and Orientation Laurie Spivak, Executive Director, Commonweal Institute Who Are We as a Group? Expected Outcomes of the Convening? Focusing on the Long View Remarks from Commonweal Institutes Founders Katherine Forrest and Leonard Salle Thoughts on Being a Progressive Alan Zippo, A. H. Zippo Family Foundation Getting Started Laurie Speak Understanding the Flow of Work Mary Berryman Agar, Hyperion Associates An Overview of the Work of the Convening Instructions and Outcomes for Breakout Session A Q and A

9:00-10:10 AM

Role of Government-blue dot Bayshore Ballroom Global Interdependence-yellow dot-Chestnut Room Public Education-red dot- Cherry Room Energy/Global Warming-green dot- Cedar Room

Issue Area Breakout Session A Thinking in 10 and 3 year horizons What are the critical outcomes or achievements desired? Who are the key target audiences that must be reached? What are the foundational beliefs that must be conveyed?

25

10:10-10:30 AM 10:30-10:40 AM 10:40-11:50 AM

BREAK

Bayshore Ballroom

Instructions and Outcomes for Breakout Session B Issue Area Breakout Session B What are the necessary ingredients? What action steps in marketing, communications, strategy, and coordination will be needed to accomplish the 3 and 10year outcomes? Who are the key players who will need to be on board? Which groups will need to become allies in this work?

Role of Government-blue dot Bayshore Ballroom Global Interdependence-yellow dot-Chestnut Room Public Education-red dot- Cherry Room Energy/Global Warming-green dot- Cedar Room

11:50NOON NOON-1: 30 PM 1:30-2:30PM

BREAK

LUNCH in the Bayshore Ballroom

Speaker: Marcos Militias

Bayshore Ballroom

Report Out and Whole Group Discussion Public Education Energy/Global Warming

2:30-2:45 PM 2:45-3:55 PM

BREAK

Bayshore Ballroom

Report Out and Whole Group Discussion Role of Government Global Interdependence Instructions & Outcomes for Breakout Session C Mary Berryman Agar

3:55-4:15 PM 4:15-5:35 PM

BREAK

Role of Government-blue dot Bayshore Ballroom Global Interdependence-yellow dot-Chestnut Room Public Education-red dot- Cherry Room Energy/Global Warming-green dot- Cedar Room

Issue Area Breakout Session C Refining the Action Plan Fine tuning action steps based on large group contributions Identifying resources needed to accomplish each action step Classifying the resources based on a specific, provided taxonomy.

26

5:35-5:55 PM 5:55-8:30

Bayshore Ballroom

Friday Wrap Up Laurie Speak

DINNER AND FREE TIME ON YOUR OWN Bayshore Ballroom An Optional Presentation Mike Hotter talks about Progress Now, Colorados successful state-based communications network started in 2004, now serving the entire progressive community.

8:30-9:30 PM

SATURDAY 7:30-8:00 AM 8:00-10:10 AM Bayshore Ballroom BREAKFAST

Bayshore Ballroom

Agenda Review Common Themes and Unique Needs Mary Berryman Agar A presentation based on overnight analysis of work accomplished in Issue Area Breakout Sessions Modification of Common Themes and Unique Needs Document A whole group discussion of the common themes and unique needs identified in Fridays Breakout Sessions Understanding the Flow of Work: Looking Through a Different Lens Instructions and Outcomes for Breakout Session 1

10:10-10:30 AM 10:30-11:50 AM

BREAK

Marketing-Bayshore Ballroom Coordination-Chestnut Room Communications-Cherry Room Strategy-Cedar Room

Functional Area Breakout Session 1 Considering what was created on Friday and the analysis of that work: What are the priority needs within the functional area? What alternative strategies exist for meeting unmet needs?

11:50 AM1:00 PM

LUNCH in the Aspen Room

Speaker: Joe Sander, Attorney Instructions & Outcomes for Breakout Session 2 Mary Berryman Agar

27

1:00-2:00 PM

Marketing-Bayshore Ballroom Coordination-Chestnut Room Communications-Cherry Room Strategy-Cedar Room

Functional Area Breakout Session 2 Refining the Approach to Unmet Needs Identifying critical players to include in addressing identified needs Selecting a strategy for meeting each need Exploring funding considerations and funding sources for each need

2:00-3:00 PM

Bayshore Ballroom

Report Out and Prioritization Instructions Mary Berryman Agar Report Out and Whole Group Discussions Coordination Marketing

3:00-3:15 PM 3:15-4:15 PM

BREAK

Bayshore Ballroom

Report Out and Whole Group Discussion Communications Strategy

4:15-5:45 PM

Bayshore Ballroom

Going Forward Mary Berryman Agar, Facilitator A meeting of the whole group to Discuss priorities from each functional group Select overall priorities around which proposals should be developed Consider the Commonweal Institutes proposed process for moving ahead with specific proposals

5:45-6:05 PM 6:05-6:25 PM 6:25 PM

Bayshore Ballroom

Evaluating the Convening Laurie Speak Saturday Wrap-Up Katherine Forrest and Leonard Salle

Bayshore Ballroom

DINNER ON YOUR OWN For Most MEET IN LOBBY/DINNER OUTSIDE OF HOTEL Fenders Dinner Fenders are invited to join the convening sponsors for dinner and discussion.

6:25-8:00 PM

28

SUNDAY 8:00-11:00 AM Bayshore Ballroom BREAKFAST and Discussion An informal, drop-in opportunity to discuss The proposal process Additional people, groups, or resources that should be brought on board The convening itself

29

Appendix 3: Priority Areas, Related LOIs, Observations & Status

Participants identified twelve needed infrastructure capacities, which were then prioritized and narrowed to the six capacities most urgently needed. The six priority needs identified by participants were, in order: (1) progressive media lab(s); (2) a research and coordination center for marketing and communications; (3) national strategic working group; (4) investment in progressive human capacity; (5) a convening body to bring together progressive leaders; and (6) a network-based strategy to build connected capacity of individuals, organizations, and campaigns. For each of these priority areas, this appendix includes: Detailed description of the priority area Capsule summary of the priority area Letters of Interest (LOIs) submitted in response to the prioritytitle, submitting organization(s), and status of the project Comments from Progressive Roundtable participants regarding the priority area and related issues New and ongoing developments in this priority area since the Progressive Roundtable in March 2006.

Priority Area 1: Progressive Media Lab(s)

Description of Priority Area 1 This component of infrastructure would integrate progressive messaging with both new and existing media technologies. Its aim would not be simply to develop technology for technologys sake, but to explore ways of testing emerging technological capacities, reevaluating or reapplying current media strategies, and fostering creative approaches to communications technology. Ideally, a Media Lab or Labs would serve as a catalytic force in allowing the progressive movement to stay on the cutting edge of how such technologies as cell-phones, I-pods, satellite radio, and others not yet envisioned can be put in the service of positive social change. Importantly, a Media Lab would not exist as an isolated single institution, but as a cluster of multiple, flexible, decentralized entities, operating on the principle of connectivity. That is, it would both draw on and reinforce the existing institutional or personal relationships that are the basis of the connective tissue of the progressive movement. Capsule Summary of Status While no respondent reported the development of an overall coordinated media lab type of consortium, there has been partial implementation of four of the six Lois in this priority area. In addition, a number of new developments have occurred during the past year with regard to more effective use of existing and new media.

30

Priority Area 1: Letters of Interest Six LOIs were submitted, and five of these efforts are underway in modified form. All of these efforts, which were in at least the planning stage prior to the Progressive Roundtable, are: Progressive Communications Network Incubation Center, submitted by Progress Now, ProgressNowAction, and Advancing Wisconsin. This project is underway in a scaled-back version. The ProgressNow model, pioneered in Colorado, is being expanded into several other states: Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, and Washington. Something similar was tried in Wisconsin; while the initial effort was not successful, a subsequent effort is underway. Some of the funding came from Democracy Alliance shortly after the Progressive Roundtable. Messaging for the Progressive Faith Community, submitted by Faith Voices for the Common Good and The New Press. A portion of the LOI project is being carried out. Addressing some of the communication needs of the faith community, at least four progressive religion books are in progress, with more in the pipeline. Netcentric Campaigns, submitted by Green Media Toolshed. A portion of the LOI, development of software to capture the distributed work of volunteers, is reportedly going well. Unlike convening, this web-based collaboration process will not require bringing people together physically. The developers are seeking major partners as potential licensees of their software. Issue areas with which they are currently dealing are peace and security, healthcare, and womens issues. Public News Service Expansion, submitted by Public News Service and Media in the Public Interest. Public News Service, which prepares media-ready pieces about progressive nonprofits news and gets them into media (primarily radio, but increasingly television, as well), is slowly expanding the number of states in which it works, but has not been able to raise funds to include newsworthy material coming from inside the DC Beltway. Blogtank / Blogpac, submitted by a group of prominent progressive bloggers, was intended to inject the values of speed, effectiveness, and accountability into the progressive movement by increasing the size, the legitimacy, and the reach of the progressive blogosphere. The goals of this proposal are being carried out by two separate organizations. The Center for Independent Media, a 501c3 nonprofit, provides investigative journalism skills training and mentoring to bloggers and online journalists, many of whose stories are subsequently picked up by television, radio, and newspapers. CIM is expanding on a state-by-state basis, with operating programs in Colorado (http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/magFront.do), Iowa (http://www.iowaindependent.com/magFront.do), Michigan (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/magFront.do), and Minnesota (http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/magFront.do), and plans for a national program based in Washington, DC. Blogpac, a political action committee (PAC), supports the development of progressive infrastructure and builds the movement by funding giving grants to two sets of emerging leaders: (1) activists on the internet who have a demonstrated record of success in creating progressive change outside of a traditional party or campaign structure, and (2) local bloggers who build community spaces for activists in their state.

31

The following LOI has not been carried out: Progressive Media Lab coordinating group, submitted by a multi-organization collaboration Discussion Regarding Media Priority Area The participants whom we interviewed offered many comments about the general topic of media activities. Several expressed the view that there is a lack of understanding about media, how important media are, and even a definition of what the term media comprises. Emphasis on new media has distracted attention from the opportunities to use traditional media more effectively for progressive purposes. At the Progressive Communicators Network (PCN) meeting in June 2006, there was strong interest in increasing skills in new media and helping different kinds of people access the new media; this is consistent with this area being a priority for communicators. PCNs analysis of communication is that progressives make a mistake in thinking just about communications; the communications component needs to link to the grassroots and mobilization components. Coordination is evolving among different platforms where media can play blogosphere, news, PSAs and other free (earned) media, etc. This is resulting in an expanded communication landscape that needs to be integrated into the strategy for every large organization. Most are getting that they need to do it and many will do media in-house if funding is available. The growing impact of alternative media platforms is changing the research and development aspect of communications. This isnt just about good creative and staring at an empty screen. There is a new emphasis on focus groups and other research to provide fodder for creative media. The trend is to identify the call to action, and release messages in guerilla ways that hit people in a cultural way. There was a prediction that we would see much better use of media in the 2008 campaign season. Simon Rosenberg of New Democrat Network has been emphasizing the need for campaigns to look at other models that the typical ad buy models with networks, such as viral media, cable, etc. These other models could save money and make more impact. A better understanding of media will lead to rethinking the role of media consultants. Mirroring the political transformation in DC this year, there is a lot more conversation and openness. We heard favorable comments about the Vote Vet effort in 2006 and the Womens Voices Womens Vote get out the vote campaign PSA in 2004. Although the concept of media is still foreign to many funders, since the time of the Progressive Roundtable convening, several funder groups have started to understand investment in media creation and distribution, and how to take advantage of various ways to use media. Funders are being exposed to examples of how communications and media work when they work well. Funders benefit from seeing a campaign that functioned in

32

well, said one respondent, who asserted, This will become a cornerstone to any good communication plan. The Ford Foundation was noted as a major funder that is supporting a couple of large progressive media efforts, one around communicating the positive roles that government can play, and another about accountable development (economic development) in the United States. On the other hand, some of the creative new uses of media are happening on an ad hoc basis and without specific or adequate funding. No one put a proposal on someones desk they just did it. That is still the case. Build it and they will come. That is just the way it is. One respondent expressed the view that Democracy Alliance members prefer to expand existing organizations in the media area, in which they have more confidence, rather than going with totally new ones. This is consistent with the remarks of another commenter, who expressed the impression that funding for putting progressive messages out via new technologies has actually been constricting, with less being funded. With regard to developing a multi-issue, interlinked infrastructure to advance progressive issues in the media, the responses suggest that that not much progress has been made. Among funders, eyes start to glaze over when you talk about infrastructure. There has been little movement here [with regard to infrastructure], but rather [what] movement [there has been has depended] on individual efforts and by [individual] people. Specific Media Developments during the Past Year Specific media developments in the past year that were mentioned, in addition to those that were the subject of LOIs as described above, are: Media in the Public Interest (no further details) The Banner Project helps a cohort of groups with messaging. LinkTV is using a traditional medium, but putting progressive content on ita different model. Synanim social networking software for religious groups My Church social network, for churches Maybe some of the things the Rappaports support would fall in this category. New Progressive Institute Avaaz.org (www.avaaz.org) a new, global mechanism for civic engagement. Like a global moveon.org, dealing with issues larger than just one country and/or with wider impact. Includes expression of progressive religious voices. The Courage Campaign was doing an adaptation of Blue State software for the purpose of funding campaigns. Some people in San Francisco are trying to create a competitive game about the environment, for children or adults, which would both educate and change attitudes. Nothing integrated, but Opportunity Agenda, Media Consortium, and Color of Change are doing some pieces of this, sometimes with new constituencies. Rockridge Institute

33

MFA and Mobile Voter. Rapid response pieces coming out of blogosphere and not just coordination people know what they are doing. Efforts by Brave New Films and Balcony Films (including some coordination between the two) Womens Media Center

Priority Area 2: Research and Coordination Center

Description of Priority Area 2 There is an urgent need for a research and coordination center for marketing and communications efforts, both coordinating efforts across the progressive movement and for linking national work with grassroots organizations and activists. Market research is needed in the areas of market segmentation for messaging (including demographic, psychographic, geographic, and values research); focus group research and polling to test the effectiveness of progressive framing and language; test marketing / beta-testing of messages and communications materials; and the evaluation of communication effectiveness. While the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is beginning to undertake such research, progressive movement entities must conduct their own market research on progressive values, issues and branding, and share the results with their political partners in the Democratic Party and beyond. Any national marketing and communication efforts will also need to be coordinated with what is effectively the sales force for progressives: grassroots and nonprofit advocacy organizations and activists working in the field. Moreover, there is a need to create a pooled, open-source knowledge network: to aggregate polling data and other market research, to mine and synthesize data, to archive and organize research, and to coordinate the sharing of research planning and results. Capsule Summary of Status While some new research efforts are going on, no respondent reported having heard about development of a research center of the type recommended by the Progressive Roundtable participants, one that would coordinate marketing and communications research and ensure wide access to the results. One of the individual projects described in the three LOIs in this priority area is underway in a modified, more circumscribed fashion. Priority Area 2: Letters of Interest Three LOIs were submitted; one of these efforts is underway in a modified, more circumscribed form. It is: Annual Social Values Survey, submitted by American Environics. The Social Values Survey conducted by the Canadian firm Environics, which has also been conducted in 34

the United States for the past 30 years, is being done in a more circumscribed, issuespecific fashion than had been proposed. This is due to lack of funding for the proposed cross-issue survey, which would have been an important, innovative element. The following LOIs have not been carried out, due to lack of funding: Progressive Resource Center, submitted by the Commonweal Institute Progressive Index Research, submitted by American LIVES Discussion Regarding Research Activities The responders had a few general comments about research activities: At the Media Reform Conference in January 2007, a pre-conference day was focused on research. Look on the Free Press website for information. There was mild criticism of two major progressive communications projects that involved research. In both cases, the resulting messages were designed for the persuadable middle, and did not seem to resonate with communities of color. Some of the research was ideal, but designed for people in the middle, not tested on specific groups. A couple of groups are reportedly trying to get funding for research projects, but none of these is underway yet. Democracy Alliance is interested in the idea of a market research center, with a reported intention to fund a well-established group rather than a small organization or a consortium. Specific Research Developments during the Past Year The following research activities were reported by the responders as having been undertaken during the past year: Opportunity Agenda, www.opportunityagenda.org, like a think tank to create messages and frames, did some polling of American opinion about opportunity. Demos and collaborating organizations did research on the role of government; summaries of various components of this research are available online. Some other organization did message-development research on USA in the World. The Center for American Progress (CAP) does substantive policy research, and some marketing and communications research. CAP is working on a progressive branding initiative, experimenting in a couple of states. The New Democrat Network does some research. Spitfire Strategies has developed The Activation Point, based on their research about when individuals decide to take action. It is not a research and coordination center, but Spitfire has links to a number of others who are engaged in communications research and strategies. The Praxis Project may be doing research in preparation for the US Social Forum in Atlanta, in late June 2007.

35

Center for Social Inclusion does research and coordination related to structural racism. The SPIN Project has information about providers of public opinion research on its website (http://www.spinproject.org/article.php?list=type&type=37 ) and discusses research in its training programs Berkeley Media Studies Group does research and coordination Youth Media Council and Real Reason do research and some coordination. Center for Community Change does research

Priority Area 3: National Progressive Strategic Working Group

Description of Priority Area 3 Progressive Roundtable SM participants identified the need to establish a select, national strategic working group to bring a strategic focus to the various progressive efforts across the country. This small, working group would begin with a one-time gap analysis, which would include inventorying and mapping the progressive movements network and infrastructure to understand who is doing what, and what gaps remain. It would then continue to track progressive organizations and initiatives on an ongoing basis. The working group would also bring together those doing the work on the ground with funders so that resources could be marshaled accordingly. The National Progressive Strategic Working Group would develop a strategic plan for progressives, including a funding plan, as well as developing strategies for winning elections and legislative battles and coordinating issue selections. Capsule Summary of Status No respondent reported having heard about the development of a national strategic working group of the type recommended by the Progressive Roundtable participants, one that would be multi-issue and would include representatives of various types of organizational entities (i.e., 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), for-profits, etc.). The respondents responses indicated the difficulty that progressives are having in coming together as a cohesive movement, when their traditional pattern has been marked by deep divisions: Washington versus the states, separate issue silos, and political entities versus nonprofits. Nevertheless, some positive signs are present. The one LOI submitted in response to this priority was not been carried out, due in part to a lack of funding, but also revision of the project concept. Priority Area 3: Letters of Interest The one LOI submitted in response to this priority was not been carried out, due in part to a lack of funding, but also revision of the project concept: Progressive Synergy Network, submitted by two individuals working on a Progressive Synergy Project 36

Discussion Regarding Strategic Planning Efforts The respondents responses indicated the difficulty the progressives are having in coming together as a cohesive movement, when their traditional pattern has been marked by deep divisions: Washington versus the states, separate issue silos, and political entities versus nonprofits. Nevertheless, a number of positive signs are present. Lack of cooperation separates the political entities from other progressive entities, and there is resentment in the nonprofit sector directed toward the Democratic Party: The DCCC and the DSCC are milking donors to give internally to their own organizations and are not cooperating with other progressive groups. Respondents also commented on interpersonal problems with cooperation that have been evident when joint progressive strategy meetings have been attempted. The [charismatic organizational leader] types are not necessarily collaborative with other effortsthey want to do their own thing. Strategic efforts for the most part are seen as being short-term and focused either on single issues or elections: Mostly its the Democratic Party doing election strategy very short-sighted, the flavor of the month. The largest of the progressive think tanks, the Center for American Progress (CAP), is seen as being able to do some of this sort of strategic planning in the course of its work with other entities because of its large size. An example mentioned was discussions between CAP and SEIU about how to get universal healthcare legislation passed. Some sectors are coming togetherMedia Consortium (media), Generational Alliance (youth leadership) and Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN). Other issue sectors mentioned without identification of a leading group were felon disenfranchisement and climate change/justice. Two state-level models were mentioned as engaging in strategic planning: Progressive States Network and the ProgressNow communications network. Several respondents said that large funding entities might be starting to do multi-issue long-term strategic planning: Maybe foundations are doing a better job. Funders mentioned in this regard were Open Society Institute, the Democracy Alliance, and the Funders Committee on Civic Participation (FCCP). Democracy Alliance was mentioned as having done an internal gap analysis study. All mentions of these entities were in regard to single issues or narrow issue clusters. Specific Strategic Planning Efforts during the Past Year There are issue-specific strategic efforts: Major environmental organizationsCLCV, LCV, ED, NRDCare coordinating well with each other on legislation and regulations Voting and how we vote Popular vote project to circumvent the Electoral College Healthcarecoordination is mostly around womens health and womens reproductive rights. The US Social Forum, which will be held in Atlanta in June 2007, will bring together groups around the theme of another world is possible. This is part of a global

37

effort; related events have taken place or will take place in Mumbai and Brazil. Website is www.ussf.org. It is organized with working committees and working groups, regional outreach. There will be tracks and theme areas, such as war, Katrina, immigration reform, etc., and workshops on various topics.

Priority Area 4: Investment in Human Capacity

Description of Priority Area 4 No matter how smart the strategy, or how powerful the message, no political movement will grow and succeed without effective leaders and communicators. The 2006 Progressive Roundtable SM identified a need for the systematic recruitment and training of people who can best embody and articulate progressive ideas and values. In particular, while there are generals such as elected politicians and privates such as grassroots activists, the officer corps of mid-level leadership has been depleted. Building this side of progressive infrastructure would first require better information, as there is a knowledge deficit when it comes to understanding which organizations are working most effectively in this field and where gaps remain. Investment in progressive human resource development would include identifying talent, mentoring and training young activists, retaining established leaders, offering executive and mid-level management exchange programs, supporting roving management consulting, and providing fellowships and resources to leaders. Capsule Summary of Status Neither of the LOIs submitted in response to this priority received funding, and neither has been carried out as planned. Progressive human capacity development efforts that have been going on for some time include leadership training of nonprofit executives, youth training, politician and political campaign training, or issue-specific training. A small number of new or evolving human capacity development efforts were reported during the past year. Priority Area 4: Letters of Interest Neither of the two LOIs submitted in response to this priority received funding, and neither has been carried out as planned. Progressive Think Tank Leadership Development, submitted by the Rockwood Leadership Program. For years the Rockwood Leadership Program has conducted workshops and training programs to develop the leadership skills of leaders in the nonprofit sector, and it continues to do this type of work. However, it did not receive funding to do the proposed project, which specifically would have targeted the leadership of progressive think tanks and similar organizations. The Iowa Project, submitted by the Center for Civic Participation and Chambers Lopez & Gaitan. This proposed project to conduct grassroots outreach and training among rural Latinos in Iowa did not receive funding, although the proposers did put some of their own monies into trying to get the project going. However, the concept 38

has been picked up by another nonprofit entity and has evolved into an ongoing project funded by the Northwest Area Foundation. The Center for Civic Participation is involved in that project to a limited extent. Discussion Regarding Human Capacity Development Efforts Several of the respondents stated that there have been progressive human capacity development efforts going on for some time. A number of the examples they cited deal with leadership training of nonprofit executives, youth training, politician and political campaign training, or issue-specific training. Examples of these ongoing programs are: ChoiceUSA (pro-choice youth) California List (pro-choice Democratic women candidates in California) Progressive Majority (minority Democratic women candidates) Emerge (aspiring Democratic women candidates) Womens Campaign Forum (aspiring pro-choice women candidates) Center for Progressive Leadership (aspiring progressive political leaders) Young PFAW (youth fellowships for aspiring activists) Rockwood Leadership Program (nonprofit executives) Center for American Progress Campus Progress (youth) and other Wellstone Action (grassroots activists) SPIN Project (communications and media skills) Sustainability Institute (systems analysis and operations to promote sustainability in various organizational contexts) Others mentioned existing leadership development and coaching programs that are directed as much or more toward those in the private (business) sector as to those in nonprofits or politics. Specific Human Capacity Development Efforts during the Past Year Some human capacity development efforts that were reported as having been new or evolving during the past year are: Netcentric Communications is developing a netcentric training program for a set of Ford Foundation grantees. A group of about 300 donors who support LGBTQ efforts, organized by the Guild Foundation, is focusing their efforts this year on leadership development, state-level organizing, and religion and spirituality. The Media Consortium has a fellowship program to teach multimedia training at UC Berkeley. A sermon-writing effort among theological schools is nurturing human capacity. Two groups of theological schools are trying to coordinate around social change. Center for Progressive Leadership is expanding its reach and offerings. There has been increased interest in Rockwoods training and capacity development work; two of the funders on the list of those to whom the LOIs were sent have seem to be getting more interested in leadership development.

39

The Open Society Institute and Democracy Alliance have had an ongoing interest in leadership development, but their levels of interest may not have changed. There is talk about developing a program targeting people who could transition into national DC-based orgs.

Priority Area 5: Progressive Convener(s)

Description of Priority Area 5 Conveners would be organizations that bring together progressive groups on a regular, sustained basis to promote coordination on both long-term strategy and specific issues. A number of existing organizations, such as Wisconsin Blueprint at the state level or America Votes at the national level, have had some success in this regard and could serve as models for extending and expanding this aspect of progressive infrastructure. The need, therefore, is for substantial external funding to be channeled toward taking the best models and making umbrella conveners permanent and central features of the coordination process. Support for these conveners might also come from member organizations, with members reallocating five percent of internal resources to coordination -- becoming part of a 5% Club of organizations committed to progressive coordination. Such organizations should be proactive, inclusive, and responsive proactive in looking beyond immediate circumstances and seeking to create better circumstances; inclusive in moving beyond the usual roster of progressive groups; and responsive in basing strategic and funding decisions on empirically demonstrated results. Capsule Summary of Status One of the two individual projects described in LOIs is underway in a more circumscribed fashion. Most of the progressive convening activities reported by the respondents focus on single-issue areas or political action. Priority Area 5: Letters of Interest The two projects described in LOIs are underway in a more circumscribed fashion:. These are: Progressive Communicators Network; it was submitted by Spirit in Action. Expansion of the Progressive Communicators Network is taking place, focusing on development of regional networks of communications and PR professionals. However, the rate of expansion is less than would have been possible had funding been available for additional staff positions. Progressive Roundtable; it was submitted by Commonweal Institute. The initial Progressive Roundtable convening in March, 2006, was intended to be first of an ongoing series of events that would bring small to medium sized groups of progressives together to deal with specific issues or topical challenges. The Commonweal Institute is planning a local event in California for December 2007 on the topic of infrastructure funding, and a larger event in the Midwest in 2008 on 40

promoting progressive values through single-issue organizations and online interventions. The Commonweal Institute is also seeking funding for further Progressive Roundtables. Discussion Regarding Progressive Convening Efforts Bringing groups together is clearly not a new concept, as reflected by the comments from respondents: There is an overlap between convening and other phenomenabuilding connected capacity, collaborating, and in some cases, strategic planning. Single-issue groups have been getting together to share ideas and develop strategy in the areas of womens issues, voting, election integrity, anti-war, and environment. Issue areas also have conferences, e.g., Bioneers, Media Reform, Western States Center, National Youth Leadership Forumbut these vary in the degree to which a specific outcome is intended or achieved. The Center for American Progress (CAP) often convenes groups in DC on specific issues. One respondent mentioned that CAP also cosponsors a Tuesday group with Campaign for Americas Future and the American Federation of Labor; its effectiveness was called into question by another respondent. There have been about four or five get-togethers over the past couple of years to deal with the concept of infrastructure development. These include one at Asilomar before the Progressive Roundtable and the Progressive Roundtable. Two organized by Betsy Taylor brought together a number of state-based organizing people and resulted in state pilot projects in CO, NM, and OR. Funders mentioned as having supported convenings include Quixote, Belden, Brico, Steve Philips and Anne Bartley. One respondent asserted that the concept of convenings should be broadened to include various types of Internet-facilitated gatherings, such as moderated blogs and online discussion groups. In this regard, MeetUps, which are in-person gatherings around a wide variety of topics, may be thought of as small convenings that are initiated through a web-based mechanism. Since the 2004 election, there has been more online linking among Democratic groups. Democratic presidential candidates are also sponsoring and participating in events that combine social gatherings with web-based presentations by candidates and telephonic connection for answering audience questions. Specific Progressive Convening Efforts during the Past Year and Planned Faith in Public Life convened a group from the progressive faith community in December, 2006; subsequently, a subgroup was working on a mission statement. Redefining Progress is preparing for a conference for progressive think tank leaders, which is scheduled to take place in December 2007. US Social Forum (see in Strategic Planning priority area)

41

Commonweal Institute is working on proposals to convene one or more groups around the topic of funding the development of infrastructure and the progressive movement. Christian Churches Together is planning a convening that will include traditional Protestants, Catholics, Evangelicals, and maybe Unitarians. There will be another Spin conference in Colorado in early 2008, cosponsored by Netcentric Communications and Cause Communications, designed for people who do public relations work.

Priority Area 6: Building Connected Capacity

Description of Priority Area 6 This infrastructure concept refers to the productive communication that can and should be occurring between progressive organizations, which too often have trouble coordinating on messaging or strategy, and settling on a clear, specific, measured approach that crosses institutional or policy boundaries. At the 2006 Progressive Roundtable, three central types or levels of connectivity were identified: group-to-group, staff-to-staff, and peopleto-people. In group-to-group connectivity, organizations would share resources, data, and even intellectual property. Staff-to-staff connectivity would involve such collaborations as the creation of ad-hoc professional teams, the temporary exchange of support staff or circuit riders, and leave-of-absence programs for advanced staff to allow the sharing of expertise. People-to-people connectivity, finally, refers to such capillary-level communications as email and blogs, and is closely linked to the principle that messages move most effectively through subcultures. It would also promote vital situational awareness. All of these forms of connective tissue would build up internal capacity in the progressive movement and strengthen the social networks that form the human basis of any successful political movement. A first step in building connected capacity would be a mapping of progressive organizations and networks. Capsule Summary of Status Modest progress was made on the projects described in two of the three LOIs in this priority area. The concept of building connected capacity had appropriately been translated into network building in the minds of most of the respondents. Networks are expanding and strengthening in several areas, according to the respondents, and much of this activity appears to be of recent origin. Priority Area 6: Letters of Interest Modest progress has made on one of the projects described in the two LOIs in this priority area: Progressive Clergy Mobilization; it was submitted by FaithfulAmerica.org and Faith Voices for the Common Good. Interest in the online Synanim communication platform for the faith community, which is at the heart of this project, is slowly 42

increasing, but the project as proposed has not been carried out due to lack of funding. Two of the projects have not been pursued, for lack of funding and other reasons: Mapping and Strengthening of Progressive Networks; it was submitted by the Commonweal Institute. The Commonweal Institute conducted a pilot project of mapping the social networks of participants before and following the Progressive Roundtable. A much more comprehensive project of mapping and network strengthening had been proposed. This effort has been limited by lack of resources and the discovery that data collection for mapping would best be done in conjunction with convenings or other events, rather than after an event or as a stand-alone effort. Mapping & Database of Progressive Organizations & Networks was submitted by two individual consultants. This project was not pursued, as the proposers considered it to overlap with the Commonweal Institute project described above. Discussion Regarding Network Building Efforts The concept of building connected capacity had appropriately been translated into network building in the minds of most of the respondents. Networks are expanding and strengthening in several areas, according to the respondents. A number of civic participation and election-focused networks are strengthening. Groups involved in these efforts include the Faith in Public Life Center (FPLC) and the Center for Civic Participation, Specific Network Building Efforts during the Past Year The New Progressive Coalition (NPC) has been refining its model and expanding its services for facilitating interactions between progressive investors and entrepreneurs, through telephonic and in-person events, as well as web-based communications. Progressive Communicators Network is expanding regionally now: Boston, Midwest, Southwest, California. Netcentric Campaigns is doing some network mapping and is building network linkages around media access. Some of the leading progressive bloggers coordinate with each other online and in regular conference calls. MoveOn is reportedly doing some coordination (unspecified). The Center for American Progress does external work in the states and some states do their own internal coordination. In a sense, ProgressNow in Colorado and similar entities in several other states (see Progressive Media Lab priority area above) facilitate connections. People at Netcentric Communications are developing software to be used in assessing the strength of social networks. Communications Leadership Institute Executive Training Program (www.smartcommunications.org), does peer networking around framing and messaging to increase communications capacity across organizations.

43

The Western States Center does capacity-building across issue areas (economic justice, racial justice, and the environment,), focusing on building a progressive movement eight Western states. The SPIN Project is collaborating with Opportunity Agenda on an online framing project. This effort will target grassroots groups in the field, having them share ideas for new frames. One respondent put social networking activities in this category, such as Facebook, MySpace, and even video-sharing sites. These are not explicitly political, but their young demographic is not conservative. As a result of their online networking, social change may be happening, not by intent, but because the tool makes this an effective way for a members of a non-conservative demographic to influence each other.

Additional Infrastructure Needs

In addition to these six top priorities, six other infrastructure capacity needs were identified by participants, as follow in ranked order: (7) progressive brand development and management; (8) progressive Google (Poogle) which would include information management, virtual coordination, and a whos who in the progressive movement; (9) progressive My Space or a social networking site that would use GIS mapping software to track and link progressive activists and organizations locally, statewide and nationally; (10) broadening audiences; (11) long-term research and development center; and (12) translating policy ideas for various audiences. While LOIs were not been invited on these priorities, Roundtable participants were encouraged to develop these ideas independently. We also encouraged other interested parties to develop these independently and funders to consider supporting them. Brand Development and Management While there was some discussion about branding efforts already underway by the Democratic Party, there was also discussion about the need for development and management of a progressive effort, independent of any political party. Progressive branding would focus on how to communicate underlying progressive values and ideas in striking, memorable, and appealing forms, both visual and verbal. To be maximally effective, such branding should be driven by a core of sincere beliefs, should express large themes in accessible ways, and should reflect a coordinated effort by different organizations and individuals so as to stay consistent. It is also important to differentiate progressive branding from Democratic market segmentation, both for legal reasons and because there is not complete congruity between progressive and Democratic messages or goals. The Center for American Progress and the Glaser Progress Foundation are currently working on a progressive brand project, which followed upon discussions that took place between senior staff of those two organizations during the Progressive Roundtable convening. This project involves ad campaigns in Columbus, OH; Milwaukee, MN; and Indianapolis, IN; testing several different ways of presenting a "progressive brand. The 44

campaign includes pre- and post-testing to measure how well the ads promote progressive policies and values, increase overall awareness of and favorability towards progressivism, inform people about key progressive attributes, and encourage people to self-identify as a progressive in their own approach to politics. While several other organizations have begun working on progressive branding, many more could begin contributing to this infrastructural work simply by producing and using statements explaining why they are progressive. Ultimately, a marketing-oriented organization will likely be needed to aggregate and analyze branding possibilities, conduct research on specific ideas, and disseminate and manage brand information and product.

Progressive Google (Poogle) The progressive variant of the famous Internet search engine, this information management system would promote virtual coordination on the Left by greatly facilitating and accelerating the retrieval and transfer of relevant content in such areas as policy research, public opinion surveys, organization programs and capacities, and political statistics. Important participants in such a project would include search engine developers, providers of both messaging and policy content, and current information specialists such as librarians or indexers. Initial funding would likely come from venturecapital investment. Online Progressive Social Network Based on the idea behind the popular MySpace social-networking site, this component of progressive coordination would provide a forum for both individuals and organizations to share ideas, personal profiles, information, strategic advice, and even music or video through a secure network of linked websites. While primarily a social-networking site, all of the current MySpace functionality, including blogging, chat rooms, community calendars, and discussion forums, would be directed toward the forging and strengthening of links among both established and potential progressives. In addition to this functionality, progressive MySpace would also use GIS (Geographic Information Systems) mapping software to link and track progressive individuals and organizations locally, statewide and nationally in real-time online maps. A Progressive MySpace would thus represent a practical response to the need for viable social networks a theme that came up repeatedly during the 2006 Progressive Roundtable SM convening. Moreover, it would do so in a fast, entertaining, and highly participatory environment. Venture-capital funding could provide the early propulsion for a Progressive MySpace, but over the long run such a project should be self-sustaining through advertising and/or membership revenue. Broadening Audiences Everyone at the 2006 Progressive Roundtable SM agreed that progressives need to be able to reach and to motivate a broader spectrum of the public, particularly younger voters, 45

ethnic communities, and people of faith. Doing so will require several interlocking strategies. One is technological, i.e., using new media such as video games, or specialized media properties, such as privately owned radio stations, to promote progressive ideas. Another is strategic, working with student organizations, local labor leaders, or community artists who already have natural connections with particular constituencies, and taking advantage of existing community nodes such as corner bodegas, student lounges, or nonprofit community-based organizations. A third strategic component is message-oriented, based on understanding how progressive policies intersect with the motivating values of a particular community. Long-term Research and Development Center Participants identified the need for greater long-term research and development of broad strategic initiatives. This research center would not only generate new research focused on long-term strategic initiatives, but also work closely with universities to begin to forge relationships with academics and to tap into much of the intellectual work that has been published academically but has not crossed over into the policy world. Translation of this academic work for public dissemination, as well as translation from the theoretical to the applicable, would also be a primary function of the center. Several think tanks are already working in these areas, and could expand their programs to include greater outreach to academia with very few additional resources. Programs could include fellowships, academics-in-residence, and cash competitions for policy proposals open to graduate students and faculty. Idea Translation An intermediary step between developing policies and values and disseminating them to the public is their packaging for various audiences. This primarily involves idea translation: taking policy ideas and values, translating them for various audiences, and putting them into formats suited for those audiences needs. Idea translation, a critical component of idea generation, would inform the development of communication materials from high-tech content streamed into cell phones to direct mail flyers sent to homes. This function overlaps with several of the above, and would combine framing and language development, market research, and testing.

46

Appendix 4: Funders* to whom the Letters of Interest Were Sent

Individual Harriet Barlow Claudine Brown Martin Collier Philip Cubeta Donna Edwards Christine Forester Donna Hall Connie Heller Lawrence Hess Gara LaMarche John Luongo Rob McKay Lincoln Pain Guy Saperstein William Soskin Marge Tabankin Foundation or Organization HKH Foundation Nathan Cummings Foundation Glaser Progress Foundation GiftHub (financial advisor) Arca Foundation La Jolla funding circle Women Donors Network Cagampang Heller Family Fund (individual) Open Society Institute (Soros) Democracy Alliance Democracy Alliance & McKay Foundation Cambridge Investment Group Democracy Alliance & individual Democracy Alliance Political donation advisor to Barbara Streisand, Stephen Spielberg, et al. Democracy Alliance Yen Chuang Foundation Attended Gave Roundtable Feedback yes yes yes yes yes

yes

yes

Eddie Wong Sophia Yen

yes

yes

47

Appendix 5: Proposal and Letter of Interest Process

During the March 2-5, 2006, convening, the Progressive Roundtable SM participants identified six capacities as top priority needs for the building of progressive infrastructure. This means that, when fully developed, they will: Operate on a long-term, ongoing basis, not restricted to a finite time period, electoral cycles, a campaign for specific legislation, or specific projects; Support progressive values and goals as a whole, and not be constrained by singleissue boundaries; Develop relationships and linkages with other infrastructure entities; and Coordinate their activities with those of other components of the progressive infrastructure network on both short-term and long-term efforts.

If new capacity is set up within an existing organization, it will likely be able to become functional more quickly than if a new organization has to be created. It takes some time (probably at least nine months) to set up a new nonprofit corporation and get provisional approval of its 501(c)(3) status from the IRS. However, a new organization can also be set up initially as a project of another organization (such as Tides Foundation) that acts as its fiscal agent while the new organization is going through the incorporation and approval process, or even on an ongoing basis. In this case, an organization may propose to start developing infrastructure on a project basis, with plans to scale up subsequently. It is also possible that multiple organizations may want to propose to work together in partnership, a joint venture, or some other arrangement. To help organizations apply for progressive infrastructure funding, the Commonweal Institute (CI) is acting as a coordinator in the fund-seeking process. We have designed the following proposal process to ensure, as much as possible, that all of the capacity needs prioritized during the Progressive Roundtable SM convening will be created in a timely and efficient manner. We have sought to have the process make sense and be helpful to both funders and the other Progressive Roundtable SM participants. 1. CIs Progressive Roundtable SM team has developed a two-part standardized Letter of Interest (LOI) (essentially, a questionnaire).1 2. A copy of the LOI instructions was enclosed in the convening packets of all the Progressive Roundtable SM participants and is also posted in the members-only
1

The purpose of the standardized Letter of Interest (LOI) form is to make the application process simpler and easier for both the proposers and the funders. An applicant organization can readily indicate what elements it already has (people, intellectual work, space, location, connections, etc.) that would make it a logical choice to fill a priority infrastructure need. Funders will easily be able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of competing LOIs, if they receive LOIs from more than one organization for a given infrastructure need.

48

3.

4.

5.

6.

section of the Progressive Roundtable SM website (www.progressiveroundtable.org).2 Participants who want to apply for funding to create one or more of the prioritized infrastructure capacities can prepare LOIs by using the LOI form(s) and submit the completed LOIs to CI by March 27, 2006.3 Participants can suggest others, which were not represented at the convening, whom they believe might have potential for taking on one or more of the prioritized capacity needs.4 CI will send LOI instructions and information about the Progressive Roundtable SM process to those so identified, so they will have an opportunity to submit a LOI if they wish.5 6 CI is talking with funders about which of the prioritized infrastructure needs are of greatest interest to them, and on which they would like to receive LOIs and possibly proposals.7

For some of the Progressive Roundtable SM participants, the LOI form enclosed in their conference packet was primarily informational.
3

Funders that are legally required or prefer to give only to 501(c)(3) recipients will be most interested in supporting new capacity that is centered in 501(c)(3) organizations. However, any type of organization may offer to fill a capacity gapthe LOI process is not limited to 501(c)(3)s. Many of the infrastructure tasks may be done by for-profit organizations specializing in PR, marketing, polling, etc., working in conjunction with 501(c)(3)s. For both funding and image reasons (information coming out of a 501(c)(3) is commonly perceived to be coming from an independent and credible source), these other organizations may elect to provide their services on an agreed-upon basis to non-profits.

Many of the Progressive Roundtable SM participants, including funders and others who are not likely to apply for funding themselves, likely know non-attendees that might be qualified and interested in applying. These organizations are invited to submit LOIs electronically for any capacities for which they thought they were qualified, within three weeks of being contacted by CI.
6 5

Any organization, including those of Progressive Roundtable SM participants, that proposes to host a specific capacity (e.g., development of long-term strategy), could show an extensive list of subcontractors if they wish. For example, the list of potential subcontractors might include three different organizations with essentially the same capability. In this case, the organization responsible for the new capacity would not be committed to any specific subcontractor. As an alternative, organizations may wish to collaborate with specified other organization(s) or individual(s), e.g., as subcontractors or partners, in order to carry out an infrastructure capacity.

These funders include those participating at the Progressive Roundtable SM convening, as well as others who were not able to attend. Some of the participating funders may suggest still others and perhaps even play a role in soliciting their involvement. Since a number of 49

7. CI will send the LOIs forward to all the funders we have identified that have expressed interest in receiving LOIs in that particular area. CI will let submitters know when their LOIs have been sent and to which funder(s). 8. Once the LOIs are submitted, decisions about soliciting proposals and funding will be made by the individual funders, who will be in touch with the submitters directly.8 9. CI will stay in contact with those who are funding new capacity,9 10 and will keep the Progressive Roundtable SM participants informed regarding the new capacity funding decisions. 10. If no LOI is received for one of the prioritized new capacities, CI will work with a small team to put together a proposal for a new organization (other than CI) designed to fulfill this infrastructure need.11

the funders represent funding groups, the list of potential funders may be expanded considerably.
8

We recommend that, if possible, a standard proposal format be used by all the funders. This would make it possible for an organization to prepare a single proposal that could be reviewed by multiple funders. Additionally, it would enable different funders who are considering funding the same capacity to readily compare proposals. CI will also notify each funder of the other funders that are requesting proposals for the same infrastructure capacity.

10

If the funders wish, CI could convene or participate in a funder briefing. This would enable funders to interact with other funders who are considering funding the same capacity, to know which funders are covering which capacities, and to find out if there are priority capacities that are not yet being considered for funding.

11

If no LOI is received for one of the prioritized capacities or if all of the identified funders reject the LOI(s) submitted for a given capacity, a new organization may have to be created to fill that capacity need. In this instance, CI will request funds from the funders that attended the Progressive Roundtable SM or others in order to support the development of a proposal to fund a new organization. CI in combination with a small team (likely consisting of consultants, funders and persons with business experience some who are Progressive Roundtable SM attendees, and perhaps others who will be identified by CI) will develop that proposal. CI will be given the proposal-development monies, but the proposal will itself will be to establish a new organization, not related to CI. The members of the proposal team will not be those who intend to head or be part of the new organization. 50

Appendix 6: Letters of Interest Form

Introduction To help organizations apply for progressive infrastructure funding, the Commonweal Institute (CI) is acting as a coordinator in the fund-seeking process. We have designed the following Letter of Interest (LOI) process. By using this LOI process, you as an applicant will save time and effort in having to identify potential funders and prepare multiple letters and proposals. You may also increase your chances of receiving funding. During the March 2-5, 2006, convening, the Progressive Roundtable SM participants identified six infrastructural capacities as top priority needs. Your organization may submit LOIs electronically for any of these priority needs for which it considers itself qualified. Your LOI(s) will be submitted to CI, which will then pass the LOIs on to funders who have identified themselves as being interested in receiving LOIs for one or more of the priority needs. CI will let your organization know when your LOI(s) have been sent and to whom. Once your LOI is submitted, decisions about soliciting proposals and funding will be made by the individual funders, who will be in touch with your organization directly. In its role as coordinator, CI will advise each funder as to what other funders have expressed an interest in funding the same infrastructure capacity. This will make it possible for funders to coordinate their funding, including their review of applicants who have submitted LOIs. How to Submit a Letter of Interest 1. The Letter of Interest has two sections: an Organization Profile and a Priority Need Activity Sheet. 2. Complete an Organization Profile. Your organization need only submit one Organization profile. 3. Complete a Priority Need Activity Sheet for each separate priority infrastructure need your organizations proposes to address. 4. Submit the material in separate electronic files to loi@commonwealinstitute.org by March 31, 2006. You will receive an electronic notice of receipt. If you do not receive a notice of receipt within two business days of transmission, contact Leonard Salle at lmsalle@commonwealinstitute.org, 650-854-9796. 5. If a resubmittal is required, the final date for the resubmittal will be April 14, 2005.

51

LOI Form Organization Profile

1. Date 2. Name of organization 3. Address 4. Telephone number 5. Website URL 6. Legal status of organization 7. 501(c)(3) approval. If 501(c)(3), when incorporated and when received IRS approval for 501(c)(3) status (attach copy of 501(c)(3) approval letter or fax to 650-854-8132) 8. Where incorporated, if applicable 9. Organization head. Provide brief resume of CEO and/or Executive Director 10. Corporate Board. If applicable, provide brief resumes. 11. Advisory Board or equivalent. Name, title, organization or professional background of each member 12. Total organization budget. Provide a summary, not detailed, for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 (projected). Attach pages or files as needed. 13. Number of staff and volunteers. Full-time equivalents of each. 14. Organization mission statement

Priority Need Activity Sheet

1. Date 2. Name of organization 3. Infrastructure priority capacity in which your organization is interested 4. Contact individual (name, title, e-mail, telephone) for this LOI 5. Trajectory. Is this: (a) an area in which your organization (or its key staff) has already been working, (b) an area in which the organization already had concrete plans to expand, or (c) a new area for the organization? 6. Relationship to mission. How does the specific infrastructure capacity relate to the organizations mission? (support by reference to specific materials where possible) 7. Intellectual work that the organization has done related to the specific infrastructure capacity of interest (list papers, articles, other) 8. Programmatic and/or project work that the organization has done related to the specific infrastructure capacity of interest (describe briefly) 9. Human resources. Staff or officers that have specific background or activities related to the area of interest provide brief summary for each. 10. Special capabilities. Description of any special capabilities your organization has for taking on this new infrastructure capacity 11. Others involved. Would your organization collaborate with other organization(s) or individual(s), e.g., as subcontractors or partners, in order to carry out this infrastructure capacity? If your organization already has a relationship with such other organization(s) or individual(s), please describe that relationship.

52

12. Summary of approach. Description of the approach your organization would use in executing the new infrastructure capacity or carrying out this project. If you see this as a first step or pilot project of something that might be expanded later, please describe briefly how it might be scaled up. (limit to one type-written page, single-space, 12 font) 13. Impact. Impact you anticipate would be achieved by building and carrying out this infrastructure capacity. 14. Funding request. Approximate total amount that will be needed annually for each of the first three years of the proposed activity, if executed as planned.

53

Appendix 7: Observations on Funders and Funding

Process for Encouraging Funding As initially envisioned in the Progressive Roundtable proposal, we planned to have Commonweal Institute staff and the facilitator meet with the funders who were present during the convening, and possibly other funders who were interested but unable to attend the event, within a short time after the end of the convening, to decide how best to coordinate proposals coming out of the convening and the funding processes that the funders would prefer. During the convening, we did ask for input from the funders present and Commonweal Institute staff met with representatives of two major funding groups. Based on this input, we developed a process for notifying funders of the priority areas and the specific LOIs. The 17 LOIs and the list of priority needs developed by the Progressive Roundtable participants were sent to 18 funders or representatives of foundations or funder groups, all of whom had expressed interest in receiving them. [See Appendix 4 for a list of funders to whom the LOIs were sent.] Both funders and proposers were encouraged to have further contact with each other directly, and proposers were also encouraged to seek other sources of funding that might be appropriate. Both the funders and the proposers were also informed that the Commonweal Institute would not be acting as a broker with regard to funding; it was up to them to make contact with each other. Only one proposer submitted a separate proposal directly to one of the funders on the list, the Democracy Alliance. Projects Carried Out Seven of the 17 LOI projects have been carried out to some degree. Of these seven, the six that were carried out to a substantial degree, albeit with significant modifications or lessened scale, were projects that had been considered and/or were partially underway before the Progressive Roundtable and for which alternative potential funding sources were already known by the proposers. The other project is being done out of the nonprofits existing reserves; funding specifically for this project has not yet been identified. The status of one of the confidential LOI projects is unknown. [See Appendix 3 for a status report on each of the projects for which an LOI was prepared.] Nine of the projects were not carried out and the status of one is unknown. This set includes both of the projects for which LOIs were submitted by individuals or organizations that were not represented at the Progressive Roundtable. When asked if anyone else were carrying out the type of work that they had proposed but were not able to do, two proposers said yes, something similar but not identical.

54

Funding for Projects Despite having used a process agreed to by prospective funders, without exception, all of the LOI proposers with whom we spoke said they had not received any financial support from the funders to whom the LOIs were sent. Only one proposer was contacted by funders; s/he received phone calls from a couple of the funders on the list asking for general information about his/her organization, but with no mention of how they had heard about his/her organization nor any comments about his/her LOI. The LOI proposers offered a number of comments that expressed their disappointment that funders had not even contacted them, as well as that their projects had not been funded. The Progressive Roundtable was done fineit did all the right things. The funders say, You guys get together and come up with some ideas and pitch them to us. The Progressive Roundtable did thatpeople came together, they worked together on priorities and proposals, but then the funders didnt respond. It didnt work. Why? Those who eventually did receive funding from other sources had had more success with their traditional funders, but in no case were funds available for the full scale of the project described in the LOI. Partial funding for one LOI project was obtained through memberships and fees, rather than through grants or donations. One respondent said that funding for one similar effort now underway was eventually obtained from people interested in specific issues, not general funding for a cross-cutting project, as had been requested. One proposer began a small pilot study, using existing reserve funds, but lack of funding handicapped that effort. Most of those who had not received funding or who had managed to find partial funding from other sources said they were still interested in doing the projects as described in the LOIs, if funding were available. Observations on Funding of Progressive Infrastructure and Networks Both funders and other Progressive Roundtable participants offered additional insights regarding the need for and barriers to funding of progressive infrastructure and a more extensively networked progressive movement. Despite a number of articles and presentations, and fairly extensive blog commentary on the effectiveness of the Rights political infrastructure and the need for progressives to develop similarly coordinated capacity for marketing and communicating its messages, there still are relatively few funders who really understand and support the concept of infrastructure. Two relatively new funding entities were mentioned as having been designed to support the development of progressive infrastructure: the Democracy Alliance and the New Progressive Coalition. While both represent significant advances, neither was considered to have realized its full potential yet. Funders themselves noted the need for donor education regarding the value of a focused, long-term, disciplined approach to funding. Reflecting on how the Right has

55

succeeded in moving the national dialogue over decades, one funder commented, Getting support for progressive infrastructure is primarily a matter of educating the donors. Its hardest to educate them on the social change process itself. Cultural change requires a lot of groups working at all levels, over a period of years. This takes a real commitment on the part of donors. It means [not only supporting big national organizations, but also supporting] a lot of local groups working in different communities to build credibility for the changes. The need for donor education was also expressed by non-funder respondents: The progressive funding community is difficult and can be not excited about infrastructure funding. They do not particularly understand infrastructure and are not educating themselves about it. There needs to be massive donor re-education. Left-wing funders cant even SEE the problems, such as media access. Other respondents also focused on the value of supporting local groups that are carrying out infrastructure functions. An advantage to supporting local groups doing things that are in their own interest is that local and regional funders can thereby have continuing contact with the locals to see whether they are doing their job. They are more likely to trust those in the community to do the work. A key observation was that currently, since there is no specific coordination mechanism for the progressive movement, the mainstream media (MSM) serves as progressives coordination mechanism. This is totally inadequate, as MSM coverage jumps from one topic to another and there is no long-term strategy for advancing progressive values and ideas. The centrality of the MSM for determining the agenda, and progressives lack of capacity for influencing that agenda, may in part explain the observations that many funders are fickle, hopping from one hot topic to another and getting readily distracted by election cycles. This lack of consistency in donors attention was captured by another respondents remark that Todays good ideas are tomorrows beggars. One participant noted, There is no way we can achieve the changes needed without a network to drive progressive change. The network has to have the capacity to synchronize around opportunities. We [therefore] need a healthy network and network leadership... network managers [who can look] at the state of health, security, and functionality of the network as a whole. Several respondents emphasized the need for creating or strengthening hubs in the overall progressive network that could carry out infrastructure functions such as training, provision of resources, and cross-issue framing and initiatives. By contrast, one non-funder respondent working in a large institution asserted: Funding has not materialized for progressive infrastructure and probably wont. This person, who favors expanding the capacities of existing institutions, said, The progressive movement needs institutions that can work in all of these priority areas. Our side needs money on marketing, communications, networking, and grassroots. Organizations that are doing good policy work should be given money for communications, as well. Donors wait until proof of concept, then fund for scale-up, because they need to have

56

faith that the proposals can be carried out. Money goes to long-term institutions and institution-building, not into processes or new ideas. They wait until they can see institutional capacity and proven leadership, people who make it happen.. Take an existing institution and add to its capabilities. When evaluating current funding patterns, one respondent said that it would not be enough for funders to think about their successes and failures with the projects or organizations they funded. They should also consider the things they didnt even fund because their guidelines were too conservative or inappropriate. For example, Ask funders how many global warming proposals they had on their desks 6-8 months ago that, if they had been funded, would have been going gangbusters by now. How did the funders MISS that? Along these lines, one of the funders noted that there is a huge vacuum on funders side with regard to [supporting the development of] communications and media[correcting] the lack of capacity on the progressive side. Commenting on the priorities and LOI concepts developed at the Progressive Roundtable, one respondent said that they were interesting and good, but unless they are driven by one organization or individual, they wont get funding. Its a matter of personality, the story. The Right has a sense of building systems maybe this stems from their business backgrounds. The Rights thinking is fundamentally different from that of the Left. Some of the larger progressive infrastructure organizations get their money primarily from large individual donors, and now have a substantial group of repeat donors. If they receive any from foundations, it is because they have a relationship with someone on the Board who shepherds their application through. The same need for an individual champion was noted to be present in funding circles and the Democracy Alliance. From a procedural standpoint, respondents noted that the inordinate amount of time and effort that it takes nonprofits to apply for funding would be considerably lessened if there were a universal proposal format that could be used for all funders. Other features of fundraising on the progressive side that were noted as counterproductive are the intense competition for money and resources; short-term, project-specific funding; and the relative dearth of unrestricted funds for building nonprofits internal capacity to carry out their work. Nonprofit respondents are aware of the impact of the election cycle on progressive funders behavior: Everyone is complaining that there is no money flowing now. The 2006 election cycle, which began right after the Progressive Roundtable, took up a lot of time and energy for everyone. Following the November 2006 election, the perception, and maybe the reality, that the Left is ascendantmay lead to skepticism about the need for progressive infrastructure. Funders may turn back toward funding issues again. The essential problemsfunders putting their money into individual projects and thinking short-term, rather than building a long-term movement to change public opinionhasnt been solved. Further, the distraction of elections will become worse, with the permanent election now the model.

57

Funders Perspectives on Why the LOI Process Did Not Result in Project Funding Commonweal Institute management attempted to follow up with all of the funders to whom the list of priorities and the LOIs were sent. We succeeded in getting feedback from several and also got comments from several individuals who deal regularly with funders in their work. One problem was that the process did not fit the operations of some of the funders in terms of process and/or current funding guidelines. One funder said that since the LOI projects did not necessarily address the foundations guidelines and that workload and the size of their staff precluded follow-up with the proposers. Another funder said that, based on the way his foundation works, it would have been preferable to have come up with just one concrete measurable objective. Acknowledging that foundations themselves are a constraint, he said it is necessary to find the right funder(s) for just that objective and approach them with a single marriage proposal. The organizer of a substantial funding circle said that all of their attention is directed toward candidates, so they have ignored other options. In light of these comments, if the proposers had acted independently to submit their LOIs to the funders on the Progressive Roundtables list, it is conceivable that they may have gotten a more favorable reception. Those who did secure partial funding for their projects did so by approaching funders that were already familiar with their work, and the funding they received was for parts of the projects that did not require a stretch on the part of the funders. One respondent who has worked extensively with foundations said it was not surprising that money was not forthcoming from funders. A better model would have been to have either a funders convening or to have more funders at the Progressive Roundtable. The priority people to involve are funders who already have confidence in the process. Further, the newness and lack of expertise of the participants in thinking about infrastructure, and the fact that many came to the event not already knowing each other, made it more difficult. An alternative might have been to have one meeting, then take time to flesh out possible collaborative activities, then follow that with a meeting at which infrastructure concepts are discussed in a mixed session (funders plus nongovernmental organizations), after which the funders can meet alone with each other to discuss funding options. Seen from this perspective, the Progressive Roundtable in 2006 served as the beginning meeting. Two respondents who are financial advisors to wealthy progressive individuals had been sent the list of priorities and the LOIs, to share with their clients if they saw fit to do so. Their comments reinforced the themes seen with the institutional or group funders: the need to build personal relationships through dialogue with individual prospective donors, in order to get them involved with a particular issue and related project, and the need for considerably more donor education regarding the need for infrastructure to support progressive values in general, not just single issues.

58

Of note, one of the funders who participated in the Progressive Roundtable reported that the process was helpful for confirming his thinking. During the event, he was also able to spend time with a person from an organization that his foundation had previously funded, discussing a possible new project (one that was not the subject of an LOI) in which they had a joint interest.

59