Our young democracy

Hungary is a young democracy. It will be a healthy and real democracy when more and more social classes and groups will be able to influence and participate in the decision-making processes. In order for this to happen, people usually excluded from decision-making should be able to formulate their demands, get to the table of the decision-makers through community power, and challenge social inequality through democratic means. With a united voice and good tactics, they can achieve real representation. How can we use community organizing to enhance real democracy in Hungary? What is power? Is community organizing only confrontation? This interview with me on a Hungarian community radio station Civil Radio tells us more about these topics.

Civil Rádió: Demokrácia MOST! 2013. január 30., Part 1 (in Hungarian)
Civil Rádió: Demokrácia MOST! 2013. január 30., Part 2 (in Hungarian)

This post is the third in a series where I collect what I like in community organizing in the U.S. "Democracy is not an end but the best means toward achieving these values [equality, justice, freedom, peace, a deep concern for the preciousness of human life, and all those rights and values propounded by Judeo-Christianity and the democratic political tradition]." (Saul Alinsky) Like: community organizing is the catalyst of democracy.

Read it in Hungarian.

Can homeless folks and service providers join in their struggle?

Springfield, Lobby Day, Nov 29 2011. Source: FB

The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) was established in 1980 by service providers and charities - it was not initiated by homeless folks. The coalition mobilizes service providers or neighborhood organizations (institutional community organizing) and homeless people. Can the two parties equally assert themselves in different campaigns through this community organizing strategy?


CCH sets its campaign agenda based on research and by canvassing the residents of shelters for the homeless. The organization organizes active listening tours in service providing institutions and the community organizers talk to hundreds of homeless folks. They want to know what the most pressing issues are for their constituency. (Who are you and what have you gone through? What do you think about it? What makes you angry?) Or they ask the opinion of homeless folks on a concrete campaign.

In CCH every new community organizer starts with a listening tour, and in the first month they conduct a one-on-one with at least 50 homeless or formerly homeless people. The people interviewed, however, are not involved in the actual decision-making process, but the campaign goals are set by the staff of the organization.

Personal relationships with homeless folks are very important for CCH community organizers. The one-on-one is an important tool to build trust and to find out to what extent the group is organized and what skills its members have which they could use for the benefit of the whole group. The community organizers try to figure out who can be involved in specific tasks in an action, and determine who are real leaders, those members who are able to represent the interest of the broader community.

The community organizers hold regular events in shelters and they agitate homeless people to accumulate power and get involved in running actions to make the decision-makers accountable. And the leaders tell their own story in different places, take part in talks with decision-makers or less often give interviews to the media. CCH does not stress, however, urging the leaders to establish autonomous chapters (or cells) in their shelters, which can set their own agenda or decide about new campaigns.

Furthermore, CCH does not represent homeless people against service providers. The organization goes no further than mediating between the social worker or the institution and the homeless person. The community organizing strategy of CCH focuses more on issues which both parties have a self-interest in and can line up joint support (e.g., to increase state budget support to service providers or to increase housing benefits), rather than building the movement of homeless people. As a result, the organization does not put particular effort into strengthening cooperation and communication between different groups of different shelters and establish a strong network of organized cells. In addition, CCH in most cases works with people living in shelters or who are affiliated with a service provider. It does not organize people living on the streets and it does not directly represent their interests.

This does not mean that homeless people do not take part in the decision-making processes of the organization. In bigger thematic campaigns, such as the decriminalization of prostitutes and the reentry of former felons, persons who were affected by these issues sit on the campaign planning committees along with representatives of civil society organizations. And homeless or formerly homeless folks sit on the board of the organization or are employed as staff members.

CCH works in most campaigns in different coalitions, therefore service providers are their important allies. Just like in the case of homeless people, community organizers lay great stress on finding out their self-interest. They want to see and feel what kind of cooperation can be in the interest of these institutions and what would make them join the particular campaign. One-on-ones are therefore crucial with the representatives of the institutions, too. (During their listening tour, new community organizers also interview almost 50 shelter representatives besides the 50 homeless or formerly homeless people.) CCH sometimes ally with organizations who have less experience in doing advocacy and campaigning. In this case, they understand and start at the level where partners are the most comfortable and they gradually raise the stakes. Building trust is a process in institutional organizing, too: you have to know who is in the organization, who is worth negotiating with, who is capable of what and what they are ready to do.

Read it in Hungarian.

American homeless folks in action – a close-up of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless

At the end of the lobby day in Springfield, April 2012

In April 2012, I spent three weeks with the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) as part of a professional development program. CCH organizes and advocates to prevent and end homelessness in Illinois, USA.

The coalition was established in 1980 by service providers and charities. The organization since then has pushed for several legislative proposals, making an impact on policy-making around housing and homelessness. To put significant pressure on the decision-makers, CCH, in cooperation with shelters, mobilizes homeless people, and builds the base of their allies. Proposals for legislative changes and ordinances, put forward by CCH, are thus justified in a way by participating homeless people, or, if you like, the organization looks for legal solutions for the demands formulated by homeless people.

The main recipe for the elimination and the prevention of homelessness is just the same in Chicago as in Budapest: folks need sufficient affordable housing. For this reason, CCH, in cooperation with other civil society organizations, reviewed Chicago’s budget and identified potential funding streams to dedicate for affordable housing. From a variety of funding sources, the so-called tax increment financing (TIF) proved to be the best proposal. TIF is a public financing method that utilizes increased tax income for subsidizing community improvement projects. Infrastructural investments result in an increase in the value of the real estate in the neighborhood, which generates additional revenues for the city government. Based on the directives of TIF, this revenue increase should be spent on redevelopment or infrastructure projects, e.g., affordable housing. CCH research showed that the city spends only four percent of its annual TIF fund on affordable housing, whereas wealthy corporations snatch the subsidies and use it to rehabilitate their offices in the downtown area. This contradicts the original purposes of TIF as this funding stream should be spent on the rehabilitation of underdeveloped neighborhoods.

Based on the results of the CCH research, the Sweet Home Chicago campaign began in 2009. A coalition of 11 organizations was formed and demanded that 20 percent of the TIF funds (almost $100 million) be allocated to affordable housing. The coalition also revealed the profits of the corporations which benefit from the TIF, and their chief officers’ high salaries. The campaign resulted in an ordinance which the city council enacted in 2011: developers of vacant multi-unit rental housing (which can be vacant due to foreclosures) can apply for TIF funds for 30 to 50 percent of the purchase/rehabilitation costs. To meet these requirements, developers must rent 30 to 50 percent of units to low-income households (in 2011, annual income of no more than $37,700 for a family of four – in comparison, in 2011, the poverty guideline was a total yearly income of $22,350 for a family of four). As a result of this, gentrification can be slowed down for a while, i.e., housing can remain affordable for low-income people in neighborhoods where infrastructural development results in an increase in the value of the real estate.

CCH also campaigns against state budget cuts to housing programs and to services for homeless people. CCH, as a member of the Responsible Budget Coalition of 270 organizations, managed to prevent cuts on emergency shelters and transitional housing. At the Illinois General Assembly, more than 100 homeless people demonstrated against the planned 52 per cent budget cut. The General Assembly, however, is planning a 52 per cent budget cut again this year (2012), so a couple of weeks earlier the group protested again in Springfield, in the capital of Illinois.

The organization, furthermore, provides homeless and unaccompanied youth with legal aid, advocates for the decriminalization of prostitutes, promotes the re-entry of ex-felons, supports policies and programs supporting homeless youth, and pushes for the increase in living wage and job creation. In 2010, the Put Illinois to Work campaign resulted in more than 27,300 jobs by using federal stimulus funds. When CCH recognized that the State of Illinois does not have a concrete program on how to use major part of the $300 million, the organization submitted a plan for a subsidized employment program of homeless people. The plan was finally accepted by the governor, and the employment program was implemented by a professional company.

Homeless people take an active part in the operation of CCH. Formerly homeless people, former felons or survivors of prostitution sit on the board or planning committees, or are employed as staff members. CCH, in cooperation with shelters, mobilizes homeless people, who participate in their demonstrations. In cooperation with social workers (but not necessarily with their participation) community organizers hold regular programs in shelters and recruit supporters for their campaigns. The organization regularly holds a writing workshop (Horizons Creative Writing Outreach) where participants discuss pieces of literature or write their own pieces. In the framework of the Speakers Bureau, homeless folks tell people their stories, and thus support with their own experiences what is on the agenda of the organization. Members of the Speakers Bureau visit schools, universities, religious and civic groups, and builds the outer base of allies. As a result of the speakers, seven chapters have been established in different universities and colleges in support of homeless people.

Read it in Hungarian.