Moving America Forward

Homepage > Politics Magazine > June 2009 > Moving America Forward

By Tom Sheridan

At an event on June 30, 2009, President Obama introduced a $50 million fund that will assist non-profit groups that are improving communities. Two years before the 2008 presidential election a group of social entrepreneurs—with no political experience—gathered at the historic Mohonk Mountain House in New Paltz, N.Y. That meeting launched a bold advocacy effort—one that would introduce to the presidential debate the notion of “transformative social change” and lead to just such White House-sponsored ventures.

It was a unique historic moment—with no incumbent, the next president and vice president could influence policy through 2025. And with high voter dissatisfaction with the government, a policy with proven results would be compelling. The message of “change” was emerging but its political relevancy was not yet clear.

Our advocacy group, The Sheridan Group, was charged to produce a presentation for the Mohonk conference that would highlight that historic moment and inspire non-profit leaders to join a campaign to place a bold “new social contract” in front of the next president. This project at New Profit Inc. was led by social entrepreneurs Vanessa Kirsch and Kim Syman.

The resulting coalition was branded “America Forward.” It was ambitious not just for its intention but because we took a group that had never been involved in the political ring and immediately thrust them in the deep waters of a presidential primary. For the next two years, we engaged in a data-driven, disciplined and bipartisan campaign—one that ultimately resulted in the creation of a White House Office of Social Innovation.

THE STRATEGY
Central to this effort was a strategy paradigm we call the “3 P’s”: policy, politics and press. Within this paradigm, these components need not be equally balanced, but they must be present and measured regularly throughout the campaign. Since social entrepreneurs were a group new to the competitive marketplace of presidential campaigns, and since we were presenting a brand new concept within this marketplace, we developed a balanced, bipartisan team of senior policy, political and communications professionals to frame each aspect of the campaign.

Policy: “Invent, Invest, Involve”
Our branding slogan revealed the foundations of our policy platform, one of the strengths of the campaign.

Invent: A call for government to take on a new role in social policy, changing from a deliverer of services to a catalyst for innovation and service.
Invest: A call for a “Social Investment Fund,” providing for social-sector research and development and growth capital.
Involve: A call for higher and deeper levels of citizen engagement in service and across sectors by expanding programs such as AmeriCorps.

Politics: Research
Well-intentioned nonprofit leaders often make political missteps by leading with intuition rather than data. Before launching our campaign, we conducted focus groups to test potential messages. We examined the term “social entrepreneur” and what core themes might be best for our campaign—innovation, accountability, performance, results, American Dream, etc.

Our focus groups revealed a few key points: Americans were losing faith in government’s ability to solve problems; they were tired of the partisan divisions; and they wanted to see bold change. Focus group members wanted to see more effective problem solving—but confidence in results was highest when witnessed and understood at the local level. Change had to come from outside of Washington.

We crafted messages that included strong bipartisan appeal and focused on investing in proven, community-based solutions while creating ways for the government to encourage citizen engagement and investment.

During the height of the primary season, we conducted a national poll to verify that our message was still resonant across demographics and political parties. The poll showed voters still hungry for change, and especially change emerging from local communities instead of the federal government. The theme of “innovation” was appealing, but themes of “accountability,” “transparency,” and “measurable results” had stronger appeal across parties. Voters wanted solutions that transcended party lines and messages that asked for their participation in problem solving.

POLITICS: Outreach and Engagement
With our platform of ideas, the assets of our 40 coalition partners and our polling data, we went “door-to-door” to all 20 presidential campaigns, positioning ourselves as an open marketplace of ideas to any and all campaigns.

The strategy team regularly did “asset mapping,” determining what campaign personnel we had relationships with—from professional connections to college roommates and even neighbors. Initial contacts to the campaigns’ top policy advisors were assigned to team or coalition members with the strongest contacts. This ensured our contacts were made at the highest appropriate level and kept communications clear and accountable. We were able to identify portals to high-level policy contacts in nearly every campaign.

We were not seeking to “sell” any campaign a specific idea or platform. We wanted to engage the campaigns in a longer, more thoughtful process of creating something unique to each candidate, all sharing the themes and ideas of America Forward.

Our outreach to campaigns was structured and deliberate. Contact points were noted and identical memos were sent with tailored cover notes to all first-tier campaign contacts. Within 8 weeks we had a 90 percent response rate to the memo, and our requests for face-to-face meetings were accepted and scheduled.

We tailored our presentations, including the team and coalition members participating, to the interests of each campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, because of her history and support for AmeriCorps, responded to the idea of scaling national service; Sen. Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s campaigns loved the concept of the “Social Investment Fund”; Sen. John McCain and Mike Huckabee were excited about particular programs—Youth Villages, City Year or Teach for America, for example—and meeting with their leaders and participants while on the campaign trail.

The America Forward team went to each of these face-to-face briefings prepared and scripted to be on-topic and brief. But hearing questions and getting criticism was as important as the presentation of our agenda. We had assumed one campaign would like the idea of using the Social Investment Fund to “scale” successful non-profits, for example. When the idea was not well received, we re-calibrated our message, emphasizing efficient use of tax dollars and small business-like economic opportunities to avoid any misconception we were aligned with “big spending.”

Regardless of the outcome of initial meetings, we immediately followed up with specific deliverables—a memo on our polling data, a draft position paper on the “Social Innovation Fund” or a policy recommendation on the size and cost of expanding Americorps, for example. We found a reason to be in touch with each campaign every other week, and as campaigns withdrew, other candidates often picked up our policy allies.

The time and resources dedicated to all these meetings were significant. Often, teams of six people traveled cross-country to be present at meetings, joined by coalition members who underscored the validity of our message. But the time spent on these meetings—from outreach, to preparation, execution and follow-up—remains the most valuable element of the campaign.

We also met with strategic campaign influencers and policy partners across parties, who helped leverage assets, align policies and messages and develop broad support for our agenda.

Press: Validating Public Support
We did not plan or budget for a paid media campaign. But to influence high-level campaign operatives, we utilized earned media in the elite media market and in local markets of hotly contested primary states.

Through asset mapping within our communications team, we were able to secure validating op-eds in major papers across the country by late 2007. The press launch of America Forward, featuring David Gergen, was held at the National Press Club in December, and the senior communications team leveraged relationships to secure coverage in key online political publications, including The New York Times, NBC.com, ABC.com, National Journal’s Wake-Up, Hotline and Bloomberg. In March 2008, David Brooks wrote a column in support of social entrepreneurship and America Forward.

Similar to the face-to-face meetings that were conducted at campaign offices, the “elite media” meetings were carefully and professionally executed. Specific participants were selected for each meeting; the script articulating their message and the data to back up our platform were prepared and practiced.

We also had a local communications approach. Knowing from our focus groups the importance of social innovation results connected to local communities, we embarked on an effort to “tell the story of success” in local newspapers and magazines. We targeted competitive primary states where we had a local story that was credible and influential—and where we were sure it could get placed.

In the End, It’s Results
When we started our campaign, conventional wisdom said Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination early while Republicans engaged in a protracted primary process. Since conventional wisdom was wrong, our strategy of broad bipartisan outreach was a critical success.

Campaigns are highly competitive and happy to compete on your platform if you can find some common ground. John McCain is known for his military service and has long called other Americans to serve. We led with the service elements of our campaign and established a relationship with his campaign. On Sept. 10, 2008, McCain announced his position on national service, including a “Commission on Cross-Sector Solutions to America's Problems” and a network of private sector “venture capital” funds matched with government grants—similar to our social investment fund proposal.

We first met with the Obama campaign in Chicago in September 2007, and the idea that a new “social contract” was needed to solve problems and ask more from citizens was well received, fitting nicely with his message of change. The two face-to-face meetings with his campaign included not only policy advisors, but pollsters, the message team and advisory committee members, as well.

Countless hours of work and advocacy netted a strategic grand slam: Obama's Dec. 5, 2007 national service speech in Iowa. The first speech of its kind by any presidential candidate, it embodied many of the elements of our platform. It remains the defining speech of the Social Innovation Agenda that is being developed by Obama's administration.

After Obama secured the Democratic nomination, our team went to work leveraging relationships to embed the concepts of social innovation into the party's platform. During the convention, Michelle Obama made a commitment to a day of service and then took the time to meet with many social entrepreneurs across the country.

Key Lessons
From a bold conceptual presentation to a White House Office of Social Innovation within two years is remarkable. Good timing and synergy played a role in our success, but our model suggests a blueprint by which other social movements can construct effective campaigns. This is not rocket science—just disciplined and results-oriented strategies and tactics that have the potential to deliver significant results.

Identifying unique opportunities early requires a combination of skill and risk. To spot trends in politics—such as noting that change would be a deciding factor in 2008— requires skills and experience. But investing resources into the campaign and presenting the ideas as early as 2006 was also a risk. The leadership team and board at New Profit Inc. accurately assessed this was a calculated risk to take.

At this level of engagement, selecting a team of highly skilled professionals is critical. Creating a team of diverse professionals with relevant experience was essential to the success of the campaign. For Republican counsel, we partnered with Scott Hatch and his team at Capitol Management Initiatives. For press assistance, we recruited a team of communications specialists: Democrats Stephanie Cutter and Erik Smith and Republican Don Meyer. Deb Jospin and Shirley Sagawa, seasoned nonprofit consultants, provided policy expertise with the New Profit team.

Asset mapping produced remarkable resources that would not otherwise have been realized or utilized. Sometimes your best assets are right in front of you. Strategically and systematically asking, mapping and conducting outreach produced real results.

Maintaining and evolving data-driven messages kept the ideas relevant. Over the course of two years, we needed to update our messaging, including addressing how our policies were relevant in the context of a declining economy. These messages were informed by focus group and polling data.

Traditional and non-traditional tactics gave the America Forward team many ways to engage on a biweekly basis and stay relevant to the various campaigns. As a non-traditional tactic, tailoring memos and the “menu” platform of policies and programs that we offered gave each of the campaigns a way to buy in.

Building political capacity in coalition members is key. In retrospect, we would have developed a training module to engage the most successful social entrepreneurs in our strategic decisions and their execution. This would have developed a “bench” of social entrepreneurs with policy and political skills that could help put ideas in place in the new government.


Tom Sheridan is founder and president of The Sheridan Group. The Sheridan Group provides government affairs, political strategy and public policy services to nonprofits and social enterprises dedicated to achieving social change. To learn more, log on to www.sheridangroupdc.com.