One-on-ones surface many concerns. The next step is turning those concerns into something a group can actually work on and win. This is where organizers distinguish problems from issues.

Problems versus issues

A problem is a broad area of concern: housing costs, school quality, public safety, pollution. Problems are real but too big and vague to act on. An issue is a specific, concrete solution or demand that a group can campaign for: “The city should install a crosswalk and signal at Fifth and Elm by spring.” Organizers say you cannot organize around a problem; you organize around an issue. Breaking a problem into issues is called cutting an issue.

What makes a good issue?

The Midwest Academy, a training center founded in Chicago in 1973, offers a widely used checklist. In paraphrase, a good issue should:

• Result in real improvement in people's lives.
• Be winnable, with a realistic chance of success given the group's power.
• Be widely felt, affecting many people.
• Be deeply felt, mattering strongly to those affected.
• Have a clear target: a person who can say yes.
• Have a clear time frame.
• Be easy to understand.
• Build the organization: bring in new members, develop leaders, give people a sense of their own power.

Not every issue meets every test. But a new group especially needs an early issue it can win, because an early victory builds confidence and membership, while an early defeat can scatter a group before it has formed.

Goals at three levels

Organizers often set goals at different time scales:

• Long-term goals: the larger change you ultimately want (affordable, safe housing in the neighborhood).
• Intermediate goals: what this campaign aims to win (a city ordinance requiring timely repairs).
• Short-term goals: steps along the way (a meeting with the housing committee chair).

Each short-term win should build toward the larger goals, and the organization should be stronger after each campaign, whether or not it wins everything.

Power mapping

Power mapping is a way of drawing out who has the power to grant your demand and who influences them. A simple version:

1. Identify the primary target: the specific person who can say yes. Not “the city” but “the director of public works.”
2. List people and groups who influence that target: their boss, voters, donors, colleagues, the press, community leaders.
3. Place each on a chart by how much influence they have and whether they support, oppose or are neutral toward your demand.
4. Mark your own relationships: who in your group knows whom?
5. Use the map to plan: which neutral but influential people could you win over? Who can open doors?

Power maps change as campaigns unfold, so they should be revisited often. A common beginner's mistake is to aim at whoever is most visible or most disliked rather than whoever actually decides. Research into how a decision is really made (budgets, meeting calendars, who signs what) can save a group months of wasted effort.

Making demands concrete

A strong demand is specific, measurable and addressed to someone who can grant it. Compare “The county should care about seniors” with “The county should restore weekend service on bus route 12 by July 1.” The second can be won, measured and celebrated. The first can be agreed to by everyone and changes nothing.

Worked example: from “the schools are bad” to a winnable issue

Parents at an elementary school meet after months of one-on-ones. Everyone agrees “the school is falling apart.” That is a problem, not an issue. How do they cut it?

Listing possible issues. From their conversations they list: the broken heating in two classrooms, a lack of crossing guards at a busy intersection, overcrowded classes, and an outdated library.

Applying the checklist. Overcrowded classes are widely and deeply felt, but solving them requires the district to hire teachers, a big budget fight they cannot yet win. The library is not deeply felt by many parents. The heating is deeply felt but affects only two classrooms. The crossing guard is widely felt (every walking family), deeply felt (children's safety), easy to understand, relatively cheap, and has a clear target.

Setting goals. Long-term: a safe, well-resourced school. Intermediate: a crossing guard at Maple and Third before the next school year. Short-term: a meeting with the official responsible.

Power mapping. Research shows that crossing guards are funded by the city's police budget, not the school district. The primary target is the deputy police chief who assigns guards. Influences on her include the city council member for the area (neutral but facing re-election), the principal (supportive), the local newspaper (neutral) and the PTA president's cousin, who works in the city budget office.

The demand. “Assign a crossing guard to Maple and Third, staffed from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. on school days, starting in September.”

Winning this issue will build confidence and recruit parents. Then the group can take on the heating and, eventually, class sizes.