Criteria/Collaboration
From HarmFreeZone
We have not identified one particular issue that we intend to focus on related to state violence, intra-social conflict, and interpersonal conflict. Our major priority is to work with people who are most impacted by law enforcement, courts, and the prison industry. Our model allows us to work from a singular issue or focus on multiple issues that intersect.
When we decided to collaborate with membership organizations that work with a specific base or constituency, we developed a criteria for working with organizations. Our criteria includes working with groups that are democratically-run, well-organized, and who work with people who are most at risk for the prison industrial complex (PIC). We want “buy-in” throughout the group, with people who are motivated to try new alternatives. As we develop the HFZ this factor will become less important, but initially we want to devote our limited resources to testing our ideas and practice. Additionally (again due to limited capacity), we want to work with groups with whom we share common values or where we have existing relationships. We would also like to work with groups that can offer or barter resources, such as money, materials or skills. However, this is not mandatory.
Following is a list of criteria we developed for picking a community partner for developing a Harm Free Zone. The criteria are listed in no particular order.
1. Degree of Organization: How tight is the group? How often do they meet? How consistent is attendance? Can they make a commitment to work with us?
Rationale: The reason we're working in partnership with a group is because we don't have the resources to organize them. So - it is important that we pick a group that is already well-organized.
2. Affected by the issue/Affected demographic: How does the PIC impact the individuals in the group? How are the police involved in their daily lives? Are they from a demographic typically affected by the PIC (people of color, transfolks, homeless folks, immigrants, low-income folks, former prisoners, etc.). Is there a need for this project? Is anyone working with this demographic on alternative practices?
Rationale: We want to work with people who are most at risk. We also don't want to spend time convincing people that there is a problem. We want to be sure to pick a group of people who already are motivated to try something new because they will be more receptive to the idea and will provide us with more useful feedback.
3. Interest: Are the organizers interested in working with us? Are theindividuals in the group interested in working with us? Are they interested in abolitionist politics and want to learn more? Why are they interested in working with us? Can we offer this group something that they perceive as valuable?
Raionale: Just because an organizer is interested in working with us doesn't meant that the group is. We want to have buy-in throughout the group.
4. Existing Relationship: Does anyone in the HFZ have an existing relationship with this group? What is the extent of the relationshiop?
Rationale: Hopefully as we work with more groups this will become less important, but for the initial groups we want to devote our limited resources to testing the HFZ ideas not building relationships from scratch.
5. Resources: Can they provide us with compensation, either money or barter?
Rationale: This criteria isn't mandatory, but if a group can offer compensation it may be in our interest to work with them even if they don't fully meet the other criteria.
6. Unlikely Partners: Is there a way to build links or intersections with other movements? Can we do multi-issue organizing through this collaboration?
Rationale: There is recent motion in the domestic violence movement to organize around alternative (abolitionist) practices. Since the prison industrial complex affects multiple sectors, does the collaboration push both of our movements forward (i.e., immigrant rights, lgbtq, homelessness, healthcare, etc)
