Ripple Effect — Policy Entry Form

Step 01 — Group Identification

Who Are You?

This information ties your policy entry to your group's assigned state. It appears on every entry you submit in this session — you won't need to re-enter it.

Assigned State *

Your Name * The group member filling out this specific entry

Step 03 — Actors & Coalition

Who Fought For It?

Map the political terrain around this policy. Who pushed for it, who opposed it, and who formally sponsored or organized the effort?

Major Advocates * Organizations, unions, coalitions, legislators, or community groups who supported this policy. List each on a new line if possible.

Major Opponents Organizations, industry groups, or legislators who opposed. Leave blank if unknown.

Coalition Partners & Sponsors * Who formally organized or co-sponsored the campaign? This may overlap with advocates — focus on lead organizations and bill sponsors here.

Step 04 — Sources

Show Your Work

Link directly to the evidence. Future researchers — including LABWC staff — will use these links. Dead or vague links significantly reduce the value of an entry.

Primary Sources * Bill text, official government archives, legislative tracking pages. At least one required.

Primary Source 1

URL *

Description

Secondary Sources News articles, press releases, advocacy org reports, op-eds. Add at least one if available.

Secondary Source 1

URL

Description

Public Comment or Hearing Archive Links Legislative hearing recordings, public testimony archives, committee votes. Optional but valuable.

Step 05 — Analysis

What Does It Mean?

This is the most important section for LABWC's strategic use of the database. Shallow notes here reduce the entry's value for movement work — be specific and analytical.

Ripple Effect Notes * What broader influence could this policy have beyond its jurisdiction? Could it be a model for California? What precedent does it set? 2–4 sentences minimum.

Public Commentary & Political Context Why was this policy supported or opposed? What arguments were made? What made it win or lose? Include notable quotes or public reactions if available.

Research Recommendations * Leave a trail for the next researcher. What should they do next? Specific FOIA requests, interviews to conduct, documents to find, time periods to investigate.

California Import Potential * How transferable is this policy as a model for a California campaign? This is LABWC's most important filter for campaign selection.

Strong — This is a direct model LABWC could run in California with minimal adaptation. The conditions, actors, and policy design map well onto CA context. Moderate — Interesting model but would need meaningful adaptation for California's political or economic context. Explain what would need to change in your ripple effect notes. Limited — This policy is highly context-specific (unique legal framework, political conditions, or demographics) and is unlikely to transfer directly. Still worth documenting as a data point.

Step 06 — Review & Submit

Check Your Work

Review your entry before submitting. Once submitted, corrections can be made in the shared Google Sheet — contact your instructor for access.

✅

Entry Submitted

1 entry submitted this session

Your policy entry has been saved to the database. You can submit another entry for your state, or come back later to add more.

The Color of Work

Enter Access Code

Entry Submitted