advanceadvocacy.com Blog

Today’s Washington Post featured a front page article highlighting the funding earmarks that local US Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) championed.  Of course Mr. Hoyer defends his practice of encouraging his colleagues to include funding for programs he deems important.  Naturally, many of these programs are in his home district.  Anybody shocked?!  This is a practice that has been going on for decades, by both political parties and by most members of Congress.  We, the voters, want our towns, communities and favorite programs to benefit from federal largess and we reward legislators who “bring home the bacon.”  We thank them for their efforts by re-electing them to gain seniority to bring home even more. 

And, why is this all so bad?  When federal funding seems to be a pay-off for campaign support and when particular projects seem to have little merit, like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, then funding watchdogs and citizens get concerned.  And, rightly so.  However, there is a flip side to this that gets little ink.  Many important health, education and social service programs rely on assistance from members of Congress to ensure that needed services get funded.  Most charities and nonprofits can’t afford high priced lobbying help and are forbidden to give campaign contributions.  So, educating Congress and identifying “champions” who support your cause are important.

Both the House and Senate are ruled by committees, each focused on certain issues or activities.  Members vie to serve on committees that either deal with issues vital to their districts or wield lots of power (appropriations).  To understand the importance of earmarks is to understand the nature of Congress at work.  Generally, members of committees have the “most say” in how programs under their jurisdiction get shaped, but it up to the House and Senate appropriations committees to set the actual funding amounts.  So, there are often lots of “negotiations” back and forth to fund worthwhile programs and to help members’ local communities.

And, let’s not forget the Administration’s role in all of this.  Each president sets his funding priorities.  Certain issues and activities get top billing in the annual budget that gets sent to Congress.  It is the job of the members in Congress belonging to the president’s party to work to get funding.  What happens to good, successful programs that might not happen to be “in” during any particular administration?  Usually someone in Congress comes to the rescue with an “earmark.”  For many community programs serving local needs consistent funding is crucial regardless of who is in office.  Where would we be without Headstart, disease prevention and energy conservation programs?  Members of Congress must ensure that the needs of our country in all vital areas are met.  Those looking out for particular programs, make it their business to “earmark” funding. 

Funding the federal government via earmarks is not ideal.  The squeaky wheel still gets heard and funded.  However, with all the critical and timely issues that Congress needs to grapple with, it is impossible to expect that each and every federal program gets vetted and voted on by all 535 US legislators.  Prohibiting earmarks will not solve this problem.  But, it may prevent worthwhile efforts, emerging science and new opportunities from getting recognized and funded.

A headline in a Bloomberg news article – “U.S. Emergency Rooms Aren’t Prepared for Children” – caught my attention and got my advocate brain in gear.  I hate to criticize emergency rooms since most do their best to provide quick and competent care.  But, they should have all the necessary equipment to treat ALL patients.  The article highlights a new study by the American Academy of Pediatrics indicating that only 6 percent of 1,489 hospitals surveyed had the medicine and equipment needed to appropriately treat children, including child-sized masks to open airways and smaller forceps.  The cost of the 118 items recommended by the Academy totaled about $1,000.

Many times actions to spark change spring from news headlines and personal stories of injustice.  Attention to a need grabs peoples’ attention and mobilizes them to seek solutions.  In this case, I’m hoping public outrage at this lack of preparedness will provide an easy resolution – hospitals will act to ensure they are able to address pediatric emergencies.  If this happens, no government action will be needed.  The power of citizen involvement and community action doesn’t always need to be focused on getting governments to do something.  Urging businesses and service providers to do better can also improve our health and communities.

Colleagues at OMB Watch, Tufts University and the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI) published a new book – Seen but not Heard that presents findings from a variety of data — surveys, focus groups and interviews on the state of nonprofit advocacy.  While it is very commendable that such a book was written, it is distressing to read of the many barriers to lobbying that still exist.  As someone who has devoted most of her professional career to nonprofit advocacy and lobbying, I think it should be front and center on the agendas and budgets of charities and other nonprofits.

The good news is that the nonprofit leaders who particpated in the focus groups and interviews indicated that public policy participation is essential to carrying out their mission.  Yet when matched up against fundraising and direct services, these executives thought spending time on public policy activities detracted from the other work. Hmm…

And then there’s the problem with the “L” word – lobbying.  “Advocacy,” “public policy” and “educating policymakers” all sound so much more genteel and acceptable to the executives consulted.  Nevermind that charities CAN LOBBY and that it means something very specific – proactively petitioning elected officials for changes in laws or new laws.  If charities and nonprofits hadn’t lobbied, it is highly unlikely that the US Congress would have passed legislation calling for cleaner air and water, HIV AIDS prevention, prohibiting tobacco marketing to kids,  and on and on.  Nonprofits have been at the forefront of some of the most important health, education, civil rights, environment and other monumental public policy issues.  These voices, passion and persuasion were critical and necessary.

While some of the blame for low levels of advocacy involvement by  nonprofits rests with the executives and their boards, governments, foundations, lawyers and others also create barriers to significant levels of lobbying.  Widespread uncertainty about nonprofit lobbying laws, rigid grantmaking and concerns about letting citizens express their views have negative impacts on the desire and ability of many nonprofits to engage in public policy work.

To address these barriers, more education and training about lobbying rules is needed for nonprofit staff, boards and volunteers.  Governments and foundations need to recognize that civic engagement means more than voting every four years.   And, nonprofits need to embrace advocacy and lobbying as core organization functions with appropriate funding and staff.

If you’d like to read more about this topic, Seen but not Heard may be purchased for $15.00 through the Aspen Institute – www.aspen.org.

Let’s all become more visible.

Diane

Welcome to the Advance Advocacy Blog. Through this new blog I hope to post current news and stories related to nonprofit organization advocacy and lobbying. I will also add my thoughts and invite others to comment.  My goal is to make this blog an interactive supportive environment for positive policy change.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) expressly allows 501(c) charities and other nonprofit organizations to lobby for legislative and public policy changes.  However, too few organizations lobby.  I think this is a shame and would like to do my part to encourage more organizations to take civic engagement as seriously as they do other obligations like fundraising and service delivery.

Stay tuned for more …