Greetings and many warm thoughts for those whose toes remain icy cold in what seems like an extra-long winter. I wanted to take this opportunity to draw our attention to some recent wins within the child welfare policy space that have warmed my heart in recent weeks. As Angelique Day (along with Joel Crume) explicates in her column much more elegantly than I ever could, the Families First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) was signed into law, and both Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV) were reauthorized in February. As these federal policies are moving ahead, I thought it would be a good time to remind ourselves of how we can keep involved and engaged in the political process on a continual basis—not just when there are large policy initiatives at stake. While it might be easy to cast a wide net with regard to our roles as concerned citizens (e.g., going to rallies and marches, writing personal letters to legislators, writing letters to newspaper editors), I want us to devote some thought to how we can think about advocacy within our academic and practitioner roles. To do this, I think it best to begin by defining the term “advocacy” and highlight how it differs from lobbying. Because, as faculty members and official representative of institutions, we need to be careful to refrain from the latter and be more effective at the former.
Let’s start with some basic definitions. “Advocacy” is the process of stakeholders making their voices heard on issues that affect their lives and the lives of others at the local, state and national level. It also means helping policymakers find specific solutions to persistent problems. Most nonprofits can and do engage in as much advocacy as possible to achieve their goals.
Some examples include: telling your member of Congress how a federal grant your organization received has helped his/her constituents; educating a member of Congress about the effects of a policy on an effected group; inviting a member of Congress to visit your organization so that he/she may see firsthand how federal funding or a policy affects day-to-day operations or lives. “Lobbying,” on the other hand, involves activities that are in direct support of or opposition to a specific piece of introduced legislation. For example, this would include asking your member of Congress to vote for or against legislation. While nonprofits can engage in some lobbying, the IRS has strict rules about what portion of their budget can go toward these activities. There are also prohibitions on any use of federal funds for lobbying.
A good rule of thumb is to speak from a researcher’s or clinician’s perspective—using data that either you have published or that you know of that is peer-reviewed—and, stick to what the research says. Remember that we don't support any specific policy, but merely provide the translation of the research that will be used to support aspects of policy. Advocacy is about establishing relationships and creating a community of experts both in and outside of government who can give informed input on policies. Being more aware of the political aspects of research can help academics understand and re-evaluate their own arguments about the impact of research. This might take the form of working hard to respond to a legislative request for information and compiling the right kinds of evidence that staffers might need in order to hold an informed briefing.
Luckily, some of this hard work can be done within the context of organized coalitions and networks of erudite and committed experts. There exists a rapid response network devoted to child welfare issues that I encourage all of you to join. It is called the Research-to-Policy: Child Welfare Rapid Response Teamopens in new window.
Organized and supported by Penn State’s P50 Center for Health Children (PI: Noll), this team is currently comprised of over 100 researchers and practitioners who actively respond to solicitations from federal policy professionals for scientific information that can leverage child welfare policy change. Signing up for this network ensures that we identify experts who can respond to current research-to-policy opportunities and contribute to expert responses to legislative inquiries. While we can target-specific policies, as we did with Families First and will hopefully do with CAPTA, more likely we respond to legislative requests to help provide information needed to hold successful briefings.
For more information regarding how the research-to-policy model operates, see this newly published paper: Crowley, DM, Scott, TB, and Fishbein, D (2018), “Translating prevention research for evidence-based policymaking: Results from the Research-to-Policy Collaboration pilot”. Prevention Science.
Of course, we all need to understand that these processes are complex and that we should consult with the government affairs office at our respective institutions to ensure that we walk a careful line that does not cross into lobbying. The section will hold another research-to-policy workshop (as we did last June) in Washington, D.C., sponsored by my P50 Center that includes practical information on how to engage the political process as an academic, including how to translate your important work into messages that resonate with policymakers.
On one final note, it is with sadness that I announce to the section the passing of one of our own; Karen Saywitz, PhD. Karen was a champion of advocacy within the child welfare space and is a past recipient of the Div. 37 Nicholas Hobbs Award for exemplifying the ideals and devotion to child advocacy/policy. I am thankful to Gail Goodman for providing a column honoring Karen for this edition of the newsletter. We will continue to honor Karen at this year’s conference in August and through other activities commensurate with her contributions to our field. She will be sorely missed.
Jennie