The following is a summary of themes that arose in discussion groups held in Austin and San Antonio, Texas, on November 18 through 20, 2002, around federal budget priorities from a state and local perspective and how to develop and maintain a long-term effort to increase domestic investment. The meetings were part of a two-year project, called the Social Investment Initiative (SII). A description of the project is available at www.ombwatch.org/sii The conversations held in Austin and San Antonio, Texas, involved a variety of groups having very different perspectives on the role of government, movement building, and how best to create change. There was a consensus that it is vital to find ways for state and community efforts to better inform decision making at the national policy level as well as a sense that national policy decisions frequently ignore local conditions, often making it more difficult to address local priorities. There was an impressive amount of energy and engagement by each of the groups with whom we met in working creatively towards better solutions to issues in the state and their communities. Certainly the timing of the visit—so closely following the elections—affected the tenor of the discussions. Many groups were still struggling with the implications for their work. Unlike the meetings in Seattle and Chicago, the role of the federal government and perceptions of its inefficiency in helping states and communities meet priorities was a recurring theme in these discussions. Overall, there was positive support for the SII, although the roles it might best play varied from group to group, and there was a realistic recognition of the difficulties of a sustained engagement of a state and local constituency base around long-term budget process, for which there is little precedent. There was a similar divide, as that experienced in Chicago, between policy groups who frequently work with national groups on federal policy issues and easily saw the potential for working on federal budget issues and activist community groups who were more focused on recognizing and developing local resources within the community. Among some of the latter groups there was mistrust of federal efforts as actively disempowering as well as some resentment towards large national groups seen as no longer representing or having any connection with their constituencies and draining off resources and recognition from community groups. Similar barriers to engaging in federal budget policy that were identified in Seattle and Chicago, including a lack of time and resources, and the sheer difficulty of making a difference in federal budget policy, were raised. However, as in Chicago (but to a lesser degree), we also heard that it’s not just a need for more domestic investment, but for government to do things differently. In particular, there needs to be more federal attention to the particularity of community needs, development of federal programs in concert with state and local administrators and nonprofit service providers, and effective oversight over state and local administration of federal programs. Partnerships need to be established and maintained allowing two-way communication. Several of the groups we met with were, in fact, interesting combinations of governmental and non-governmental entities. Others were working on identifying community priorities in innovative ways that could inform national decisions about priorities, or other state and local efforts. The “Face-on-the-Numbers” project, to develop a nation-wide database of human stories about the usefulness of government programs and the unmet needs that remain, met with consistent enthusiasm, and a number of groups are already doing issue-based stories from which we can draw. There was a strong recognition that it is important to develop, on a visceral level, public recognition of the problems faced by low-income people. However, the issue remains of how you translate the stories of unmet needs into effective federal policy that is backed with the resources necessary to make it work. Following are some of the broad themes we heard, with more specific categories below: The best way to engage state and local groups is through big, long-term, simple, proactive policy that a variety of groups can get behind, without being experts in technical details. For instance, the National Housing Trust Fund is something that a variety of state and local housing groups could be energized to work towards. There was one view that it is useless to ask for more federal money unless there is a surplus to spare. Given the forecast of budget deficits for years to come, many groups feel that it is hopeless to do more than try to prevent huge cuts in existing programs. On the other hand, some argued that it’s not about a lack of money, it’s about a shifting of priorities, so it is vital to identify the priorities that are being served and why, as well as the priorities that are being ignored and why. There is a recognition that many programs that benefit states are highly dependent on federal funding, and that state and local groups need to get energized around the revenue side of the federal budget, including tax policy. It’s Not Just That More Federal Resources Are Needed, We Need Better, More Responsive and Effective Government There needs to be more federal attention to rural areas. For instance, there are very few HUD programs that are focused on rural needs. Programs that work in urban areas may need to be different when applied in rural areas. One role of the federal government ought to be as a catalyst, to get something started and provide the opening for community empowerment that can effectively build on the initial government investment. This is one way that even groups who mistrust government intervention might be more supportive of federal investment. Federal government programs are sometimes limited by outdated rules and regulations that fail to take into account new and innovative products and materials that may be locally available and more affordable. For instance, wheat bale construction is not now acceptable under HUD rules for building affordable housing. Government programs ought to be flexible enough to allow different needs to be met in different locations. For instance, if the goal is to employ low-income people, a community may most need a “wheels to work” program, another might be better served by job-training, and yet another by affordable housing. (A good example of this is the Texas Resource Conservation and Development Councils that use this kind of model.) Priorities ought to be based on needs, not politics or what a community can get federal resources to do. There must be better communication between the state/local and federal entities. Bureaucrats, legislative staffers, and politicians in DC need to actually visit the places they serve to find out what the needs are. They should go to places like schools, welfare offices, or low-income housing projects, to actually see what is happening. DC is isolated and unable to understand or provide for state and local needs. Government inefficiency must be addressed. It would be useful to get business people involved who have practical experience in the sense of streamlining programs. For instance, if business people could experience the difficulties experienced by low-income people in applying for or maintaining eligibility for programs, or the rules that work against employment, they could be a powerful force in lobbying for changes in federal programs. There is too much duplication, fragmentation and overlap in government programs. At least one of the groups has given up on government, and does not believe that government works for the people at all. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Food programs, for instance, are seen as a way of pacifying and controlling people so they won’t complain and make changes in the system. More Partnerships Are Needed—Conservative/Progressive, Among Intersecting Issue Areas, Business/Human Needs, State And Local/Federal Business people understand that the right thing to do may be to spend more now, because it will save money later, and they should be enlisted in fighting for more federal resources. Besides engaging state and local groups to work with national groups, there is the recognition that it is important to engage with groups working on different, but intersecting, issues to find common ground and maximize effectiveness. For instance, there are relationships between housing, urban sprawl, jobs, and transportation. Yet often these groups work in isolation from each other. There need to be more partnerships and attempts to find common ground between conservatives and progressives. It is important to bring together diverse groups with a common goal of improving the community for everyone. At the same time, to accomplish this, there needs to be more support for infrastructure at the local level for organizing. It is difficult for any one group to facilitate, which is necessary to get consolidated community activism involving a broad range of groups that has the numbers to effectuate change. Funders do not recognize this need for resources to organize coalitions. There should be more innovative partnerships between the federal government and state and local nonprofits. For example, HUD requires a down payment up front for affordable housing loans, which is impossible for some families, but a local partnership (again, as works in the RC & D Council model) could cooperate in concert with HUD to provide the down-payment assistance. Not surprisingly, there is not always cohesion among low-income people, but difficult barriers to their coming together around common interests, including ideas of the “deserving poor” vs. the others, whether more recent immigrants, or “welfare” mothers who keep having children they can’t support, or those with alternative lifestyles. Federal Regulation Is Important The government has a role in regulating companies to protect workers, not allowing them to relocate for cheap labor, enforcing labor laws, regulating the use of dangerous chemicals, etc. Even the most disengaged group of activists saw a role for government in regulating worker protections. The Dangers of Devolution/Privatization The state of Texas is a microcosm revealing the failures of devolution. It was supposed to make things more community based to the benefit of ordinary members of the community, but it has not. It has facilitated and consolidated a cadre of wealthy politicians who effectively control the community, without oversight. Without the oversight of the federal government, there is a real potential for discriminatory behavior towards those served by faith-based service providers. This issue was both directly raised by participants and also came up in conversations revealing attitudes and judgments about who should be entitled to federal assistance and who should not. There Are Existing Effective Ways to Figure Out What the Priorities Are at the State and Community Level The Community Assessment model developed by the Texas Rural Development Council is an effective way of discovering from a variety of people who live and work in a community what their priorities are. It could be replicated across the country, or a national sampling, including urban, rural, suburban, and exurban communities across geographical areas, could be used to more effectively develop federal budget priorities. The Community Action Network (and its parent organization) does a number of useful assessments at the community, county, and regional level. The idea of a national “needs assessment” was raised several times. This kind of effort is not being used in terms of federal policy making. Basic needs are a re-emerging priority given the budget cuts, economic climate and unemployment. “Homeland” security is meeting the needs of people. The roots of crime are hunger, poor education and lack of opportunities, inadequate housing. Politics Matters Issues of race and class continue to be ignored in discussions about federal priorities. It is vital to figure out a way to mobilize ordinary people to counter the power that corporate interests have over government. It is important to find ways to find out what politicians stand for on various issues, get this information to voters, and then be able to hold them accountable Even nonprofits involved in direct service must take a role in advocacy to change the system, not just help individuals. Messages and Media The wealthy care, but we need to develop messages that mean something to them and promote solutions that make sense. It is important to make people aware of the problems. One humorous example given was of people in a low-income ward of DC struggling with a rat infestation, and getting no attention. However, when they exported some of the rats to a high-income ward, solutions to the problem were found and implemented. Specific Roles for SII Network Building

• Helping to build bridges between groups at the national level and state and local levels (and possibly finding ways to acquaint state and local groups with each other).
• Providing the resources to maintain networks across issue areas.
• Keeping groups advised via email and a good website.

Clearinghouse and Providing Information     People need more information. Examples are:

• The federal budget timetable.
• Writing for state and local publications about federal budget issues.

Background and Methodology The Social Investment Initiative (SII) is based on the premise that a discussion of federal budget priorities must begin at the state and local level. To make sure from the very start that this project was not a “top-down” effort, we made discussions with a variety of different groups in three or four parts of the country an essential part of the initial research stage. We wanted to find out what people identify as important problems and issues in their communities, states, and in the country; what ideas for solutions they would offer; what, if any, role should the federal government play in addressing these issues and solutions; and whether they might become engaged in federal budget issues, including efforts to roll-back the phasing in of the Bush tax cut, over the long-term. These meetings and interviews were also meant to help us identify leadership for this project. Mostly, though, we wanted to listen – to learn how people outside of Washington, D.C., talk about the budget and federal priorities, how they frame the issues and solutions, and what themes might emerge. Our first set of discussion groups was in the Seattle, Washington area over January 14, 15 and 16, 2002. A summary can be found here. Our second set of discussion groups was in Chicago, Illinois over September 16, 17 and 18, 2002. A summary can be found online here. Our third and final set of discussions was held in Austin and San Antonio, Texas in November 2002. A list of participants can be found here. The next step in the SII will be to develop an Internet survey based on the discussion groups and other research that can be sent to thousands of nonprofit groups across the country to begin to refine and develop ideas about federal budget priorities, messages, and how a long-term, nation-wide effort to influence federal budget policy might be undertaken.