Summary of discussion groups held in Seattle, Burien, Everett, Kirkland, and Renton, Washington, on January 14 and 15, 2002, through the Social Investment Initiative project. These groups talked about domestic priorities at the national, state and local level, the barriers and opportunities that exist today and solutions to the challenges we face, the role of the federal government, and how national, state and local groups might work together over the long term to change the public policy debate. Following is a summary of discussion groups held in the state of Washington on January 14 and 15, 2002, regarding federal budget priorities. This effort is part of a two-year project, called the Social Investment Initiative (SII). Read more in the Social Investment Initiative Project Summary. Background 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 four or five 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 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. It was with some trepidation, but much excitement, that we began our discussions in the Seattle, Washington area over January 14, 15 and 16. We chose Seattle because of the invaluable help in setting up meetings that was offered by OMB Watch Board member Nancy Amidei and because Washington residents often express distinct feelings about federal issues. We held five discussion groups composed of representatives of a wide variety of organizations, coalitions, and private concerns, with a focus on reaching out to groups who might be more unlikely partners, including groups that are more mainstream and not identified as necessarily "progressive." Four of the meetings were outside of Seattle in the communities of Everett, Kirkland, Renton, and Burien. Participants included members of Head Start and the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP) parent advisory groups; several United Way chapters and an American Cancer Society representative; a Community Services Block Grant manager; a City Director of Human Services; City Council members and staff; nonprofit advocacy groups; a manager of a Public Utility District; nonprofit groups and service providers involved in a variety of particular issues; an Asian Pacific Islanders and a Hispanic rights group; a private hospital commissioner; a former governor and a former police chief. We met individually with the Economic Security Policy Director of the Economic Opportunity Institute, the Executive Director of the Northwest Federation of Community Organizations, and the Directors and several staff members of Northwest Harvest and the Emergency Food Network. One immediate reward of this initial effort was the appreciation we consistently heard for simply being there and asking for the opinions and ideas of state and local people. This was seen as truly novel, even though many of the groups work with national organizations. There was real engagement and excitement in talking about broad issues of policy, taxes, and spending. The quality of all of the discussions was very high, and we came away with a wealth of information, including what people see as the most important issues, ideas for message development and framing issues in terms of values, specific investment initiatives, attitudes about government and taxation and the effects of September 11, and suggestions about how to make the Social Investment Initiative work. There was positive support for the SII, and the willingness to help make it work. Roughly half to two-thirds of the groups we met with work on federal issues and of those who do, most said it constituted less than 10% of their overall work. This was not surprising. In spite of the recognition -- expressed again and again -- of the importance of this kind of effort, there are considerable barriers. Primarily these are the lack of time and resources, but there is also a more troubling sense that it is difficult or impossible to really make a difference in federal budget policy since pork barrel projects, corporate influence and special interests will always prevail -- some participants confessed to a "So why bother?" attitude. This project also requires the sustained engagement of a state and local constituency base around long- term budget priorities, and there is little precedent for this kind of effort. However, the need for a coordinated and focused campaign around federal fiscal policy issues, including the responsibility of the federal government and the impact of federal policy on state and local government was seen as vital right now. There was the recognition that we need a long- term plan with simple, strong messages that can move between the national and local levels, with smaller mini-campaigns that build toward the long-term objective. The revenue- crunch is only going to get worse and many problems that affect people at the community level can only be solved and funded by the federal government. Common Themes Some broad themes that emerged across all the groups:

• Meeting human and community needs should not be framed in terms of charity or a religious obligation. Instead we should make the argument in terms of economic justice or fairness. There is general public agreement that people who work should be able to be self-sufficient. September 11 may have made it easier to make the argument that we also have an obligation to do right by those whom prosperity has left behind. We need to begin to address difficult structural issues like income and wealth inequality, racism and classism, all of which are linked to decisions about federal fiscal policy over the long-run.
• Arguments should be made in terms of economic rewards that apply to everyone. It's good for the economy and it's in our self-interest to extend justice and basic fairness to everyone. There is an economic price to disinvestment. We either pay now or pay later. The costs of prevention are much less than the costs of dealing with disasters. Social services are good business.
• We need to ask broader questions about public policy.Why is there such a limited pot of social services money in the first place? Who determines the priorities? Rather than taking the limited resources we're given and dividing it up, we need to join together to argue for a bigger pot. We should make demands on government to provide the resources to address human needs. Some interesting ideas included developing a "target social services funding level" that we could all work towards as a common goal.
• "Invest" still seemed like a good way to talk about federal spending on domestic needs. However, some people felt that it had become a code word to attempt to disguise social spending, and others felt that it excluded the idea of simple fairness in favor of economic rewards. Nonetheless, most felt that "invest" properly conveys the notion of putting resources into programs and services that provide a social or economic return to improve quality of life. These groups were all very communications savvy, mentioning frequently that there may need to be different iterations of the message for different audiences.
• The "face on the numbers" part of the SII was consistently seen as being important. There should be an effort to tell positive stories of the benefits of government as well as the stories of unmet needs in ways that people can identify with. We need to work to erase the distinction between the "undeserving" and the "deserving" poor. The definition of "government welfare" needs to be expanded to middle-class benefits like the mortgage exemption. Comparisons could be made between the cost of the mortgage exemption and the amount of federal dollars spent on affordable housing for low-income people.
• September 11 may have provided an opportunity for a rehabilitation of government. We must work to show that government is worthy of the public trust. This might be accomplished though historical examples or just by making it clear to people what government accomplishes.
• The federal budget process itself is skewed. It is set up to limit the allocation of resources and favors cutting taxes. Also, the whole idea that emergency spending is "privileged" and not subject to budget caps makes it easier to deal with crises than to spend money for positive preventative measures.
• In general, the federal budget process needs to be demystified and national groups can play a big role in educating local groups about the budget process and can help make the relevancy of federal budget policy to local issues more clear.
• We need to broaden our constituency base to make it more inclusive and to include non-traditional allies. For instance, Eastern Washington small farmers and low-income advocates joined together to keep funding for the WIC Farmer's Market. The public utility community has an interest in issues of poverty. In many cases, cuts in government programs have very direct effects on other institutions that could become allies. Many people, besides progressives, share values of fairness and justice.
• We need to educate our own community about erroneous assumptions that deficits are always bad and the national debt is unsustainable, or we will be eventually foreclosed from arguing that we must invest for future benefits, even if a deficit results.
• We have to show the value of taxes, the "fairness" of being taxed, and the benefits we receive. (There was an idea of using stickers saying, "This was paid for by your tax dollar!" to literally mark the benefits of tax dollars.) Nearly all groups understood the importance of addressing tax issues in the context of budget priorities. There was great concern about the tax cuts enacted last summer. Many hoped that the work undertaken by SII could help build the momentum to reverse these tax cuts, particularly those solely benefiting the wealthy.

These are just preliminary themes. The discussion groups in Seattle were the first step at asking questions and interpreting the answers. As we begin scheduling other groups, we intend to work with a communications expert to pull out messages and ideas for values framing so that we can test messages. As we proceed with more of these discussion groups, we mirror the hope of one participant who wrote in a letter to thank us for coming to the Northwest and listening, "we all look forward to seeing the Social Investment Initiative take shape, and, most importantly, create change." See the full list of organizations represented in these Seattle, WA discussion groups. For more information on the SII, please contact Project Coordinator Ellen Taylor at taylore@ombwatch.org or Project Assistant Cate Paskoff at paskoffc@ombwatch.org.