One type of nonprofit advocacy that does not always get a lot of attention in the context of online advocacy is administrative advocacy. This describes attempts to understand and intercede in agency deliberations and rulemaking processes on the federal, state, or local level. It can include:

• efforts to influence regulatory issues
• the shaping of executive branch and agency budgets and grants
• teaching or assisting others with the filing of comments on governmental actions and proposed regulations
• monitoring program operations
• engaging others in the practice of monitoring regulations and guidelines that control implementation of legislation
• directing public attention to proposed regulations
• challenging policies or regulations in courts when they are inconsistent with the law

Why doesn't it get discussed more? Certainly, there are scores of groups engaged in explaining how rulemaking processes work, that track rules and related legislation on a regular basis, and encourage users to act in some way to impact rules. Well, yes there are, but keep in mind what constitutes the regulatory landscape. In the U.S., for example, federal agencies-- under the influence of both executive branch priorities and Congress' legislative authority-- articulate and implement scores of rules that address, for example, product safety, public health, housing standards, hiring practices, land use, and telecommunications access-- among others. For all of this activity, there are gaps in resources that explain budget-setting and rulemaking processes to the general public. Such matters entail a high-degree of technical jargon and arcane details accessible generally to only policy experts, lawyers, and those with scientific backgrounds. They also tend to highlight attention on the specific rules, rather than both the principles behind the rules, much less the actual process involved in the development (and subsequent reviews) of rules. In addition, lawsuits, executive orders, and legislative maneuvers can eliminate a rule-- or at least prevent it from being implemented-- even after it has been passed. To complicate the landscape further, there are any number of somewhat nebulous principles that are invoked as the basis for proposing, reviewing, changing, or eliminating rules-- ranging including "costs versus benefits," "impact," "harm," or "utility." This raises some potential barriers around broader participation in this area by nonprofits, much less individual citzens. Those groups that are involved generally reflect public interest work on issues around, labor, environment, economics, and health, as well as commercial interests more often than not in opposition to those public interest groups. Given the resources that must be engaged in support or opposition of a rule throughout all of its stages, though, choices must generally be made between focusing on the specifics of a rule, or the rulemaking process itself. With either choice, activity has to be balanced between generating a base of comments from parties directly and indirectly affected, and addressing opposition interests as well. There are, to be sure, emerging opportunities for technology to provide a bridge across the traditional barriers for broader participation in administrative advocacy. In fact, technology might hold potential for not only providing the means for greater citizen input and comments, but also for providing greater information about the rulemaking process-- and its attendant deliberation-- as well. Online activity focused around administrative advocacy continues to grow. Discussion lists are routinely used to inform users of pending rulemaking and legislative activity, while the web presents contact and reference information on agency officials, proposed rules, program descriptions, and legislative or executive activity around the rule. In some instances, groups provide the means for interested parties to send their comments directly to the agencies (as well Congress and the White House). One recent opportunity you might recall was the opportunity to provide comments to the Internal Revenue Service on nonprofit use of the Internet. This was a unique opportunity for nonprofits to lend their input to influence the decision-making of an agency before it decides to even propose a rule for deliberation, as opposed to advisory guidelines for consideration by affected groups. Back in May 2000, an "online experiment" was launched to allow citizens to express their opinions regarding ways the federal government can provide improved content and more services via the Internet, initiated by United States Senators Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), respectively the Chairman and Ranking Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. The effort was titled "e-Government: An Experiment in Interactive Legislation," and the idea was to receive comments that would be used in the development of legislation. It served as a bipartisan approach towards engaging citizen input about how government can take advantage of online resources to serve the public better, by taking comments online in a "virtual hearing," rather than simply introducing legislation that lays out ambiguous goals for government. For every step forward, however, there is, at least at the federal level, a persistent set of institutional barriers hampering broader citizen and nonprofit participation in administrative advocacy. One instance that gained a lot of notoriety during February 2000 involved rules on the privacy of medical records proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, reported by Ben White in the 2/10/00 Washington Post. In October 1999, the Clinton administration proposed rules to restrict access to personal medical records, especially through the Internet. Though groups like the American Civil Libertieis Union were generally supportive of the proposed rules, it wanted to raise awareness around certain provisions involving access by government and law enforcement agencies. ACLU located a fax number along with other contact information in the HHS request for comments, and set up a special web page that allowed citizens to share their comments on the proposed rules-- by fax. The site generated some 2400 faxes during fall 1999, but HHS only claimed to receive 100 of them. Why? Because, apparently, the fax machine became overloaded! It turns out that HHS told the ACLU in December 1999 that it did not have the capacity (or willingness?) to accept faxed comments-- interested parties need to continue to submit comments on paper (in triplicate) to a specific mailing address. HHS, to be fair, also provided its own website to receive public comments. ACLU, however, argued that the site was not easily found from the HHS main page, and that if faxes were not acceptable, what did that mean for other electronic communications to connect citizens with decision makers. Interestingly, the official comments period ended on February 17, 2000, but the ACLU was only notified that the faxed comments would not be accepted on February 1, 2000. The ACLU did set up a revamped site that allows citizens to submit their opinions on how HHS handles electronic comments, while offering the means to still weigh in on the rules. Leave the technology out of the picture or a moment, and consider this: as rules and policies are considered and deliberated, research and study are invariably one resource key to advocacy, to help determine the impact and benefits of rules. This includes data collection, surveys, testing, and other related activity from the government, companies, academic institutions, independent nonprofit findings, and even citizen and community-based research. Some of this is conducted by traditional means, but now even online surveys, personal data assistants, and e-mail responses are factoring into research. Ultimately, some portion of the determined impact will most likely be rooted in a degree of risk, if not an actual harm of some sort to some entity. One set of research identifying harm might not likely ever pinpoint, with 100% accuracy, that the range of harms identified will occur (though you might come pretty darn close). Why? Sometimes harms are not evident until after an activity actually occurs, or until a truly significant amount of time elapses that may not fit within the time frame of a rule's consideration. Sometimes there is not a clear causal relationship between specific action and harms, because either (or both) are too myriad, too great or undetectable in their magnitude. Research becomes an advocacy vehicle itself in all its forms-- including the collection of case studies, examples, public opinion, observations and some degree of forecasting-- when it helps fill in the gaps in this context. If, in fact, broader public and public interest awareness and activity can be engaged around both in the rulemaking process itself, as well as in response to specific rules, it is argued that greater accountability and sustainable beneficial impact can be achieved for society as a whole. Ryan Turner OMB Watch Resources Cited HHS and ACLU on medical privacy rule comments 2/10/00 Washington Post Ben White HHS Comments Website ACLU Medical Regulations website There are a number of public interest groups and research organizations that provide regulatory background information, news, and perspectives on a range of individual subject areas in the broad landscape of administrative advocacy, rulemaking, and regulatory issues. The following list of resources should be treated as a starting point for administrative advocacy at the federal level. Government General Accounting Office (cost-benefit analyses of major rules dating back to 1996) General Services Administration (regulations based on plans laid out in advance by federal agencies) National Archives and Records Administration (Federal rules and proposed regulations that are to be officially released the next day) U.S. Government Printing Office (contains the contents of the Federal Register, and has seen some 10 million downloads since January-- 2.5 times the traffic at the end of the Clinton administration). Public Interest AFL-CIO OMB Watch Public Citizen Conservative AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies (joint effort of two somewhat contradictory think-tanks, features a list of rules, including those that would add benefits of US$100 million each year if they were passed, removed, or changed) Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (pro-business, analysis on specific rules and the regulatory process) Competitive Enterprise Institute (features regulatory analysis) Heritage Foundation Mercatus Center at George Mason University (market-oriented slant, notable for its tracking of the "midnight regulations" (rules issued in the final days) generated by the Clinton administration in its last days-- as well as information on the process specific rules undergo from their inception) Libertarian Cato Institute (features regulatory research and analysis)