From AFJ's Nonprofit & Foundation Advocacy Blog:
Up to 3 million people are likely to be affected by the 7.0 earthquake that struck Haiti this Tuesday. The communities in this area have seen their infrastructure devastated. Roads are impassable; phone lines are down; electricity is available only erratically. Governments and corporate and nonprofit organizations are already responding to provide emergency aid. Immediately following a disaster, this sort of aid is desperately needed. But as we move forward from this disaster, it is crucial to heed the lessons learned along the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina. Governments, corporate and nonprofit organizations, and foundations must remember the need for long-term recovery, and ensure that disenfranchised, vulnerable populations are heard by decision makers early on in the recovery process.
Governments, corporate and nonprofit organizations and foundations need to think long-term and support positive, systemic changes in community infrastructure. Though the tendency is to rebuild previous institutions, disasters provide an opportunity to transform systems that have historically failed. Philanthropic organizations are well-poised to provide support for lasting improvements in water, sanitation, education, housing, and healthcare access.
As Haitians and allies from around the globe work to rebuild, future disaster preparedness must be considered. This includes communications, disaster resistant construction, and emergency response planning. Remember the Katrina mantra, “Build it Better;” build for the long term. Leave behind a stronger infrastructure, one that is better able to withstand disaster when it occurs, and better able to recover from its devastating effects.
In addition to effective, strategic financial support, foundations and organizations must ensure that poor, at risk populations are able to voice their concerns, needs, and priorities to decision makers. Organizations must work with government to craft the policies that govern—in the immediate aftermath and long after, and they must be able to communicate developing plans and decisions with the public, particularly the hard-to-reach and the displaced. For effective long-term recovery, it is crucial that advocates develop grassroots leadership and community organizing. Small groups who build collective voices for community interests and rights can continue effective advocacy long after disaster strikes. Organizations should identify and support local, emerging leadership, leaving behind strong leaders who can advocate for the disenfranchised long after disaster and the attention it brings have subsided.
Showing posts with label nonprofit advocacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nonprofit advocacy. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Monday, December 7, 2009
Standing Up for Groups that Make Democracy Work
Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger issued a report today on his independent inquiry into ACORN’s organizational systems and processes. ACORN sought this investigation after the release of the infamous hidden camera videos – since revealed to be a hoax – taped in several ACORN offices. Following news coverage of the videos, Congress voted to cut off federal funding to ACORN programs.
The Harshbarger report made several recommendations for how ACORN can improve its management, oversight, and governance, and found that ACORN employees had not taken any action, illegal or otherwise, on behalf of the couple shown in the videos.
“Congress should now turn its attention to its real responsibilities – including supporting America’s nonprofit organizations that speak for the voiceless, make democracy work, and provide essential services in our communities’ time of crisis," said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron.
Read the statements by leaders of major progressive organizations about the important work ACORN does, the rush to judgment by the media and members of Congress, and the need for members of the progressive community to stand up for each other, the people we all serve, and our democracy.
The Harshbarger report made several recommendations for how ACORN can improve its management, oversight, and governance, and found that ACORN employees had not taken any action, illegal or otherwise, on behalf of the couple shown in the videos.
“Congress should now turn its attention to its real responsibilities – including supporting America’s nonprofit organizations that speak for the voiceless, make democracy work, and provide essential services in our communities’ time of crisis," said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron.
Read the statements by leaders of major progressive organizations about the important work ACORN does, the rush to judgment by the media and members of Congress, and the need for members of the progressive community to stand up for each other, the people we all serve, and our democracy.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Coalition of Progressive Organizations Stands Up for ACORN
ACORN has announced that former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger was appointed to lead an independent inquiry into the “organizational systems and processes” of the embattled group’s social services and will make public the results of that inquiry.
Alliance for Justice in coalition with several other organizations has released a statement in support of ACORN and its efforts to get this important organization back on track. You can read the full release here.
The Washington Post picked up the story yesterday, highlighting the message that ACORN’s work, in helping low-income families get health care, stave off foreclosure, and find jobs, is particularly critical in this recession.
Alliance for Justice in coalition with several other organizations has released a statement in support of ACORN and its efforts to get this important organization back on track. You can read the full release here.
The Washington Post picked up the story yesterday, highlighting the message that ACORN’s work, in helping low-income families get health care, stave off foreclosure, and find jobs, is particularly critical in this recession.
Friday, September 11, 2009
End Unjust Restrictions on Nonprofits that Provide Legal Aid
From AFJ's Nonprofit and Foundation Advocacy Blog:
The members of Congress who are listed below will decide this week whether to end rules that greatly restrict access to justice for Americans who rely on legal aid.Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 TODAY and tell them it is time to remove the unjust restrictions on funds Legal Services Corporation grantees receive from other sources.
Members of the House and Senate Conference Committee
Senate
Mikulski (D-MD), Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Shelby (R-AL), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Inouye (D-HI), Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Cochran (R-MS), Vice Chair, Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Mollohan (D-WV), Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Wolf (R-VA), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Obey (D-WI), Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Lewis (R-CA), Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations
Background
Nearly 200 independent, nonprofit organizations around the country provide legal aid to poor Americans in civil cases with some funding from the federal government. Federal money appropriated for civil legal aid organizations is distributed through the Legal Services Corporation (LSC).
As part of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” federal restrictions were imposed on organizations receiving funding from LSC, and have been attached to every federal appropriation for LSC since 1996.
These restrictions limit the tools lawyers at LSC-funded programs can use when representing their clients. The worst of these include: prohibiting LSC-funded programs from participating in class actions, seeking attorneys' fees, or advocating before administrative or legislative bodies for policy reform. The restrictions also make certain groups of people ineligible for legal representation from LSC-funded programs entirely, including some groups of documented immigrants, all undocumented immigrants, and people in prison.
However, the restrictions go much further and block organizations from using any other funds – such as individual donations, foundation grants, and state and local government funds – for any service or activity that they are barred from providing with LSC dollars.
Those Who Rely on Legal Aid Hurt When Their Lawyers’ Hands are Tied
People who rely on LSC-funded programs to receive justice lose when the legal organizations set up to help them cannot use non-federal funds to provide services or advocate for changes in laws and policies.
Legal aid programs should be treated the same as other nonprofits, but they are not. Nonprofits that receive part of their funding from LSC are treated much more stringently than most other government-funded nonprofits, including faith-based organizations. These additional restrictions are out of step with important public-private partnership efforts and result in different rules for LSC-funded organizations than other government-funded entities.
In many states, grantees have had to set up entirely separate organizations and law offices, funded by state and local public funders and private charitable sources, to do the work that LSC-funded programs cannot do. This results in wasteful duplication of overhead, personnel and administrative costs. Federal dollars that could finance more services for clients are also eaten up by the costs of running duplicate offices.
Legislation Before Congress Could End Restrictions on Non-Federal Funds
You can help remove the burdensome, unfair restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds by supporting legislation that is currently before Congress.
This year's Senate Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill would lift the worst restrictions on LSC grantees’ non-federal funds. This legislation would allow nonprofits to use their non-federal funds as they and their funders choose.
House and Senate subcommittee chairs are talking this week about resolving differences between two bills: one that has passed the House (which does not do enough to remove restrictions on non-federal funds) and a stronger bill moving through the Senate. These members of Congress are meeting in a rare “pre-conference” committee session, in anticipation of passage of the Senate’s bill next week.
Tell the House and Senate members meeting in the pre-conference committee it is time to remove the unjust restrictions on funds Legal Services Corporation grantees receive from other sources.
Let them know you strongly support the current language in this year's Senate Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill repealing the restriction on non-federal funds. Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask to speak to your Senator or Member of Congress.
The members of Congress who are listed below will decide this week whether to end rules that greatly restrict access to justice for Americans who rely on legal aid.Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 TODAY and tell them it is time to remove the unjust restrictions on funds Legal Services Corporation grantees receive from other sources.
Members of the House and Senate Conference Committee
Senate
Mikulski (D-MD), Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Shelby (R-AL), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Inouye (D-HI), Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Cochran (R-MS), Vice Chair, Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Mollohan (D-WV), Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Wolf (R-VA), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Obey (D-WI), Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Lewis (R-CA), Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations
Background
Nearly 200 independent, nonprofit organizations around the country provide legal aid to poor Americans in civil cases with some funding from the federal government. Federal money appropriated for civil legal aid organizations is distributed through the Legal Services Corporation (LSC).
As part of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” federal restrictions were imposed on organizations receiving funding from LSC, and have been attached to every federal appropriation for LSC since 1996.
These restrictions limit the tools lawyers at LSC-funded programs can use when representing their clients. The worst of these include: prohibiting LSC-funded programs from participating in class actions, seeking attorneys' fees, or advocating before administrative or legislative bodies for policy reform. The restrictions also make certain groups of people ineligible for legal representation from LSC-funded programs entirely, including some groups of documented immigrants, all undocumented immigrants, and people in prison.
However, the restrictions go much further and block organizations from using any other funds – such as individual donations, foundation grants, and state and local government funds – for any service or activity that they are barred from providing with LSC dollars.
Those Who Rely on Legal Aid Hurt When Their Lawyers’ Hands are Tied
People who rely on LSC-funded programs to receive justice lose when the legal organizations set up to help them cannot use non-federal funds to provide services or advocate for changes in laws and policies.
Legal aid programs should be treated the same as other nonprofits, but they are not. Nonprofits that receive part of their funding from LSC are treated much more stringently than most other government-funded nonprofits, including faith-based organizations. These additional restrictions are out of step with important public-private partnership efforts and result in different rules for LSC-funded organizations than other government-funded entities.
In many states, grantees have had to set up entirely separate organizations and law offices, funded by state and local public funders and private charitable sources, to do the work that LSC-funded programs cannot do. This results in wasteful duplication of overhead, personnel and administrative costs. Federal dollars that could finance more services for clients are also eaten up by the costs of running duplicate offices.
Legislation Before Congress Could End Restrictions on Non-Federal Funds
You can help remove the burdensome, unfair restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds by supporting legislation that is currently before Congress.
This year's Senate Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill would lift the worst restrictions on LSC grantees’ non-federal funds. This legislation would allow nonprofits to use their non-federal funds as they and their funders choose.
House and Senate subcommittee chairs are talking this week about resolving differences between two bills: one that has passed the House (which does not do enough to remove restrictions on non-federal funds) and a stronger bill moving through the Senate. These members of Congress are meeting in a rare “pre-conference” committee session, in anticipation of passage of the Senate’s bill next week.
Tell the House and Senate members meeting in the pre-conference committee it is time to remove the unjust restrictions on funds Legal Services Corporation grantees receive from other sources.
Let them know you strongly support the current language in this year's Senate Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill repealing the restriction on non-federal funds. Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask to speak to your Senator or Member of Congress.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
What We Learn from Van Jones: Vicious Attacks Must Not Silence Progressive Leaders
The resignation of Van Jones silences a much-needed progressive voice in the administration. There is no doubt he will once again don the mantle of advocacy he wears so well and continue to do great work fighting for the environment and civil rights.
Unfortunately, Mr. Jones is not the first, nor will he be the last, target of manufactured right-wing outrage or partisan witch hunts. Just ask Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose stellar career and accomplishments were reduced by the right wing to attacks on her “wise Latina” phrase. Or ask Tom Perez and Dawn Johnsen, two nominees to senior Justice Department posts who still await confirmation amidst partisan gameplaying.
Those yelling the loudest now about targeting administration officials--many of whom are women and people of color--for "extremist views" are the same voices who passionately defend the likes of John Ashcroft, Jay Bybee, and Donald Rumsfeld.
Van Jones’ forced resignation is a hard lesson for our progressive community. We have always known the corrosive effect the organized right wing has on reasonable debate, and their willingness to lie and wage baseless attacks on the character of good and strong leaders.
But instead of each group defending leaders of our own communities, all of us -- environmentalists, civil rights, women’s, human rights groups, you name it – must work together to defend progressive leaders from the kind of vicious attacks that have denied America a creative, innovative public servant like Van Jones, and that threaten to keep Dawn Johnsen, Tom Perez, and others from serving in the Obama administration.
Van Jones has much more to offer this country, and Alliance for Justice looks forward to proudly standing with him and other committed progressives to fight for the change America needs.
Unfortunately, Mr. Jones is not the first, nor will he be the last, target of manufactured right-wing outrage or partisan witch hunts. Just ask Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose stellar career and accomplishments were reduced by the right wing to attacks on her “wise Latina” phrase. Or ask Tom Perez and Dawn Johnsen, two nominees to senior Justice Department posts who still await confirmation amidst partisan gameplaying.
Those yelling the loudest now about targeting administration officials--many of whom are women and people of color--for "extremist views" are the same voices who passionately defend the likes of John Ashcroft, Jay Bybee, and Donald Rumsfeld.
Van Jones’ forced resignation is a hard lesson for our progressive community. We have always known the corrosive effect the organized right wing has on reasonable debate, and their willingness to lie and wage baseless attacks on the character of good and strong leaders.
But instead of each group defending leaders of our own communities, all of us -- environmentalists, civil rights, women’s, human rights groups, you name it – must work together to defend progressive leaders from the kind of vicious attacks that have denied America a creative, innovative public servant like Van Jones, and that threaten to keep Dawn Johnsen, Tom Perez, and others from serving in the Obama administration.
Van Jones has much more to offer this country, and Alliance for Justice looks forward to proudly standing with him and other committed progressives to fight for the change America needs.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
All eyes on the Supreme Court
AFJ's Advocacy Digest blog, which covers issues of importance to foundations and nonprofits who engage in advocacy work, published this story today.
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. While there will be no red carpet, “Hillary: The Movie” makes its debut in front of the nine justices as Citizens United argues that the 90-minute anti-Hillary movie, which aired when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was then a Democratic presidential candidate, did not violate the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
Citizens United argues that the movie is not a political ad but instead a documentary that viewers must seek out to watch, and therefore not subject to federal election law. At the lower court, a three judge panel concurred that the movie is indeed a political ad that spoke to candidate Clinton’s qualifications for office. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court. Today’s oral arguments will, among other things, pit the journalistic exceptions in federal election law against the Federal Election Commission’s role of governing political advertisements and its progeny of related issues. This will prove to be a very interesting First Amendment challenge for the Roberts court, which Alliance for Justice and the regulated community will follow closely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)