|
Benton
Seeks to Strengthen and Expand Public-interest Communications
Advocacy
In
fall 2002, the Ford Foundation asked the Benton Foundation
to assess the feasibility of establishing a fellowship
program to attract a new, more diverse generation of
leaders into public-interest communications policy advocacy. We chose Jackie Blumenthal to manage this
project on our behalf based on her experience, independence
and impartiality. During the Clinton Administration,
Jackie directed the White House Fellows program, the
nationâs most prestigious fellowship for leadership
development and public service . The Benton Foundation
is posting this overview of our findings to stimulate
a conversation about this and other ideas for strengthening
the communications policy field.
The
research for this project was largely conducted in late
2002. Initially, the Benton Foundation formed an advisory
committee to provide input on the projectâs overall
direction (see Appendix for roster). Next, Jackie Blumenthal
interviewed key stakeholders in communications policy
as well as individuals who could provide guidance on
the development of fellowship programs (see Appendix
for roster). The research methodology did not
include either interviewing other foundation
officers to test the appetite for such a fellowship
program or talking with past interns or fellows who
have worked at DC-based public-interest organizations
to gauge the quality of their experiences.
What
was the impetus for a fellowship feasibility study?
New
communications technologies can radically change how
we get information, exercise our citizenship, participate
in the marketplace, learn new skills and even receive
health care. But far too many Americans do not understand
the importance of communications policy to their lives.
As decisions are being made in Washington about how
to deploy the new media, who controls them and to what
ends, there is an urgent need to both increase awareness
of the importance of such decisions and build the capacity
of a broad range of communities to advocate on their
own behalf.
One idea for meeting that need, suggested by the Ford
Foundation, is to establish a fellowship-type program
in Washington to recruit and train new advocates from
a diverse range of backgrounds and affiliations. Ê Such
a program could forge links to communities that are
underrepresented in policy debates or underserved by
new communications techniques. Ê The program could be
structured to formalize relationships with both grassroots
activists and academic programs focused on public policy
in the communications arena. Ê And a new generation
of potential leaders could be apprenticed to groups
on the front lines of Washington policy debates.
The
following overview describes what we learned through
interviews with key players advocating public-interest
communications policy in Washington and a cross-section
of others with knowledge about fellowships, academic
relationships and relevant resources. Ê It is important
to note that the responses of current leaders were somewhat
circumscribed by a realistic concern about funding and
sustaining any new program in the face of widespread
belt-tightening throughout the foundation and donor
community. Ê The feasibility study did not assess the
availability of funding at this stage but rather proposed
that the need and potential it uncovered be presented
for further discussion to a coalition of possible donors,
organized by the Ford Foundation.
What
is the state of communications policy advocacy today?
From
the early civil-rights-era struggles to extend television
access to black communities in the South, to Vietnam-era
ãfairness doctrineä efforts to open the airwaves to
differing points of view, to the growth of cable television
into todayâs world of digital technology, a handful
of groups have persevered on behalf of the publicâs
interest in communications policy: Ê Media Access Project,
Center for Democracy and Technology, Center for Digital
Democracy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers
Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center. Today
the Washington-based movement is augmented by other
individuals and institutions including Georgetown Law
Centerâs Institute for Public Representation, Leadership
Council on Civil Rights, Alliance for Public Technology,
and New America Foundation. Ê However, even after 30
years of effort, the endeavor to protect and advance
the public interest in the communications policy arena
still resembles an ad hoc confederacy more than an acknowledged
professional field (unlike environmental protection,
for example, which has attained that status over roughly
the same period of time). Thus, a fellowship program
might contribute to building the capacity of the field,
including strengthening communications policy advocacy.
Ê
What
is the perception of need within the national communications
policy arena?
The
most significant need is to add new voices to the movement.
Ê Throughout the country, citizens and communities are
endeavoring to claim their share of benefits from the
rapidly changing communications landscape. Ê But too
few of those voices are heard by the rule-makers and
policy-setters in Washington. Ê Diverse communities
must be made to understand their stake in decisions
about communications policy. Ê People must be offered
a clear vision of new media as a vital tool for improving
their lives. Ê There is no question that broader grassroots
involvement in national communications policy decision-making
is essential to both protect and advance the publicâs
interest.
What is being done today to develop
new and more diverse leadership for the movement?
Nearly
every group in the communications policy arena hires
interns ranging from bar-admitted lawyers to graduate
students on summer break. Ê Media Access Project has
had legal interns for 25 years. As Andrew Schwartzman
noted, ãthe quality is as high as ever but the number
to choose from is disastrously low. Ê No one wants to
do public interest like they did 25 years ago.ä However,
Jorge Schement of Penn Stateâs Institute for Information
Policy suggested that the students he now teaches are
more open than previous generations to considering public
interest work as a result of their experiences doing
compulsory community service work in high school and
college. Ê The Institute for Public Representation at
Georgetown Law Center offers a two-year fellowship in
communications law every year. Ê The program director,
Angela Campbell, reports that diversity is apparent
in the pool of applicants without any special efforts
being made and that most of the fellows she sees would
gladly continue to work in public-interest law but simply
cannot afford to due to debt acquired in law school.
She also thinks part of that problem is the public-interest
communications policy is a relatively unknown field
and that job openings are few and far between. Ê Paul
Resnick of the University of Michiganâs School of Information
agreed: ãA cadre of young professionals needs to be
developed in parallel with the emergence of real job
opportunities for them; internships are important but
so are first jobs.ä The lack of jobs is directly related
to the availability of funding for them. Ê With regard
to the issue of diversity, most interviewees agreed
that recruiting members of minority or underrepresented
communities to work on communications policy for a year
or two in Washington, while valuable, should not be
seen as an end in itself. Ê A more lasting contribution
to the movement would be to connect with those populations
in a way that makes them stakeholders in the outcomes
of policy and rule-making battles in Washington.
Is
a fellowship program a solution to the need?
A
fellowship program could not only recruit and train
potential advocates selected specifically to represent
communities whose voices need to be heard, but in turn
those advocates could become the missing link back to
the grassroots. Ê It is a way to approach building capacity
in individuals and communities to participate in making
vitally important decisions about communications policy.
Such capacity-building is essential not only to foster
self-sufficiency and responsibility, but also because
no one can express the needs of a community÷or mobilize
it to act on its own behalf÷better than a member of
that same community.
What
would such a program look like?
For
the purpose of the feasibility study, the working model
of a fellowship program was described as follows: Ê
•
One entity, in collaboration with others in the field,
manages the recruitment, selection,
work placement and other communal activities (e.g.,
educational seminars,
network building) of a certain number (5-10) of people
who are paid
a stipend plus benefits over one or two years.
•
Fellows would be apprenticed to organizations in Washington,
D.C. that promote
the publicâs interest in the development and implementation
of communication
policy.
• They would be offered a range
of educational and/or training sessions taught by
academics, activists, government officials and other
professionals to complement or enhance their on-the-job
experiences.
•
Post-fellowship job placement, other follow-up and
ongoing networking would be
managed by the entity in charge of the program.
•
Funding for this program would be sought from a consortium
of foundations, individuals
and corporate donors.
Who would serve as the organizing
entity?
The
Benton Foundation sees this opportunity to mobilize
new resources on behalf of the communications advocacy
movement as a natural extension of its program focus
and distinct position in the community. The Benton
Foundation was founded on the premise that more and
better communication is the key to improving peopleâs
lives by enhancing their ability to function as informed
citizens in a democracy. With its extensive network
of relationships throughout the national and international
communications policy universe, Benton is appropriately
and uniquely situated to administer the proposed fellowship
program: to attract potential new leaders from underrepresented
communities, to use its connections at public policy
and communications schools for training purposes, and
to benefit the ongoing work of the Washington-based
advocates with new talent from diverse sources.
What
qualities would be sought from prospective fellows?
The interviews with key players surfaced
a range of choices: Ê lawyers vs. non-lawyers, graduate
students vs. post-grads, and advocates vs. academics.
Ê Everyone agreed that the movement needs more advocates,
but several interviewees pointed out that lawyers, particularly
those drawn to public-interest work, can also be advocates.
Several current leaders expressed a need for quantitative
research, particularly on related economic issues, and
envisioned academically trained fellows as filling this
gap. A particularly resonant idea was to recruit fellows
who are currently actively involved in communications
issues in their own communities, people who would benefit
particularly from participating in rule-making and legislative
battles for policies that directly affect them and who
could, in turn, help put a human face onto the public
interest campaigns in Washington.
Where would fellows be apprenticed?
The
ideal placement for a fellow would be one in which he
or she would be mentored by one of the current leaders
in Washington while working on a well-crafted project
in line with his or her capabilities. Paul Resnick
at Michigan advised that a critical component of success
would be to match fellows with mentors. Angela Campbell
at Georgetown cautioned that not everyone is cut out
to be a good mentor: Ê ãIâm a teacher. Mentoring is
what I do. I wonder if the host organizations this project
would use are going to get enough out of it to put the
necessary mentoring into it.ä That question needs to
be explored further.
What is the major obstacle to
this model?
As previously noted, every interviewee questioned how a fellowship program could be funded and sustained in
a tight economy that is squeezing all aspects of the
non-profit world. The program as described would be
expensive and would require a multi-year commitment
of funding. Based on similar programs in this and other
public interest fields, a reasonable stipend would need
to be at minimum $30,000 plus benefits in order to attract
the most qualified candidates. The program envisions
taking on 5ö10 fellows each year for several reasons:
the effect of the program would be limited with only
one or two new recruits; economies of scale argue against
so few as well; the goal of forging links to the grassroots
and network building would be diminished in direct relation
to limiting the number of fellows. Additionally, most
interviewees believed that a two-year fellowship commitment
would yield a stronger program: Ê ãThe learning curve
on our issues is extremely long; the second year is
when you get the pay-off.ä
Is a fellowship program as envisioned
here feasible?
Whether
or not a fellowship program is feasible rests almost
entirely on the availability of funding÷to plan the
program, to get it started and to sustain it long enough
to build a reputation and showcase results. The capacity
of the field to absorb fellows is also an open question.
So, are there sufficient host organizations for the
prospective fellows? Will the fellows be appropriately
mentored and provided with meaningful and manageable
work assignments? Are there enough jobs in public-interest
communications advocacy available to warrant the investment
in training the fellows?
Is there an alternative approach
to meeting the identified needs?
A
summer institute seems to have promise as a model for
further discussion either as an end in itself or as
a first step before launching the more extensive and
expensive fellowship program. The working concept for
a summer institute is as follows:
•
An eight-week apprenticeship held in Washington during
JuneöJuly.
•
Application is open to grassroots activists and graduate
students working on
communications
issues.
•
Apprenticeships are offered with a stipend either
across the board or on a
competitive
basis (applicants accepted for participation without
stipend
could
pay their own way or fund themselves through other
means).
•
Participants are matched with projects solicited from
Washington-based
organizations
which could range from doing work immediately needed
to
researching
information for future contingencies.
•
Acceptance is based on factors such as the specific
skills (law degree, social
science
background) or point of view (rural, ethnic, community-based)
need
for the particular projects available.
•
One day a week, or two half-days, is devoted to a
workshop on such subjects as
how
to be an effective advocate, techniques of lobbying
and rule-making,
and
specific discussions of current issues in communications
policy.
•
Academics, government officials, advocates and others
are invited to participate
in
the workshops.
•
Workshop days also include opportunities for social
interaction and networking.
•
The Institute could be housed in partnership with
a Washington-based college or
university
program in the communications field.
•
Connections forged over the summer would be maintained
afterwards for the
mutual
benefit of apprentices, host organizations and other
participants.
This
approach could meet some of the needs premised in this
report while circumventing some of the obstacles apparent
in the fellowship program concept. Ê Summer Institute
participants would bring new ideas and perspectives
into the Washington-based arena. Ê The Institute could
formalize links to academic communities in the field.
Washington-based organizations would be exposed to new
talent who could be hired if opportunities or need arise.
Ê The biggest expense would be the first session which
would have the challenge of proving its worth to the
larger community involved in communications policy.
If proven, the funding could be spread among a broader
range of beneficiaries (including the industry and academia)
in the future.
What do you think about these
ideas and the need to diversify and strengthen public-interest
communications policy advocacy?
Click
here to express your thoughts on this question.
We will provide updates on the Benton site or through
our discussion lists as decisions are made about the
fellowship program or other projects to strengthen communications
policy in the public interest.
____________________________________________
Appendix
Advisory
Committee
David Archambault
Marjorie Benton, Benton Foundation
Nolan Bowie, Harvard University
Cheryl Dorsey, Echoing Green Foundation
Silvia Golombek, Youth Service America
Paul
Resnick, University of Michigan
Sylvia
Rosenthal, Alliance for Public Technology
Ellen
Wartella, University of Texas at Austin
Interviewees
for Ford Fellowship Feasibility Study
Jerry
Berman, Center for Democracy and Technology
Michael
Calabrese, New America Foundation
Angela
Campbell, Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown
Law Center
Jeff
Chester, Center for Digital Democracy
Mark
Cooper, Consumer Federation of America
Leslie
Harris, Leslie Harris Associates
Gene
Kimmelman, Consumers Union
Brian
Komar, Leadership Council on Civil Rights
Paul
Resnick, University of Michigan, School of Information
Sylvia
Rosenthal, Alliance for Public Technology
Mark
Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center
Jorge
Schement, Institute for Information Policy, Penn State
University
Andy
Schwartzman, Media Access Project
Ellen
Wartella, School of Communications, University of Texas
Anthony
Wilhelm, Benton Foundation
|
