Joe Minarik, PhD, MSW, MPP University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Competing with Expert Lobbyists: Nonprofits Influencing State Policymaking through Professional-level Information Sharing Joe Minarik, PhD, MSW, MPP University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Learning Objectives This presentation will explore: Knowing the competition: Expert state lobbyists 5-Step Tailored Information Sharing Decision Model for state legislators Knowledge needs and strategies for tailored information sharing Positioning tactics for influencing state legislators (relationships) Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

“If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu” (Sub8) Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

State of the World Devolution of policy decision making to states Marketization of welfare (Salamon, 1995) Competition from for-profit sector Requires greater professionalization Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Nonprofit Policy Advocacy Advantages Critical information to share with policy makers (Ruggiano & Taliaferro, 2014) Closer to the problems (Salamon, 1987) Trustworthy sources of information to policymakers (Jackson-Elmoore, 2014) Relationship-building social work skills Volunteers Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Nonprofit Challenges Need knowledge and skill in policy-advocacy relevant areas (Bass, Arons, Guinane, Carter & Rees, 2007) Relationships for policy outcomes Communications skills Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Nonprofit Relationship Strategies for Policy Outcomes Organizational Resources Access Networking mediated by Policy Outcomes Sharing of Tasks Openness mediated by Assurances/ Legitimizing policymaker concerns (Based on Ruggiano, Taliaferro, Dillon, Granger, & Scher, 2015) Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Policy Advocacy Communication Skills "It is recommended that social work administrators engage in communication training specific to policy advocacy, so that they may develop the skills needed to relay information to policymakers in a way that is most receptive." (Ruggiano, Taliaferro, Dillon, Granger, & Scher, 2015, p. 226) Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

“Info drops” Step Step Step  Decide to inform Drop off info Decide the strategy Issue has been analyzed Information (e.g. fact sheet) has been developed Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Lobbyist Legislative Strategy Begins with: What do we want, legislatively? Overarching legislative goal Who is “getable”? How do we get them in our corner, or move them into our column? Information sharing, but what kind? Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Lobbyist Information Sharing Information sharing decisions are based on expert lobbyist knowledge Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Knowledge Needs Process knowledge (re Lobbyist Strategy) Bill Analysis Legislator Hierarchy Political Analysis Tailored Bill Analysis Process knowledge Bill analysis Legislator Hierarchy Political analysis Bill analysis Political analysis Tailored Bill Analysis Legislator Hierarchy Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Tailored Information Sharing Tailoring: Information is selected by the lobbyist Selection is based on needs of the legislator Being selective does not mean lying, obscuring, or otherwise deceiving the legislator or decision maker Tailoring requires work Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Tailored Information Sharing Decision Model (Minarik, 2018) Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

5-Step Decision Model Step 1: Decide the “Ask” Step 2: Choose the strategy: Informing (enlightenment) Persuading (“moving” the legislator) Subsidizing (sharing the work on behalf of the legislator) Step 3: Obtain and Select Information to be shared Step 4: Plan the presentation Step 5: Deliver the information, and update Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Select or obtain information Tailored Information Sharing Decision Steps Step Step Decide the “ask” Deliver & evaluate Step  Step Decide the strategy Plan the “ask” Step Select or obtain information Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Methodology Asking lobbyists for “War stories” Qualitative approach: Exploratory study Policy practices Expert decision making details Asking lobbyists for “War stories” Past 2 years What was shared How and why Generating knowledge for training design Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Lobbyist Expertise, in years (n=18) 25+ L L L L L L L 20 L L L 15 L L Lobbying experience 10 L L L 5 L L L P P P P P P P P P P 5 P P Political experience P 10 P P 15+ P P P Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Select or obtain information Tailored Information Sharing Decision Steps Step Step Decide the “ask” Deliver & evaluate Step  Step Decide the strategy Plan the “ask” Step Select or obtain information Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Decide the “Ask(s)” Step  Choices: Pre-legislative (PL): Testing the waters Vetting a proposal Education/laying the groundwork Legislative (L): Recruiting a bill sponsor/champion Get the “yes” vote Get the “no” vote Dampen the opposition Combination Asks Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Step  Decide on Strategy Choices: Persuasion (L) Subsidy (L) Informing (PL, L) Combination strategies Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Step  Obtain & Select Information for the “Ask(s)” Fact sheets Based on bill analysis The foundation for information sharing Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Tailoring “If there’s [155] legislators, you tailor your message [155] ways” (Sub9) Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Tailored Bill Analysis (TBA) Get to know the legislator, get to “know their districts” and get a “feel for their politics…to formulate the kind of approach” you’re going to take with the legislator. (Sub 10) Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

TBA guides Information Selection Analyze and match what you know about the bill “implications” to the legislator hierarchy, and district politics. Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Step  Planning Delivery What? Fact sheet & tailored information When? Be first. Where? Who? “Who should be in the room?” Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Step  Deliver & Evaluate the “Ask(s)” Answer questions Follow up with requested information as needed (GO BACK to Step ) Evaluate effects of information Update: Roll call (legislative goals) Knowledge types legislator hierarchy bill analysis political analysis Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Deeper Dive: Knowledge Needs for Legislative Advocacy & Lobbying For working with state legislators: Bill (or issue) analysis Legislator Hierarchy Process knowledge (legislative process beyond “How a bill becomes a law”) Details of procedures and how decisions are really made Political analysis (legislative district-level) Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Purpose of Bill Analysis Be prepared to talk with the legislator about the bill (or issue)—and answer their questions Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Bill Analysis Knowledge Need Knowing your issue or bill “upsides and downsides, and who’s on what side” What’s happening elsewhere in the same state Cost, feasibility, and impact on state agency Laws in other states; arguments from other states Political momentum assessment Knowing the opposition: Major players Their arguments Your counters to their arguments (rebuttals) Not those who have no presence at the state capitol How “tough” will the vote be for the legislator? How “hot” is the issue likely to get? Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Bill Analysis Knowledge Strategy Mostly informal: Contact state agency legislative liaison for their perspective (feasibility, implementation, position) Discuss with their clients Ask colleagues Contact bill sponsor (or their staff): Why this bill? What’s the intent? Assessing the bill’s legislative viability Looking at the bill’s history, including arguments, reasons it failed, etc. Talk with prior sponsors Friendly legislator critical feedback Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Purpose of Legislator Hierarchy “Knowing where they sit on certain things…what will get their attention” Select information about the bill of greatest importance or interest to the legislator: Tailoring Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Legislator Hierarchy Knowledge Need First used to determine who is “getable” on each particular bill Background connection to issue Personal connection to issue Knowing the needs, interests, and priorities of the legislator/decision maker Knowing organized constituents Used in detail to determine best information to share with the particular legislator Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Legislator Hierarchy Knowledge Strategy Requires human intelligence gathering: Values, priorities Expertise level Background: professional, military/veteran status, race/ethnicity, political party & campaign statements Family characteristics Stated positions (speeches); bill sponsorships (filings); decisions (voting records) Word choice preferences Contact; working together Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Positioning, Legislator Hierarchy and Relationship Strategy Positioning is a means for: Sharing initial information about the lobbyist’s expertise (subject area or process expertise) Intelligence gathering (pictures on the wall) Assessing the legislator’s issue preferences and priorities, and Initiating the relationship Minarik (2018): jminarik@illinois.edu

Tailored Communications & Nonprofit Relationships for Policy Outcomes Organizational Resources Positioning Access Networking mediated by Policy Outcomes Sharing of Tasks Openness mediated by Tailoring Assurances/ Legitimizing policymaker concerns Legislator Hierarchy knowledge Combining Minarik (2018) with Ruggiano, Taliaferro, Dillon, Granger, & Scher (2015)

Questions? Thank you!