Earmarks word for FY23: “executability”
On March 31, POPVOX Foundation joined Bipartisan Policy Center and the Black Women’s Congressional Alliance to host a staff information-sharing session in collaboration with the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.
POPVOX Foundation’s Director of Special Initiatives, Anne Meeker, emphasized that the event was *not a briefing* but rather a forum for updating on recent changes and developments, identifying what worked in the first year, and asking/answering questions about the road ahead for the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) process.
ModCom Staff Director, Yuri Beckelman, explained the reasons that “bringing back earmarks” (in a new “Community Project Funding process”) made it into the list of bipartisan recommendations the Select Committee released in the 116th Congress. ModCom Members from both parties felt that the work of Congress was increasingly disconnected from the real issues and needs Members were hearing about in their communities. While the old earmarks system was abused by some in the past, a ten-year moratorium on these Member-directed spending projects illustrated what was lost by removing the ability for Members to work with local governments and nonprofits on community priorities.
Matt Washington, Deputy Staff Director of the House Committee on Appropriations, shared some of the thought that went into Chair Rosa DeLauro’s parameters for the reinstated Community Project Funding Program in FY22: in addition to the guidelines to promote transparency and accountability, limiting the number of projects Members could submit in the House also allowed offices to focus intensively on picking quality projects, and allowed Committee staff to provide robust support to offices navigating this new process. Now that House offices have a good sense of their processes and community engagement, raising the cap to 15 projects per Member per year will allow offices to build on the success of the last cycle when considering FY23 requests.
Current Member office staffers — Heather Painter (Legislative Director for Rep. Kilmer [D, WA]), Richie O’Connell, (Legislative Director for Rep. Calvert [R, CA]), and Kayla Williams (Deputy Chief of Staff for Rep. Lee [D, CA]) — shared their experiences implementing the program in FY22 and how their offices handled outreach, project vetting and project selection for the first cycle after the moratorium.
Key takeaways:
Lean on district staff: They have the relationships and understanding of local needs and projects underway or under development. District office staff bring important perspectives to this process.
Get the word out early, often and in a way that is consistent with your boss’s outlook: There is still a low level of awareness that the opportunity exists to apply for congressionally directed funds and some lingering stigma from misuse of the old system. It’s helpful to explain what the new process is and how the new system is different:
Member-directed spending is Congress exercising its Article I “Power of the Purse”.
Member requested projects do not increase federal spending but rather allow individual Members to help direct a small portion (less than 1% of total discretionary spending) to projects in their districts/states.
New vetting, reporting, and review processes are designed for transparency and accountability.
Review FY22 approved projects for examples of projects that were funded and an understanding of the budget “sweet spot” for different programs. Also: note that House subcommittee guidance includes a note of the median amount approved in FY22 as a guide.
Get innovative! Some offices established their own local review boards or committees to review and recommend projects. Ideas include considering a “pitch day” or allowing public comments from the community on proposed projects.
Share priorities: Some offices also publish clear priorities for which projects they will prioritize for funding, based on their Member’s goals for the district. Messaging around this program is another opportunity to share your Member’s priorities and other work in these areas.
Do your research: If it’s not clear which program fits a particular project, contact the subcommittee clerk or professional staff or even consider reaching out to the agency for guidance on the viability of a project before formally making the request.
Matt Washington also shared what he described as one of the most important requirements for projects under consideration: “executability,” meaning that the organization, team, and requested budget ensure that the project will be implemented. Given that the current process is a one-year appropriation only (with no guarantee of follow-on funding) it is important to demonstrate that projects are “shovel ready” and capable of showing impact or success in the first year.
As congressional offices begin their FY23 processes, we and other organizations are working to provide resources and information for staffers, potential requesters, journalists, and members of the public. Check out and share these links*:
Guide for Constituents on navigating Congressional “earmarks”
Full roundup of resources, guidance, and shareable data from the Bipartisan Policy Center
Guide to understanding the appropriations process for CPF requestors
* We have been advised that House communications guidelines allow congressional offices to share information from third parties via hyperlink when there is a federal nexus to the topic of the information shared and it is clear that the sharing does not constitute an endorsement.
