Reply to comment

My day at the office on 10/7/2013 was fairly standard.  For most of the day I had two assignments: researching myths about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for the compilation of a myth versus fact sheet that our department was creating, and assisting the writing of an op-ed piece on the government shutdown by doing some background research on how it would affect women and programs in Pennsylvania specifically. Both of these assignments were quite enjoyable - they involved researching topics that were current and interesting; and because they were broadly defined, I was able to explore a variety of different sources. 

Unsurprisingly, there are a vast number of myths that have already grown up around the ACA, including a number of intentionally misleading campaigns.  Just from being news-cognizant outside of my work I am aware of the criticisms open enrollment is facing with regard to the poor advertising and publicity it has generated for itself thus far.  As such, my impression is that many of the misunderstandings have arisen for lack of information provided by the government and the advocate community.  To some degree this has been intentional: there was some fear that by talking about getting coverage too early, people would misunderstand and attempt to enroll before open enrollment, be disillusioned when healthcare.gov was not up and running, and not return during actual open enrollment.  I imagine (and hope) that a serious amount of consideration was put into this decision - and the lead-up to open enrollment in its entirety - but the consequence remains that at this point, with open enrollment finally begun, far too little is known about the ACA.   

Getting to contribute to this research, then, was also especially exciting because it was a very tangible way that the organization was going to be able to reach out and engage with the community regarding an issue that is very important to both sides.  In many ways our public education and social media material constitutes our day to day level of actual engagement with the community - as contrasted with the grantmaking that has us acting as a third party contributor to direct service provision, and policy advocacy that is helpful in the long run but less visibly so in the short run. 

Helping with the op-ed felt similarly tangible: it was a project that would be completed within a day or two, and would have an immediate visibility and impact on the community.  In addition, contributing to work on an op-ed felt traditional, but in a very encouraging way: utilizing our ability as an organization to give voice to our own opinions in such a way that also supported what we perceive to be the interests of the community we advocate on behalf of.  Such action is not radical, but it is clear and forthright, and extends our actions not just outside the internal workings of the organization, but also beyond the complicated dynamics of the legislature or issue messaging.  Very simply, important events are occurring in our country, and this provided a way for us to enter the dialogue. 

Finally, at the end of the day I did some minor work reviewing the information and format of the proposal for the new campaign proposal that my supervisor had prepared.  This was exciting, as it is a step forward in expanding the organization’s commitment to various women’s issues, as well as being truer (in my opinion) to what we put forward as our fundamental issue areas.   Some of the information review that I had to do also included dropping in work that I had done earlier over the summer, and in that respect it was satisfying to see one of the ways in which my work was being utilized.

At the same time, finishing the campaign proposal was a reminder of the pervasive nature and questionable intentions of bureaucracy.  On the one hand, I value the concept of not leaving the decision to adopt a new campaign down to just our department; such an endeavor requires substantial resources, and shouldn’t be taken on lightly.  Plus, it gives room for others to voice their thoughts and concerns regarding such an endeavor, and is especially valuable if the committee is formed from the community.  On the other hand, it is frustrating to have to seek permission to pursue an issue that is very clearly pressing in the community we serve.  And for all that the committee may have the interests of that community also at heart, they are hardly closer than we are to being able to speak for or as that community; so what then becomes the necessity of seeking their approval?