Should the government be able to require that NGOs uphold certain behaviors in order to get funding?

Great Debates
1

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard arguments on if US funding to anti-AIDS/HIV groups could be tied to requirements that those groups follow a set stance anti-prostitution stance. Bloomberg’s Article, Washington TimesFrom what I can tell, the anti-AIDS groups are arguing that this is a limitation to their freedom of speech. The government’s case is that they are using this as a criteria to select which groups seeking funding are the best fit.

My initial gut reaction was pro-freedom of speech, but then I thought about it more. There is almost always more people/groups seeking funding/time/materials/etc then there are actual resources. The list has to be shortened some how, and this is a valid way of doing it.

I do this at some level or another all the time. I may chose to not give my business to a specific restaurant, even though I enjoy the food, because I don’t like the music they play. I don’t buy my groceries at Walmart because I don’t like their business practices, even though they may have te cheapest cost.

I’ve changed my mind in the last day. I believe that an entity giving away resources should have the right to attach requirements to that resource, as long as they are stated clearly up front. If you don’t like my restrictions, then it’s been nice knowing you, I’m moving on to the next candidate.

So is this a valid restriction? Is this a restriction of Freedom of Speech, or a justifiable way to narrow down the field of applicants? What kind of limitations are valid, when it comes to the government?

2

For some background, consider that when the US government wants to build a bridge, they put out a request for proposals and choose a contractor. The same goes for development and global health projects. If the US determines that it would like to protect orphans in Somalia or prevent HIV in Laos, it puts out a request for proposals and various NGOs and private firms compete for the work. These organizations have a great deal of experience and personnel, and they know how to successfully implement these projects on the ground.

In the case of NGOs, US government funds are one of many funding streams. They may also get money from donor governments, from contracting governments, from foundations, from private donations, from revenue-generating activities and even from other NGOs. The US is a big piece of the pie, but a large NGO may implement hundreds of projects for dozens of organizations around the world.

A group of conservatives have decided to tie HIV/AIDS prevention funding to taking an “anti-prostitution” stance. This means across ALL of their activities, not just the ones funded by the US, they are supposed to avoid providing services to prostitutes that aren’t tied to ending prostitution.

That’s the US’s right? Maybe, sure. But it’s the absolute wrong way to prevent HIV, and this stance contributed massively to the spread of HIV, and has lead to unknown pointless deaths that could have easily been prevented by allowing NGOs to do what they know works, rather than fitting it in to a political agenda. In some countries, prostitution is one of THE main drivers of HIV infection. Targeting sex workers for intensive interventions works extremely well. Thailand, for example, was able to contain it’s infection rates by focusing on 100% condom use among sex workers- it was remarkably effective, and Thailand has a much lower infection rate than if they had not taken that route.

But these US politicians would like to take that tool away from organizations, even in situations where it is well documented to be the most effective (cost and otherwise) approach. They would like to force organizations to use methods that save fewer lives and prevent fewer cases of HIV. And they don’t want this just to apply to the particular projects they are funding, they’d want the entire organization to run every project this way.

It’s dangerous bullshit. It may be our right as donors, but it’s awfully fucked up of us.

3

Agree with what even sven has said, but just to point out that Obama reversed a very similar policy which prohibited funds going to any organisation that didn’t toe the GOP line on abortion. Whatever about the legalities of it, it’s disappointing his administration is fighting to retain this one. Even if sense prevails, the ruling will only affect the US-based NGOs, and it’s often the indigenous ones that do the most effective work.

4

More liberals are pro-choice than support sex workers’ rights

5

This is the price of taking government money. It is fucked up, these organizations are needed because of govenment failing to do it’s job. This is just an easy way to insert unrelated political issues into the process, and to keep on failing

6

I’m not seeing the problem. The groups can say whatever they want on their own dime. If they accept funding from the feds, then they have to accept that there are strings attached.

I think this states it very well.

The idea that this is somehow linked to freedom of speech is silly. “Freedom of speech” doesn’t entitle anyone to public money, and the federal government is under no obligation to fund organizations that aren’t working to further their lawfully established agenda.

Regards,
Shodan

7

Is this an absolute principle? Could the government refuse to allow religious private schools to accept vouchers, but give them to non-religious private schools/ Coudl they do the same for scholarships? Could the federal government require that Executive Directors of nonprofits must make no partisan statements lest the nonprofit lose federal funding?

As I see it, the problem with restricting grants in this manner is that the federal budget comprises my money. It’s all of ours. The government should give it out based on what we’ve decided as a nation is a good end result, not based on what kinds of stances the group takes.

Certainly there can be a requirement that distributed funds not be used in a particular fashion (e.g., a religious school may not use any part of voucher funds to support a school chaplain). But when the government restricts the entity’s activities that are unrelated to the grant, that’s going too far.

8

Vouchers are not quite the same. The purpose of a voucher is to allow the parent to “set policy” by choosing what kind of education they believe is best for their child.

But note what I said about a “lawfully established agenda”. If Congress can put together a law that permits vouchers to non-religious schools, and it passes Constitutional muster, then yes, they can shut off the money if the school uses the money to proselytize.

They already do something sort of like this, with the restriction that non-profits not endorse specific candidates. But it has to be in the course of their normal activities - their executives are perfectly free to speak on their own behalf.

Likewise, nothing is stopping these AIDS groups from speaking out in favor of prostitution, or voting for politicians who support changes in how we fight AIDS. But they cannot work for those politicians on their election campaigns or lobby for those changes.

The US is a republic. The policy as voted on by Congress is what we’ve decided as a nation is a good end result.

The activities of the AIDS groups who want to target prostitutes are very much related to the grant.

Regards,
Shodan

9

The specific issue aside, I definitely think the government gets to attach whatever conditions it wants to grants and other direct support (which doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions on what those conditions should be, but that’s about outcome, rather than process).

Indirect support – I’m thinking of making donations tax-deductible, though there are other forms – should be viewpoint- and policy-neutral. That’s for market reasons; insofar as these groups are competing, they should be able to do so on equal footing.

10

The problem with PEPFAR (Presidents Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) funding is that it’s “agenda” was not really based in evidence and was more about promoting an agenda of abstinence only anti-contraception in prevention campaigns and requiring funds used for ART (antiretroviral treatment) to be purchased from US pharmaceutical companies at retail. PEPFAR is just a way for the US Government to impose it’s beliefs on other nations. The funding restrictions/earmarks in PEPFAR prevent HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs from being effective and go against a mountain of evidence of what actually works: condom promotion, the inclusion of sex workers in HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns, needle exchanges, ART purchased locally at far cheaper prices than American retail which don’t require shipping or refrigeration.

PEPFAR Funding Restrictions

Basically, if the US wants to help the developing world with AIDS relief then it should do so based on documented evidence and if that evidence conflicts with the US’ “agenda” then it should simply not offer the grant. Period. Rather than waste billions of dollars promoting a ‘faith based agenda’ that is largely ineffective.

The “anti-prostitution pledge” requirement is particularly stupid. Including sex workers in prevention campaigns has been proven to be hugely successful.

Thailand: 100% Condom Programme

So yeah, I’m with even sven on this, as donors I guess we have the right, but it is amazingly stupid and a massive waste of tax payer money.

11

Keep in mind that most of this money is not in the form of grants, but contracts. The government is not giving NGOs money out of charity, they are paying NGOs to provide specific services.

I don’t like guns or churches. If I get enough people on my side, should I be able to say that the US should never hire a construction firm that refuses to take an anti gun and religious stance, or otherwise does any projects building gun stores or churches?

12

Just to clear up any confusion, it’s the Obama administration which is supporting this restriction.

13

What’s the difference between this and withholding highway funds for states who don’t set their drinking age to 21?

14

It’s weird and all about free speech. States could in theory say, “We think the drinking age should be a matter left to parents and the idea of a federal drinking age blows chunks, but we’ll set it that way because Washington insists.”

This proposal seems to say that nonprofits must take a statement against prostitution: it must be a profession of belief.

That’s hinky.

15

I don’t have any objection whatsoever to the general principle that the government can attach strings to its funding decisions. In fact, I think it absurd to think otherwise: We don’t expect the government to fund every NGO that comes along, so they clearly have some criteria on which they decide which ones.

That said, I think that this particular criterion is a really bad idea.

16

Nobody has really said what the “pledge” actually states. In reality, it appears to be an effort to support anti-human trafficking initiatives and that’s in the words of its opponents.

http://www.prostitutionresearch.info/pdfs_all/trafficking%20all/SSRN-id1478667.pdf

I added the emphasis because it doesn’t seem like a right-wing Puritanical plot (led by the Obama administration?) to undermine HIV/Aids programs or to prohibit any outreach at all. It seems they don’t want money propping up the sex trade and associated human trafficking nor, I would imagine, do they want it used for legislative influence to overturn host country laws.

17

Blkshp, you are making the common mistake of conflating sex work with trafficking. Rights-based, harm reduction approaches are actually quite effective in HIV/AIDS prevention, rather than further stigmatizing and marginalizing sex workers and trafficking victims by requiring NGOs to make a “pledge” against them in order to help them.

And yes, the portion you quoted and emphasized sounds like a Puritanical uninformed position contrary to evidence and is actually quite harmful. Second, “the anti-prostitution” pledge was established under the Bush administration in 2003, unfortunately it continues under Obama.

I am curious how you could read the whole 32 page PDF you linked and come to your conclusion?

18

Again, the US government does not pick NGOs to contract with out of a hat. They issue a request for proposals. Organizations (both private sector and non-profit) return detailed proposals prepared under according to detailed and exactly. These include how they intend to do their work, exactly what staffing and expertise will be used in the project, the metrics by which project success will be evaluated, and precisely how the budget will be used. A successful proposal will provide ample evidence that what they intend to do works. For example, if my proposal is to have community health workers run workshops for sex workers, I need to cite previous projects in similar environments that have successfully used that method.

What this bill is doing is taking the existing criteria of “How capable is this organization of reaching the stated goals,” and adding another, unrelated, often-harmful criteria.

I couldn’t tell you why Obama is supporting this, but it certainly is right-wing in origin. Evangelical groups have honed is on human trafficking as one of “their” causes, and their approach sometimes leaves common sense and effectiveness in the wake. It could be an issue of messaging. There is a fear that if HIV becomes associated with what are, in reality, the high-risk groups in many areas, the whole cause will become less sympathetic. AIDS orphans and innocent women are sympathetic (and, indeed, among the high-risk groups in Sub-Saharan Africa, where transmission through heterosexual activity is a major factor). But in places like Southeast Asia, sex work and IV drugs are a much more common means of transmission, there is a reluctance to target these populations. A project for junkies and sex workers is a harder sell to begin with, and thinking that HIV is primarily a problem for junkies and prostitutes takes away from the urgency of the “HIV can happen to anyone” message.

19

I think the government should be able to have requirements contingent on funding.

That said, there should be some pretty obvious restrictions on it. This is so obviously pushing an agenda it should be rejected out of hand. The facts are simply against the proposer. What if someone wanted to require that no employee of the company can be fat? Or that they all reject evolution? Or that they can’t have anyone in the company who’s family member has had an abortion? I think that there’s too much room for abuse.

20

It was right-wing Republicans who came up with the idea, but radical feminists have been some of its biggest cheerleaders. Like the right-wingers, they don’t really care so much about HIV/AIDS, they just see it as a vehicle for condemning commercial sex. In contrast, the Global Gag Rule never had any feminist support.

There’s also a whole moral panic right now around sex trafficking, and lots of politicians are afraid of being portrayed as “soft” on the issue. The PEPFAR pledge is very far from the only bad policy that’s been adopted in this climate.