In This Issue Questions Remain on Government Portal   A New Era of Surplus   Child and Senior Poverty   Community Action on the Digital Divide   Rep. DeLay (R-TX) Claims Loophole in Nonprofit Soft Money Disclosure Law, IRS Disagrees   Implementation of New Soft Money Disclosure Law Underway   EPA, Justice Finalize Rule Blocking Access to Chemical Accident Risks   Pew Report Highlights Corporate Environmental Reporting   Environmental Groups Criticize EPA's Information Reforms   New Nonprofit Online Newswire   Tech Help: Internet Filtering Software   Notes and Sidebars   Questions Remain on Government Portal In the last OMB Watcher, we commented critically on the government's effort to build a web-based portal -– an effort required by the President to improve public access to government information. Since then, the General Services Administration (GSA), which is in charge of developing the FirstGov portal, made available a revised presentation describing it. (The newest PowerPoint presentation is available through www.firstgov.gov.) The latest presentation is a significant improvement over the first one, but raises many issues and leaves critical questions unanswered. Although OMB Watch remains strongly supportive of FirstGov, we are fearful that it is not being designed with the public interest in the forefront. Instead, the proposed implementation is heavily tilted toward corporate sponsorship, does not describe how a directory of topics will be developed or will help the user, and offers little insight into the public benefits of a search engine being developed voluntarily by a nonprofit organization. In part because of the President's requirement to have FirstGov operational by September 30, GSA is not following traditional public notification or participation procedures, leaving itself open to criticism of secrecy and confusion. On August 10, the Council for Excellence in Government, a non-profit organization, held an invitation-only meeting at which GSA led a discussion about FirstGov. The invitees were, initially, only corporate entities who were part of an e-government team created by the Council, those expected to be potential "Certified Partners," and/or those who had responded to a Request for Comments in the Commerce Business Daily (see 2nd bullet). The list of participants was – with some outside "encouragement" –- expanded to include some nonprofits and press. One invitation stated that the purpose of the meeting was for GSA to talk about FirstGov. It was clear, however, that the purpose of the meeting was to hear from potential Certified Partners what they thought about the "Branding Conditions" – in other words, to advise government. (Co-branding is discussed below.) The GSA plan rests heavily on a search engine being developed by Fed-Search, a nonprofit organization created by Inktomi entrepreneur Eric Brewer. (Brewer is donating his expertise and money to create the search engine at no cost to the government.) The Brewer search engine will set a "spider" to crawl every publicly available government web page, estimated to be around 100 million pages. As with Google, Yahoo, or other portal search engines, the user will query the Brewer database/index and be provided with a list of "hits." The advantage of the Brewer search engine is that it will search only government web sites. GSA does not discuss how this search engine will produce results relevant to what the user is searching for. This, however, is what makes a search engine useful or not. GSA claims that there will be some type of directory of topics for other ways of searching, but is very unclear what this will be or how it will operate. The only clear message is that GSA intends to defer to agency expertise and web sites. Moreover, GSA has envisioned a complicated arrangement for "value-adding" to the portal. Instead of building a robust portal, GSA has proposed a co-branding scheme. If non-government entities, primarily commercial efforts, agree to certain requirements (e.g., privacy, free access), then they can have direct access to the Brewer database/index to form their own improved search searches and directories. There seems to be considerable confusion about this approach. GSA tells commercial services, such as AOL, that it is okay to charge membership fees; this would appear to defeat the requirement that it be free. GSA also seems to suggest that those who use the Brewer database/index directly (rather than through the FirstGov interface) will have to pay a licensing fee for that direct access; this could limit public interest access, such as through libraries or universities. This licensing approach suggests that government is establishing a monopoly though the Brewer Fed-Search operation, especially since agencies do not permit unlimited spidering of all their web pages. On the FirstGov web site and at the meeting on August 10, GSA has not clearly articulated the relationship between FirstGov and Fed-Search, the nonprofit. A key question raised by this relationship is whether housing the database/index in a nonprofit means that the public cannot use other channels, such as FOIA, to obtain the Brewer database/index. If the government is trying to develop a useful service and permit private sector value-adding, then the most logical and appropriate approach would be to make the Brewer database/index the public domain property of government. In that way, any entity that wants to use the database can, without charge. The government should, itself, develop a useful directory -– applying human intervention by sifting through the pages returned through the search of the database/index, winnowing out inappropriate ones, and then categorizing sites by subject. Examples of useful directories are the Open Directory Project, Yahoo, LookSmart and many specialty directories. Despite the commitment of GSA to promote public access and to build a useful portal, much about FirstGov remains very muddied. Back to Top A New Era of Surplus With Congress in recess until September, now is a good time to take stock of the options presented by the budget surplus. In July, both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) came out with new estimates of ever increasing budget surpluses over the next ten years. The question now is what the best use of the surplus is. What are our most important national priorities? Politicians, including Presidential candidates, have put forward multiple ways of using the surplus -- and not all can be done:

• Tax cuts. Should the surplus be given back to people in the form of tax cuts? If so, how should tax cuts be targeted?
• Debt reduction. Should most of the surplus be used to reduce the debt that has accumulated from years of annual budget deficits? Should the Medicare Hospital Insurance surplus be taken "off budget" the way the Social Security Trust Funds are currently treated to go only to debt reduction? Should we even use most of the non-Social Security surplus for debt reduction?
• Domestic investment. Should the surplus go back to the people as increased investment in the American people and communities, to address persistent poverty, unaffordable housing, unhealthy air and undrinkable water, lack of health care, poor education and training opportunities, and diminished resources for research and development?
• Military investment. Should the surplus be used to increase military spending?

These uses of the surplus reflect different ideas about what our national priorities should be. Read more about each of these alternatives, and then vote on your priorities: What Should Be Done with the Surplus? If the continuing solvency of Social Security/Medicare is assured, what do you think is the most important use of the federal budget surplus? (You can only choose one as the most important, even if some resources would be used for other purposes) We'll report the results later. Paying down the national debt Increased military spending Domestic investments Tax Cuts (Optional) Please let us know who you are: Your name Organization Your email City State (This information will remain private). Back to Top Child and Senior Poverty The National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) of the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, released a report August 10 showing that child poverty in the United States has dropped from its 1993 peak of 22.5 percent to 18.7 percent in 1998. But poverty among children in the U.S. is still higher than it was in 1979. Given the low unemployment rate and booming economy over the past few years, it is pretty clear that the economic benefits are not reaching everyone; otherwise we should see a dramatic decrease in child poverty. The U.S. also does not do well in an international comparison. According to a UNICEF report, the U.S. is second highest in child poverty among industrialized nations and 12th highest if you use the official U.S. poverty line. This says more about the low U.S. poverty line -- $16,660 for a family of four -- than a comparative improvement. The NCCP report includes a state by state analysis of child poverty. A consortium of government agencies also released a report last week about the well-being of older Americans. In spite of overall findings of progress -- lessened poverty, more education, better health, higher net worth -- the report reveals sharp racial and ethnic disparities. For instance, the average median net worth for older white households is $181,000. For African American seniors it is less than $13,000. In addition, there is a greater incidence of illnesses like arthritis and diabetes among African American seniors -- some of which can also be linked to economic disparity. And only 11 percent of senior citizens live in poverty -- considerably less than the poverty rate for children -- a testament to the value of Social Security. Back to Top Community Action on the Digital Divide Earlier this month, the National Association of Community Action Agencies released "Information Technology for Community Action Agencies and Their Low-Income Clients," a report covering information technology utilization by community action agencies (CAAs). Since their creation in 1964, CAAs have provided human service delivery and advocacy for low-income Americans through a network currently comprising 1,000 public and private nonprofit organizations in both in urban and rural areas. The report features a survey of 169 CAAs, covering attitudes towards and usage patterns of technology in their service delivery. Information technology for human service providers is considered by the respondents to be increasingly vital to coordinating program operations and client services. The report and survey serve to establish a set of baseline indicators on information technology systems in an effort to help CAAs bridge the digital divide by utilizing technology as a means to increase the self-sufficiency of low-income populations. While the findings reflect a greater overall embrace of technology by CAAs serving urban and metro areas, rural area CAAs are shown to be acquiring technology in greater numbers. The survey, however, also underscores a gap between internal capacity building of individual CAAs, including the networks that sustain them, and technology access, training, and service provision by CAAs to the clients they serve. A greater priority is placed on addressing staff training and technical assistance needs for CAAs than assistance to low-income clients, suggesting that investment of internal capacity needs must be addressed before information technology can be offered, and that better outreach to and coordination with existing community resources can help address those gaps. Key online information technology resources, bibliography, and a copy of the survey are included with the report. More information is available by contacting NACAA at (202) 265-7546 or e-mail: info@nacaa.org. Back to Top Rep. DeLay (R-TX) Claims Loophole in Nonprofit Soft Money Disclosure Law, IRS Disagrees A dispute has erupted over application of a new law requiring IRS registration and disclosure of soft money expenditures by Section 527 organizations (nonprofits whose primary purpose is to influence elections). The issue arises for 527s that spend both hard and soft money, which must be kept in separate accounts. Hard money expenditures, which directly advocate election or defeat of federal candidates, must be reported to the Federal Election Commission and are not subject to the new IRS soft money disclosure rules. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) recently argued that this exemption extends to all accounts, including soft money, if a 527 reports any hard money expenditures to the FEC. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ), lead co-sponsors of the new law, strongly disagreed with DeLay's interpretation, and joined a group of lawmakers that wrote to the IRS in late July asking for public guidance and clarification. As a result, on August 9 the IRS issued a proposed Revenue Ruling which states there is no exception in the law for soft money (non-federal) accounts of 527s that report some hard money (federal) expenditures to the FEC. The IRS has requested public comment in writing on or before September 8. The proposed Revenue Ruling is set out in Q & A form, and also addresses the mechanics of reporting and compliance. For the full text of the IRS press release and proposed ruling see Announcement 2000-72. Back to Top Implementation of New Soft Money Disclosure Law Underway The newest campaign finance disclosure law became effective on July 1, when President Clinton signed it into law. The law requires nonprofits whose primary purpose is to influence elections (527 organizations) and have annual receipts of $25,000 or more to register with the IRS. They must also disclose contributions of $200 or more and expenditures of $500 or more. Existing 527s were required to register by filing Form 8871 by July 31, disclosing their name, address, contact person, purpose, affiliated organizations and a list of officers, directors and highly paid employees. Nearly 8,500 organizations have filed with the IRS, which has begun posting the information on the Internet (about 75 percent of the filings are available online so far). To view an index of registering 527s see http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-8871/00-index.txt. The index assigns a number to each group (such as "364375625-8871-01.pdf"), which can be substituted for "00-index.txt" to view a group's Form 8871. The IRS has until August 15 to make the forms available for public inspection, so this procedure may not be necessary much longer. Disclosure of contributions and expenditures made between July 1 and September 30 must be made on Form 8872. Most will be filed by October 15. However, these are unlikely to include many convention expenses, since most were made under contracts entered into before July. 527s must make copies of their Form 8871 and 8872 filings available for inspection by the public during regular business hours at their principal office and any regional or district office with at least 3 employees. They are also required to allow inspection of their annual information returns, Form 1120-POL and Form 990. For a summary and analysis of the new law see OMB Watcher Vol. 1 No. 12, July 3, 2000. Back to Top "Know Nothing, Do Nothing": EPA, Justice Finalize Rule Blocking Access to Chemical Accident Risks After an accident at a chemical processing facility in Pennsylvania last year killed five people and damaged a nursery school just hours after the children had left for the day, one parent exclaimed, "We need to know. Obviously, no one knew what they did there." That parent and millions like her will have a very difficult time hurdling the obstacles thrown in her path by the federal government -- but, ironically, companies themselves have the authority to bypass these "antiterrorist" mechanisms. On August 4, EPA finalized a rule making it very difficult for the public to identify a community's vulnerability to chemical accidents. The rule effectively bans Internet access to the most important information -- the area surrounding a plant that might be affected in a chemical accident, the identity of the facility that poses the risk to the community, and estimates of casualties that might result in such an incident -- and forces a member of the public to view the complete data after traveling to one of 50 federal "reading rooms." Once there, they cannot copy it. A member of the public can view no more than 10 complete reports in any given month and must certify in writing that s/he has not viewed more than 10 during that month before being allowed to view the complete reports. Ironically, companies submitting this information to EPA can elect to have their reports exempted from these access restrictions. According to EPA, nearly 1,000 of the nearly 15,000 facilities reporting Risk Management Plans have elected to exempt their reports from these restrictions. EPA will maintain a list on the EPA web site of facilities that are releasing their entire Risk Management Plans -- including off site consequence analyses -- but they will not provide access to the analyses themselves. Ultimately, there is no real incentive for facilities to provide the data. The law signed by President Clinton last year that led to the new rule, the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (P.L. 106-40), also directed the Justice Department to conduct a study of site security at chemical plants. DOJ has failed to comply with the August 5, 2000 deadline to complete the study. Past government studies have concluded that site security is better at abortion clinics than U.S. chemical plants.

• Read the Final Rule on Public Distribution of Offsite Consequence Analysis (OCA) Information

Back to Top Pew Report Highlights Corporate Environmental Reporting... A new report by the Pew Climate Center highlights corporate tracking of their own greenhouse emissions as a key first step in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases to counter global warming. Although it explores issues surrounding only voluntary reporting programs and barely touches on the highly-successful Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program, the report, written by Arthur D. Little, Inc. for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, illustrates the importance of corporate disclosure of chemical releases, setting goals for reducing those releases, and tracking success (or otherwise) at the corporate level. Students of the TRI program know that TRI only tracks chemical releases at the facility level. It's very difficult to assess who owns the facilities that report to TRI, and therefore it is ultimately responsible for polluting America's air, land and water to the tune of 7.3 billion pounds of chemicals.

• An Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Issues

Back to Top ...And Environmental Groups Criticize EPA's Information Reforms At the same time that the Pew report focuses attention on corporate-level reporting, a coalition of environmental and public interest groups sent a letter on August 3 to EPA Administrator Carol Browner criticizing the Office of Environmental Information's failure to modify its information collection to allow better tracking of corporate environmental performance. EPA's main databases are currently a hodge-podge of information. When they were created, they were structured to collect, manage and report a distinct set of information on hazardous waste carriers or Superfund sites or chemical accidents. Little thought was given to how to structure the databases properly to allow the information to be combined so someone can easily find out what a particular facility discharged to water, what they are permitted to discharge, whether they have released any of 600 toxic chemicals, or what plans are in place to prevent and respond to accidental releases of these chemicals. EPA has tried several times to reconcile the disparate databases without effective solutions. The letter urges EPA to develop a true facility registry system that would allow tracking of corporate ownership of facilities. The letter also points to three threats to the public's right to know: (1) excessive demands to reduce the burden on those covered by the disclosure requirements; (2) "onerous" restrictions on public access to information in the name of national security, including proposed pre-publication review of private research findings; and (3) challenges by states to gum up federal efforts to protect the environment by failing to meet state environmental reporting requirements. The letter was signed by the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, Citizens Coal Council, Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense, Mineral Policy Center, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, OMB Watch, Unison Institute, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and the Working Group on Community Right-To-Know. Back to Top New Nonprofit Online Newswire Nonprofits now have a new public interest newswire. Launched in March 1998 originally to distribute public interest information from the California academic community, the Ascribe Public Interest Newswire is a service designed to share the news and information generated by nonprofits, academic institutions, and foundations, to the media and the public via distribution through Internet-based services, including portals, intranets, and Web news sites, as well as the computer systems of newsrooms around the country. The idea behind the service is to provide a broad distribution mechanism for news items that might otherwise have a narrow audience, as well as to provide a cost-effective alternative to other major news release services, such as PR Newswire or Business Wire. In this manner, reporting and media coverage around the works of nonprofits can be improved and more balanced. Participating organizations pay up to $20 for each release, and e-mail their news item to the service. Ascribe then edits and releases the news items through an extensive media network. Media outlets also pay to receive Ascribe-distributed releases. As an independent nonpartisan entity, Ascribe does not edit content itself, but does edit for grammatical style and spelling. Interested parties can get a sample of Ascribe's wire service in action by visiting the searchable Live Newswire, which features the most recent seven days' worth of news releases posted to the Web as soon as they are issued. The Live Newswire, however, does not include contact information, advisory notices regarding news conferences, or special bulletin. Back to Top Wipe the Windows, Check the Filter... Internet filtering software has been a source of praise by those concerned with the proliferation of junk mail and offensive content online. They have also been a source of frustration for a number of nonprofits whose content has been categorized by these potentially useful tools as unsuitable for a range of audiences. How useful, helpful, or harmful are online filtering tools to nonprofit content? NPTalk looked under the hood of online filtering to see what works... Subscribe to NPTalk Back to Top Your comments are always welcomed! Notes and Sidebars Budget Update Only two appropriations went through conference and were filed before the August recess. Only one appropriation has been signed into law. The Labor-HHS-Education bill apparently made it through conference, but has not been released yet. The word is that allocations in the bills far exceed the budget caps and yet many programs are far below the President's request -- the most likely scenario is that at least five bills will be combined in a last-minute omnibus measure. No one has agreed to eliminate the budget caps themselves, although there seems to be a tacit agreement that the non-Social Security surplus can be spent. This confluence of factors indicates a hectic last few days before the new fiscal year which begins October 1, 2000. Prison Population There are now over two million Americans in prison -- a rise of 77 percent since 1990! See the annual bulletin from the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999. States E-Moving A new survey of 110 information technology officials in 37 states and 60 federal agencies, conducted by Federal Sources and META Group, finds that states are moving faster and looser on e-government initiatives than the federal government. "E-Government: Creating Digital Democracy" finds that both are spurred by a drive to improve "customer service," though federal agencies cite "legislative requirements" as paramount. States respond faster to constituent demands, but this pressure can lead to haphazard development that results in less in-depth e-government. The survey also found that 90 percent of federal agencies have a plan or strategy for e-government implementation, but too much planning can leave agencies behind in the fast-paced world of information technology. Frequently, the faster moving states serve as the laboratories for initiatives that seek to provide government services through electronic means. Survey respondents agreed that the greatest obstacles to providing e-government are security and privacy concerns. EPA Standard on Lead The EPA has completed a final rule that sets a national health standard for lead, and has sent it to OMB for a 90-day pre-publication review. The rule, which is expected to generate court challenges by affected industry, responds to health research from the early 1990s that found lead causing developmental problems in children at levels previously thought safe. The rule requires clean-up of deteriorating lead-based paint, the primary source of exposure for children. First Amendment Report The First Amendment Center has come out with "State of the First Amendment 2000," which reports on the results of a national survey on American's attitudes towards and knowledge of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The survey finds that many Americans do not understand First Amendment rights and have difficulties reconciling the tensions that these rights can produce. This year's report explores trends in responses from the surveys conducted in 1997, 1999, and 2000 and also asks new questions about such topics as campaign finance reform and religious freedom. Visit the Freedom Forum Online to download a copy of the report.