You are the owner of this page.
A4 A4
Closer_look
editor's pick top story
Think Tanks
Think Tanks: Transparency can help build trust

Herzenberg

It’s consumer beware in the political climate of “post-facts,” and even for those who take the time to research an organization’s claims and business structure, it’s not necessarily easy to see its mission or agenda.

Transparency can help shed some light on what the organization is and who funds it, but it’s not something every think tank and special interest group agrees on.

Funding is usually the central focus when it comes to pushes for transparency.

Some, like Stephen Herzenberg, executive director of the Keystone Research Center in Harrisburg, believe transparency is important, but not the end-all factor in determining if a piece of research is trustworthy.

“I think transparency in general is a good thing. But the research and information lives or dies based on the logic and evidence for the point you take. That’s what really matters.”

Keystone Research Center is open about its funding, and Herzenberg said that most of its funding does not come from private donors.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Commonwealth Foundation takes the stance that revealing the names of private donors would discourage them from funding necessary research projects.

“Is it our belief that the names of private donors be kept private,” said Nathan Benefield, vice president and COO of the Commonwealth Foundation. Benefield said there have been instances where donors are harassed about their donations after it’s been made public.

Donor names

James McGann, author and operator of the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania, said there are those who say think tanks should release the names of all their donors, but that’s too simplistic of a solution. He said there are ways that groups can do that while still overstepping somewhere else in the process.

However, if the organization refuses to say who funded particular research, that is a red flag.

Benefield said the Commonwealth Foundation does not do any “fee-for-service” work since its fundraising dollars support its mission and it has a “strict policy about independence of research.”

Keystone Research Center is a smaller think tank and does do fee-for-service work, though Herzenberg said it’s rarely a private donor who funds those projects.

“We don’t get an enormous amount of donations from individuals,” he said. “The modest amount we get tends to be general support.”

Herzenberg said private donors may be acknowledged in an advertising book, but otherwise aren’t usually released unless asked.

More than funding, however, transparency is also important when it comes to where the data in the research is taken.

“We deliberately do as much as we can to be transparent to be a reliable source,” Herzenberg said. “We try to make clear where the data we use comes from and provide sources for data and for other claims we make. Many think tanks I know are careful to provide a better audit trail of how they reach conclusions than social media or the web in general.”

It may also help to get a picture of the think tank or special interest group by seeing who they represent or to what other organizations they are linked.

While special interest groups are more straightforward with information about the industries they lobby for, some nonpartisan think tanks are connected to other organizations through networks.

National links

Both the Keystone Research Center and Commonwealth Foundation are linked to national networks.

Keystone Research Center’s Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center is part of a network of state programs from the State Priorities Partnership. According to the partnership, it works to create an “equitable America” that involves fighting poverty and reducing inequality. It’s interests involve improving state policy on taxes, budgets, education, health care, poverty, economic development, workforce and wages, immigration, racial and gender equality, children and families, civic engagement, government accountability, criminal justice and environmental protection.

The partnership has a presence in more than 40 states and is coordinated by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank that considers itself nonpartisan while others brand it as progressive or left-leaning.

The Commonwealth Foundation is part of the State Policy Network. Benefield said the think tanks in the network are all separate though they can share information.

The State Policy Network has a presence in 49 states and Puerto Rico (there is no network think tank in North Dakota) and promotes state-based solutions and champions federalism and devolving power from federal government. Opponents have linked the State Policy Network to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which the Commonwealth Foundation uses as a source. ALEC is branded by left-leaning groups as a “bill-mill” that pushes through legislation. An analysis of ALEC’s state chairs of legislators from nearly every state shows that all of them are Republican, including local state chairs state Sen. Richard Alloway, R-Franklin County, and state Rep. Seth Grove, R-York County.

While only two examples of area think tanks, a little bit of research into funding, staffing and networks may reveal more information about the reports being released.


Closer_look
editor's pick featured
Think Tanks
Think Tanks: Navigating blurred lines of fact, fiction and interest groups
Submitted  

James McGann speaks at the 2016 Global Think Tank Summitt III in Montreal.

Alliances, coalitions, associations, centers, foundations, networks. The names of special interest groups and think tanks may differ, but many have one goal: reaching an audience with information they produce or push.

With social media helping these groups put information at the fingertips of the public, it’s never been easier to learn more about any range of topics from education to economy to public policy.

If only all of the information was trustworthy.

Bias is all too common, and for some experts, almost completely unavoidable when dealing with special interest groups. Whether they call themselves nonpartisan or transpartisan, it’s up to readers and consumers of information to discover what industry or policy goals the group pushes and if that affects the data or message it touts.

Marchetti

Because, as Dickinson College political science professor Kathleen Marchetti put it, there are “lies, damn lies and statistics.”

Types of groups

Not all interest groups are the same, according to Marchetti. There are umbrella categories of citizen groups, corporate interest groups, trade and professional associations, unions and institutions, such as advocacy arms of hospitals and nonprofit charitable organizations.

Though special interest groups are commonplace now, Marchetti said it wasn’t until the 1950s that academia studied them and not until the ‘60s and ‘70s when the groups started to multiply.

“That was a major time in political citizen groups in part because of off-shoots of social movements,” she said.

She added that the government taking on more federal oversight also drives more groups to form.

“Scholars believe the number of interest groups has increased over time, in part because of the increase of the powers of federal government in terms of policy control,” she said.

McGann

An increase of federal power drives up the number of special interest groups because of a distrust of government that author James McGann says is very unique to the American political system. McGann, who has authored books on think tanks and runs the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania that advises think tanks from across the world, said the United States has a history of relying on outside experts as opposed to government commissions and bureaucracy to provide research.

Though the reasons they may have formed in the ‘60s are similar, McGann said think tanks are not the same as special interest groups.

According to McGann, special interest groups serve a private interest, often corporate, but not exclusively so. He said think tanks usually differ on their mission, funding and governance. Think tanks have a primary mission of charitable public giving, are publicly supported through tax deductible-dollars and are governed by volunteer boards, not paid boards.

The traditional reason for the formation of think tanks was philanthropy. That definition changed, he said, when those who grew up with the activism of the ‘60s became leaders.

“That led to the era of advocacy,” he said.

Michael Bupp, The Sentinel  

Policy Analyst Jessica Barnett works at her desk at the Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg.

Blurred lines

There can be questions about the trustworthiness of information produced for advocacy. While think tanks used to provide data without the push for change, there is more emphasis now for think tanks to advocate, especially if they want funding.

McGann said there are about 1,800 think tanks listed in his program. Most of them are small, receive little funding and are run by few staff members. For those groups, there’s a much greater incentive to sell their services with a message. And in doing so, that could blur the lines of engagement and advocacy.

McGann said he offers think tanks oversight policies and procedures they can enforce to make sure their organization and staff don’t overstep, allowing them to maintain their independence and integrity. Those two things are particularly important when it comes to keeping the think tank alive.

“Those that are well established have much to lose by overstepping those boundaries, have a lot at stake to protect their brand,” he said.

Marchetti echoed those thoughts, saying that it’s generally not in the best interest of a think tank or special interest group to lie or provide incorrect information. They need to retain relationships with legislators and the public, and making up data or research won’t help them in the long-run.

However, it’s important that the public does the one thing they thought they left behind in school: homework.

Marchetti said there is no simple and clear test to determine if the group or think tank is trustworthy. She recommends the public follows the same advice she instructs her students to consider.

“To what extent do the statistics cited differ from conventional wisdom?” she asked. “How different is what they’re saying from what people generally know about the topic? It’s a big red flag if the organization is citing data that are really different from conventional statistics, and they don’t tell you how they gathered that information.”

Transparency is a key factor, but not the sole reason to trust a source. The Guttmacher Institute lobbies for reproductive health and is considered a pro-choice organization, but it’s data and reports are often trusted. The Koch brothers may fund research, but their conservative political ideology doesn’t necessarily mean the data produced isn’t valuable.

Marchetti suggested readers aggregate sources instead of relying on one group.

“Look across sources for the amount of similarities or differences,” she said. “Look at left-leaning think tanks and right-leaning think tanks and their commonalities.

“I wish I had a quick and easy solution,” she said. “You need to step back and vet a source. Peel back a layer, and you could realize the data is pretty shady.”


Herzenberg