| Abstract: | All organizations, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), need funding to survive and fulfill their mandates. What is the best strategy for securing that funding? Should groups work to attract government attention and be a focus of government debate or should they avoid this type of scrutiny? This article uses innovative data to systematically examine how being the subject of debate in parliament is related to NGO funding for Indigenous, women, and environmental groups. We also examine if the relationship between debate and funding is dependent on the political party in power. We use data collected from Canadian Public Accounts, which lists all grants to groups by the federal government, and the index of Hansard, a full record of parliamentary debates at the federal level in Canada. Our findings demonstrate that the relationship between debate and funding is dependent on the issue area. While debate is positively associated with funding in all areas, it is a stronger predictor of funding for environmental and Indigenous groups than for organizations focusing on women. In addition, the party in power is critical for shaping how debate is related to funding. Debate has a much stronger effect on environmental funding when Liberals are in power than it does when Conservatives control the Prime Minister's office. This research shows that NGOs must be strategic when garnering attention to their cause as more debate does not necessarily lead to more funding across issue areas and contexts. |
