Webinar: Advocacy by Design

During this webinar hosted by the National Center on School Infrastructure (NCSI) and the National Council on School Facilities on Thursday, August 27, 2026, panelists discussed approaches for integrating advocacy frameworks into the routine work of facilities planning and strategies for supporting the case for facilities investment whenever it needs to be made.

Moderator:
Jeff Vincent, National Center on School Infrastructure

Speakers:
Jill Briggs Campbell, Vermont Agency of Education
Brandon Payne, National Council on School Facilities
Ken Wertz, National School Plant Management Association

Advocacy works best as a year-round practice, not a crisis response. Jeff framed the session around a pattern seen across states and districts: funding advocacy tends to activate only when a bond is on the ballot or a line item is threatened, forcing leaders to scramble for support for a one-off campaign. Better-organized priorities routinely out-compete these efforts, leaving facilities funding gaps that compound over time. Brandon asserted that “the time to make friends is before you need them” and noted the importance of building data systems, relationships with parents and practitioners, and connections to legislators before a funding need is urgent.

Credibility with funders comes from demonstrating sound public administration, not just from making the ask directly. Jill described Vermont’s efforts to build facilities staff capacity, establish district quality standards (maintenance manuals, facilities director certifications, five-year capital plans), and run its first-ever facility condition assessment (FCA) as foundation to their advocacy efforts. Jill noted that a state-level FCA and a district-level FCA serve different purposes, and Vermont’s early assessment wasn’t detailed enough for individual districts’ planning needs even though it served the state’s purpose of scoping the overall problem. She recommended defining that purpose upfront rather than assuming one assessment can serve every audience.

Succession planning has to be built into long-term facility plans. Ken pointed out that superintendents typically last about three years and parent advocates lose their stake once their kids graduate, while facility projects in Massachusetts have sat in state funding pipelines for eight to ten years. Sustaining a project across that span requires a consistent message that gets handed off deliberately to the next group of advocates, rather than assuming the same people will carry it through.

Data should be used to prioritize choices, not just to illustrate the size the problem. Jill and Ken both noted that leading with the total dollar figure of deferred maintenance can paralyze a conversation rather than move it forward. Framed differently, data lets leaders separate health-and-safety emergencies from lower-urgency items, communicate real tradeoffs to communities (a new athletic field versus a failing sewage system), and show the trajectory of cost escalation over time to build urgency for near-term action.

Funding distribution remains an unresolved tension even where the case for facilities funding is otherwise well established. Panelists noted that there are hard and unresolved questions of how state or district dollars get distributed once funding materializes, particularly for communities with weaker local tax bases. Jill noted that facility condition data itself can be used to argue for different distribution outcomes depending on who’s presenting it, which means agreement on the underlying numbers doesn’t guarantee agreement on how funding should be allocated once it’s available. Brandon’s account of Alabama’s funding formula, which layers a base amount, a property-value factor, and an ADM multiplier, reflects one structural attempt to counteract a gap that lower-wealth districts face.