Good PR can play a key role in changing public policy. There are countless examples, but one primary area of major PR success is in tobacco control, where groups with modest advertising resources like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the Cancer Council and various state-based advocates have won comprehensive victories by driving a constant barrage of editorial stories about the risks of second hand smoke and the public health benefits of tighter controls.

But what about at a more micro level? Say at the level of the level of the individual not-for-profit organisation? Or more commercially at the level of an individual pharmaceutical compound?

Consider the Shepherd Centre in Sydney as an interesting example. It is a leading provider of clinical and educational services for hearing impaired children from the ACT and NSW.

By early 2010 it was facing some significant threats to its public funding.

The NSW government was already providing the lowest proportion of overall funding (only 20 per cent of the funding required to run The Shepherd Centre) compared to the contributions of state governments in other states (all other states provided approximately 40-50 per cent of funding support for their state-based early intervention services for hearing impaired children). In the ACT, the local government had written to the local Shepherd Centre in 2009 confirming that its funding would not be extended beyond June 2010. At a Federal level, there was no overall 'disability' support mechanism for children diagnosed with hearing impairment as had been implemented for children with conditions like autism. All this was happening at a time when (because of increased new born screening) demand for services was increasing by approximately 30 per cent each year.

On the horizon though were political elections at every level – and these were set to provide a context within which the Shepherd Centre could elevate their lack of public funding as a political issue.

So The Shepherd Centre set about attacking this challenge at three levels.

• ACT funding: This began in the ACT in March 2010, with a media relations campaign which aimed to raise awareness about the damaging implications of the decision by the ACT government to cut local funding. This reactive program was supported by seasonal media relations efforts in January 2010 and again in January 2011 which used the "back to school" angle as an opportunity to trigger positive stories in local ACT media about the positive work of the Shepherd Centre and the remarkable results it was generating. The ACT phase was effectively completed with the media relations campaign and media release on Feb 11th 2011 headed "Shepherd Centre secures ACT government support in Canberra".
• NSW funding: The NSW phase began with a media alert to key NSW media targets on February 11th 2011 inviting interviews with the Shepherd Centre CEO. The alert was headed "DID YOU KNOW? That NSW is the only state not adequately funding early intervention services for hearing impaired children?" This generated a series of media stories and 2UE took up the cause, running an extended interview and Channel 10 TV news running an "expose" on the issue. In some cases the relevant Minister contacted the journalists involved directly to seek further clarification. The NSW phase was effectively completed on March 11th 2011 with a media relations program and a series of media interviews triggered by the release on Friday 4th March 2011 headed "Shepherd Centre secures emergency funds from NSW Government". Since this announcement the newly elected NSW government has committed an additional $100,000.
• Federal funding: This phase began with representations to the then Parliamentary Secretary on Disabilities (Mr Bill Shorten) about the prospect of co-ordinated Federal Support for families who have children with hearing impairment. At the end of July 2010 (in the lead up to the Federal election) The Shepherd Centre joined with other service providers via the national coalition of organisations – known as First Voice – to congratulate the Labor Party on its commitment to implement such a scheme should be elected at the Federal poll. First Voice spokespeople appeared on ABC TV and other media outlets discussing the merit of the proposal and speaking to its own release about the importance of funding for dedicated centres that provide hearing services to young children. This phase of PR activity effectively ended when the Commonwealth Government confirmed in its budget announcement of May 2011 that it was providing funding of $6,000 dollars per child per year for two years to families with hearing impaired children as part of the "Better Start" initiative.

PR can't take credit for all of the success described above but implementing a program that facilitates political progress is certainly achievable.

And if you do it well it means that good PR ends up funding itself. Because your PR investment is helping to secure additional funding from separate sources.

Anyone who watches TV news and reads the papers will have witnessed numerous recent examples of pressure being brought to bear on political decisions that have delayed improved access to some medicines in Australia. These initiatives are being run because combining a well run lobbying program with a high profile media campaign is an approach that has a long track record of political success in the Australian healthcare sector.

They are doing it because they expect to (eventually) get a return on their PR dollar.

And based on recent experiences in both the private and public sector, who is to say they are wrong?

For more information about how effective PR can help play a role in health-related public funding issues, contact Martin Palin at via email or call him at Palin Communications on 612 9412 2255.