Aggressive Advocacy Should Be Applauded

To the Editor:

Throughout our nation’s history, nonprofit advocacy has played a central role in making democracy work and expanding freedoms in such areas as civil rights, the environment, and consumer protection.

While William A. Schambra recognizes the importance of the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest and others providing accurate and effective training to promote nonprofit advocacy and lobbying, he then undercuts our work and the role advocacy plays in strengthening communities and solving social problems (“The Long-Term Perils of Aggressive Advocacy,” My View, December 13).

Based on nearly 10 years of providing training to nonprofit groups, we have found that by far the greatest problem is that philanthropy, nonprofits, and government do not sufficiently support or engage in advocacy. Our experiences are backed up by academic research, such as that published recently by the Aspen Institute in the book Seen but Not Heard: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy. While there are many reasons for the lack of advocacy, fear and intimidation play a large role.

Unfortunately, Mr. Schambra’s piece stokes, rather than calms, these fears. It would surprise none in the field that foundations and individual donors give a very small amount of money overall for advocacy, whether direct lobbying or grass-roots organizing. Yet Mr. Schambra criticizes the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundations for having the courage to be involved in policy efforts and to offer their studied ideas and leadership for improving education in America.

Similarly, he criticizes the American Cancer Society for what vice? For wanting to contribute its research and expertise to the issue of health care as it relates to preventing and curing the epidemic of cancer in our society. Everyone knows that it is difficult for large, mainstream nonprofit associations, just as it is for such donors, to wade into the policy realm. Most tread lightly for fear of controversy and criticism.

In terms of intimidation, the increasing numbers of nonprofits that receive government funds to perform social services are afraid to make their voices heard for fear of losing their funding.

We need government officials to welcome honest feedback from nonprofits that provide essential public services, so that these programs will be administered more effectively and efficiently. We also need to be vigilant in fighting governmental attempts to silence and exclude nonprofit voices from the democratic process.

Finally, Mr. Schambra trots out several seemingly ideological statements about government and nonprofit advocacy that miss the mark.

First, he suggests that nonprofit advocacy leads to big, inefficient government services. While many nonprofit groups do advocate for public support of social services that they deem important, they also are increasingly the ones tasked by government to implement these services through public-private partnerships.

Regardless of one’s view of different government activities and their popularity, the role of nonprofits reduces the size of government and can increase program effectiveness and efficiency.

Second, Mr. Schambra argues that nonprofit advocacy leads to mission drift. While industry “capture” by government is a common phenomenon from which the nonprofit sector is not exempt, the idea that nonprofits generally do not put their mission first is ludicrous. Frankly, it unfairly questions the integrity of hundreds of thousands of staff members and volunteers around the country who sacrifice and dedicate countless hours to, among other things, improving the lives of underserved children, families, and communities.

Finally, he suggests that grass-roots organizing is suffering because of direct lobbying. Understanding and utilizing more professional tactics in dealing with policy makers at all levels of government does not diminish the critical value of grass-roots organizing with members, volunteers, and the public. Rather than a divide-and-conquer approach, we need to recognize that direct lobbying and grass-roots organizing go together as forms of advocacy. Both are needed, and both are woefully underfunded.

Nonprofit groups should acknowledge some of the concerns raised by Mr. Schambra, and then move forward together to recognize and advance public policy and grass-roots organizing as essential to the mission and health of nonprofits, the sector, and our society. The answer is not to try to scare people off from making a difference, but rather to cheer on those who are willing to join the fray and put the public interest first.

Larry Ottinger
President
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest
Washington

***

To the Editor:

As president of the March of Dimes Foundation, I wish to comment on the questions Mr. Schambra raised about the March of Dimes’s aggressive advocacy in favor of reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), and specifically my radio address on that subject.

Mr. Schambra charged that national advocacy may cause nonprofit organizations to stray from their missions.

To the contrary, the March of Dimes’s mission to improve infant health by preventing preterm birth, birth defects, and infant mortality can best be achieved if all pregnant women, infants, and children have access to needed health-care services.

The Institute of Medicine has found that health-insurance coverage is the single most important factor in determining whether a child receives needed care, and plays a key role in access to maternity coverage for pregnant women.

Given that Schip provides health coverage to six million children, and that the reauthorization legislation passed by Congress would have extended coverage to an additional 3.9 million uninsured children, the March of Dimes would have been ignoring a critical component of our mission had we not engaged in developing reauthorization legislation and advocating for its passage.

Mr. Schambra also charged that nonprofit organizations are engaging in more-aggressive national advocacy because an increasing share of our budgets rely on federal funding.

In our case, this is completely false. First, the March of Dimes would not gain a single penny from the Schip reauthorization legislation. Second, only a tiny fraction of the foundation’s budget comes from public sources: less than 5 percent of a total of $247.1-million in 2007.

Jennifer L. Howse
President
March of Dimes
White Plains, N.Y.

***

To the Editor:

I appreciate Mr. Schambra’s concerns regarding the long-term perils of aggressive advocacy, not the least of which is the paradox of representation.

As the government scholar Deborah Stone explains in Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, “what representatives say when they speak for their constituents is not the constituents’ own words (figuratively speaking), but words the representatives composed and used to persuade their constituents in the first place.”

Developing and sustaining genuine grass-roots participation in advocacy efforts is critically important to legitimizing nonprofits’ voice on behalf of those for whom they speak.

It’s a challenging, time-consuming, and resource-intensive process, yet provides moral underpinnings and capacity-building opportunities that foster success despite the indifference of national elites. In light of the Public Welfare Foundation’s realignment of its resources (“A Big Foundation Seeks to Make a Greater Impact by Narrowing Its Focus,” November 1) — a longtime supporter of grass-roots advocacy — I fear that our sector will lose ground in its ability to minimize this paradox.

Kevin Hickey
Youth Programs Manager
Jewish Vocational Service
San Francisco