June 17, 1999 | Read Time: 3 minutes
America’s civic and political associations are governed by a far more elite group of well-educated upper-middle-class leaders than was the case 30 years ago, and big foundations, pollsters, and lobbying groups play a much bigger role in shaping the civic agenda than in the past, says a Harvard scholar writing in The American Prospect (July-August).
“A civic world once centered in locally rooted and nationally active membership associations is a relic,” Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology, writes in an article titled “Associations Without Members.”
Ms. Skocpol attributes the change to the centralization of political activism in Washington; new modes of advocacy in which civic leaders raise money from foundations or other sources and then hire expert researchers and lobbyists; the rise of highly educated professionals who take leadership roles in advocacy organizations or who seek to influence policy by donating money to a cause; and shifts in racial and gender dynamics.
Today’s civic groups are “heavily tilted toward upper-middle-class constituencies,” Ms. Skopcal writes. Rich, well-educated Americans are “much more privileged” in the new civic regime than their counterparts in pre-1960s civic federations, she says.
“Vital links in the nation’s associational life have frayed,” concludes Ms. Skocpol, “and we may need to find creative ways to repair those links if America is to avoid becoming a country of detached spectators.”
In a separate article in the same issue, two non-profit experts debate whether it would be a good idea for the federal government to offer tax credits to people who make gifts to organizations that provide food, shelter, and other services to the poor.
Stacey Y. Abrams, a consultant to non-profit organizations, argues that a tax credit is indeed a good option. She says that individuals must be encouraged to give more to charities that serve the poor as a way to make up for government cutbacks in social-services programs.
But in a rebuttal, Pablo Eisenberg, vice-chairman of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and a columnist for The Chronicle, calls a tax credit “neither wise nor politically and programmatically feasible.”
Ms. Abrams argues that the federal tax code should no longer treat all charities the same, but should offer more-generous tax benefits to groups whose chief mission is helping people in need. In addition, Ms. Abrams writes, “alternative means of funding charities for the poor” need to be developed. A charity tax credit would accomplish that goal, she says.
Mr. Eisenberg argues that the tax-credit proposal lacks a “political future,” would sow “dissension and turmoil” in the non-profit world, is bad tax policy, and would help to “undermine the federal government’s responsibility for its poorest citizens.”
Instead, he says, the non-profit world should focus its energies on bringing political pressure to bear to restore federal spending on social services.
Mr. Eisenberg also says that social-services groups would be helped if the federal government increased the percentage of assets that foundations are required to spend each year from the current 5 per cent to 6 per cent. Raising the payout rate would provide an additional $6-billion to $8-billion a year to non-profit organizations, a percentage of which would go to antipoverty groups, Mr. Eisenberg says.
The article by Ms. Skocpol is available via the Internet at: http://www.epn.org.
