Charities of the World –  Unite!

The 2004 election is a painful reminder of the weakness of the nonprofit world. Few of the issues central to the mission of nonprofit groups have received any serious attention from candidates for Congress or the presidency. But nonprofit groups have gotten what they deserve. Since few charities or foundations have raised their voices in this campaign season, candidates have had little incentive to pay attention to their issues.

To be sure, some hospitals and universities, much larger and more sophisticated than the typical nonprofit group, are active and successful in the political system. But most other charities — the hundreds of thousands of small groups that make up the nonprofit world — are standing outside the electoral and policy-making arenas. As a result, they fall far short of their potential to influence public policy.

Nonprofit leaders offer plenty of reasons for their lack of involvement, but few are compelling. Among the common misperceptions:

• Charities aren’t allowed to make campaign contributions. Given the importance of money in politics, this rationale for inaction is certainly understandable. Yet money isn’t crucial to political influence. The number of political-action committees has not grown in two decades, and a large segment of the 4,000 or so currently in operation are small and insignificant. Most corporations don’t have PAC’s, but, nevertheless, legislators return their phone calls and try to respond to their needs. With all of the statistical sophistication of modern social science, political scientists have been unable to prove that campaign contributions have much influence on legislators’ votes. In short, money is not everything — far from it.
• Charities are forbidden from getting involved in electoral activity and in lobbying. Neither is true. Nonprofit groups are forbidden from partisan electioneering, but it is perfectly legal for them to hold forums, sponsor debates, invite candidates to come to their offices, register voters, and publish analyses of election issues. Likewise, nonprofit groups may lobby their legislators. Although charities must abide by some lobbying limits, few nonprofit groups ever do so much to influence legislation that they run afoul of the law.
• The nonprofit world is too diverse and has contradictory interests. The business sector is diverse as well, but that has not hobbled general business associations (like the Chamber of Commerce) or industry trade associations (like the American Electronics Association) from flourishing in their roles as advocates. What’s more, nonprofit groups have more in common than they may realize. Roughly half of all nonprofit groups with budgets of $25,000 or more work in human services or health care. Surely they would want to work together to promote an expansive government committed to providing adequate financial support for social and health-related services.
• America is preoccupied with issues of grave national and international concern — Iraq, terrorism, and the economy — and it is unrealistic to expect that candidates for office are going to focus on the problems of the neighborhood where most nonprofit groups operate. Presidential candidates are certainly going to focus on those momentous issues, but below the presidential level, candidates for Congress, state legislatures, and city councils are interested in other issues and expect that demands are going to be placed on them by a broad range of organizations. In many ways, the issues that the typical nonprofit group is concerned about are easier for politicians to deal with than the most pressing national issues. State legislators can’t do much to bring about peace or prosperity, but they can do quite a bit to increase spending on centers for the mentally retarded. Many nonprofit organizations have “feel good” issues to offer to candidates, and candidates of all ideological stripes are always looking for ways to help their constituents.
• It is hard to find resources to allocate to election work. For the vast majority of nonprofit groups, the budget is already stretched thin and the last thing an overworked staff needs is another task to focus on. In political terms, however, nonprofit groups are rich in some key resources. Many board members are civic leaders and command respect across the boundaries of the business, government, and nonprofit worlds. The combined work force of paid employees and volunteers is a significant portion of any city’s population. Even a cursory glance at a community’s nonprofit sector reveals a large number of organizations encompassing a long list of community leaders, and they count lots of rank-and-file voters as donors, clients, advocates, and more.

Even when nonprofit leaders understand that they have the potential to be a politically influential force, it is hard to persuade them to become active. Logically, the recent reductions in government funds and declines in private support should have catalyzed nonprofit groups to mobilize. Unfortunately, it has done nothing of the sort.

Fortunately, it would not take much money or staff to develop effective ways to influence candidates or lobby policy makers.

Two types of organizations would be particularly well-suited to mobilize nonprofit groups to exert more influence on politicians. First are the trade associations that already densely populate the nonprofit world. Community or statewide associations of arts organizations, disability centers, private schools, and the like could easily make greater efforts to organize their members to meet with politicians.

Less common are broad-based organizations that represent all the charities in a city. Nonprofit CEO’s are rightly skeptical of requests for resources to support a new organization that claims to speak for the broad range of charitable organizations. With so many organizations operating in any community, most executive directors will decide to let other nonprofit groups pay the freight for such an organization. In the language of social science, the rational nonprofit group will prefer to be a free rider.

Realistically then, to develop a new type of group whose sole purpose is to turn nonprofit groups into a powerful political force, it is important to build it to be as cost-efficient as possible. Although it might seem that this new type of group — let’s call it a nonprofit council — would want to organize a large number of organizations as members, that should not be the goal. That simply costs too much and isn’t necessary. Rather, a nonprofit council should be something more informal and could be housed at an existing nonprofit group. It should be led by a modest number of highly respected nonprofit chief executives and community leaders who serve on the boards of a diverse array of nonprofit groups. Through volunteer efforts and some donated services, such an organization can quickly take life and be maintained without any significant fund raising.

A primary purpose of such a council should be to make the nonprofit world a presence in the minds of candidates and policy makers. To do that, the council will need to:

• Make sure candidates and policy makers know that they are being monitored by nonprofit organizations, just as they are closely watched by business, labor, and professional associations.
• Enhance politicians’ understanding of the size and scope of the nonprofit organizations that serve their constituency. Truly impressive but little understood are the number of organizations, the number of employees, the number of volunteers, and the proportion of economic activity generated by nonprofit groups. In many cities and towns, a local foundation or think tank has made this easier with a scholarly analysis of the impact of nonprofit organizations on the local economy. In Lynn, Mass., a citywide coalition reinforces its role by calling itself the Lynn Nonprofit Business Association and emphasizes in its promotional materials that “we are the second largest provider of jobs in the city.”
• Help policy makers realize that they can easily inform all nonprofit groups about their views and proposals by working with the nonprofit councils. Through collaboration with nonprofit trade associations, nonprofit councils should have little trouble quickly and effectively distributing information.

The council’s leaders would probably best accomplish their goals by holding private meetings with candidates and policy makers. That may appear to be a rather elitist approach, but open forums and more general meetings do not facilitate sustained questioning on a small number of topics. The goal should be to pin down an elected official or a candidate, pushing him or her to make a commitment on the issues brought to the table.

Although nonprofit councils should be aggressive, they should demonstrate that they want to work with policy makers and candidates to solve problems. Thus, periodic meetings, if only a couple of times a year, are necessary.

Since a nonprofit council cannot make endorsements, it also needs to find ways to reward those who qualify as good friends of nonprofit groups. Nonprofit groups that are members of the council can invite policy makers to speak to their organizations, trustees and nonprofit officials can make personal campaign contributions, and the council could distribute pictures of the candidates and office holders at meetings with nonprofit officials to local newspapers and nonprofit newsletters.

Despite the compelling nature of presidential campaigns, nonprofit councils would be best suited for dealing with current and aspiring mayors, city-council members, and state legislators. If all politics is local, these are surely the people that nonprofit councils ought to have in their sights. Once the nonprofit council gains experience and stature, members of Congress can be drawn into its orbit as well.

Even if nonprofit councils emerged all over the United States tomorrow, it is not clear that the priorities of nonprofit groups would become the nation’s priorities. But the lesson of American history is that sustained mobilization often leads to significant change, so now is the time for nonprofit groups to organize and make sure their voices are heard.

Jeffrey M. Berry is a professor of political science at Tufts University and is the author of A Voice for Nonprofits (with David F. Arons), published by Brookings Institution Press.