Charity Officials Must Be Involved in the Presidential Transition

Barack Obama got his start working on the front lines as a community organizer for local nonprofit groups, and he touted the importance of volunteerism and civic engagement in his campaign. One would have expected that if anybody were going to rely heavily on people who have real-world nonprofit experience as he plans for a new administration, Mr. Obama would do so.

Instead, he is getting most of his advice from people who work at think tanks or who were old hands in the Clinton administration.

Missing from the transition committees that are working to determine the future role of each federal agency are people who have run community-development programs, built affordable housing, fought at the local level for immigrant rights, operated successful social-service programs, and developed strong community-organizing and advocacy efforts.

To be sure, there have been some encouraging exceptions. Cecilia Muñoz, senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, last month was named to head the White House’s intergovernmental-affairs office. But in general, too few nonprofit executives have been tapped for transition duties or White House jobs.

The transition process has been headed by John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, and he has placed many researchers and policy wonks — a good number from his own think tank — into important transition positions. In addition, he has appointed a cadre of lawyers and academics who worked in the Clinton administration.

Many of the nonprofit officials I have talked to are both distressed and puzzled by this turn of events.

Some aides to the transition process have pointed out that nonprofit executives who are registered lobbyists are not permitted to serve in transition positions and that people who are on the transition committees are not allowed to be paid for their time, either on the president-elect’s payroll or by their own nonprofit organizations — prohibitions they say may have reduced the number of nonprofit workers available to be tapped for service. But nonprofit leaders say those restrictions need not be a barrier to putting charity workers on the committees.

Despite the shortage of nonprofit workers on the transition committees, people who are on the committees say they have reached out to officials at charities and grass-roots groups throughout the country.

At this stage, it is impossible to tell whether those contributions have really influenced or shaped the views and recommendations of the transition groups. Many thoughtful nonprofit executives have not been contacted, and it is not always easy for nonprofit leaders to reach the transition aides; according to some nonprofit leaders who have been contacted, they have been told not to reveal the names of the committee members. Such secrecy is foolish and unreasonable.

Transition aides need to keep in mind that nothing can replace the experience and wisdom that nonprofit executives who have actually run something can bring to the day-to-day deliberations about priorities in the new administration. To the extent that the transition committees will have an important say in the selection of White House and agency staff members, the exclusion of nonprofit executives may become even more meaningful.

In its thinking about nonprofit groups, the Obama transition has focused an inordinate amount of attention on social-entrepreneurship organizations, partly because of the predilection of some well-placed insiders and the efforts of America Forward, a coalition of 71 organizations. There has been a lot of talk about creating a social-entrepreneurship office in the White House or social-entrepreneurship funds to stimulate innovative programs. This heavy focus may be distorting the real needs of charities and the people they serve.

Entrepreneurship programs and organizations constitute only a tiny sliver of the nonprofit world. While their champions have gained a good deal of publicity, such programs do not and will not carry the major burden of curbing poverty, providing adequate social services, and spurring community development and job creation.

If there is to be a White House Office for Nonprofits, it should be much broader and more expansive in its outlook and mission than supporting entrepreneurship efforts. It should be concerned with the vast number of local social-service programs that face threats to their survival. And it should pay attention to the role the White House can play in pushing foundations to assume a greater share of the responsibility for supporting nonprofit organizations.

In short, the transition needs to have a larger vision of the role nonprofit groups play in civil society.

There is still time to add seasoned nonprofit leaders to the committees now working to shape policies and make personnel appointments. Bringing in some new people with practical experience can only enhance the quality of the transition process. We don’t need a surfeit of policy wonks and think-tank operatives.

Pablo Eisenberg, a regular contributor to these pages, is senior fellow at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute. His e-mail address is pseisenberg@verizon.net.