In their efforts to uncover more deeply rooted causes of problems facing our community, nonprofits sometimes learn that there are existing laws, regulations or public and corporate policies that hurt the people they serve. Nonprofits can then take action through advocacy and lobbying to change or eliminate such laws, regulations and policies. And the law is very clear—such advocacy and lobbying are allowable activities for tax-exempt nonprofit organizations.
Indeed, nonprofit groups have a long history of success in such advocacy to advance civil rights, environmental protections, gender equity and other issues, but here’s the problem: Many nonprofits don’t engage in advocacy, lobbying and voter registration. A recent study conducted by Ashlie Benson and Kyle Hagge—Trinity Fellows at Marquette University—found this to be the case for most Milwaukee-based nonprofits. In many cases, nonprofit boards decide not to engage in advocacy because they believe that, as a tax-exempt organization, they’re prohibited by law from doing so. This is simply not true.
Advocacy is one of the most effective tools nonprofits and foundations can use to advance their missions and serve their communities. The term “advocacy” includes broad efforts such as legislative lobbying and election-related activities, and the combination of advocacy and direct services can dramatically increase the mission impact of any nonprofit.
According to Stand For Your Mission’s ongoing campaign—an initiative launched by the premier training resource for nonprofit boards in the U.S., BoardSource—here’s a more accurate description of what 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations can (and can’t) do.
These activities are allowed:
- Educating the public and decision-makers about your work in a nonpartisan way.
- Sharing information about how public dollars positively impact your work and your community.
- Communicating how broader issues impact your mission and the people that you serve.
These activities are allowed as long as nonprofits carry them out in compliance within certain reasonable guidelines:
- Voter education, registration and candidate forums.
- Naming legislators who support (or oppose) a specific piece of legislation.
- Limited lobbying on behalf of the organization.
- Lobbying and campaigning as private citizens.
These activities are not allowed:
- Organizational support for (or opposition to) a candidate or set of candidates.
- Spending federal grant funds on lobbying.
So, why are so many nonprofit boards avoiding advocacy? What are the barriers to board involvement in this powerful activity? There are at least three.
- The mistaken belief that the law doesn’t allow tax-exempt nonprofits to engage in advocacy and that their tax-exempt status will be imperiled. The response: Provide board leaders, and sometimes their staff, with accurate information to demonstrate that advocacy is, in fact, allowable, and that their exempt status will not be at risk.
- The belief that advocacy is “mission drift,” and that it doesn’t fit with their mission. The response: Demonstrate that advocacy is not mission drift if it advances the nonprofit’s mission. Clarify that such advocacy would be centered on issues that align with their mission. Also, share strategies that enable nonprofits to incorporate advocacy into their work in cost-effective ways.
- The fear of a backlash against advocacy on the part of donors, funders and some board members. Once again, this resistance sometimes arises from the mistaken belief that advocacy is not allowable. The response: Meet with donors, funders and board members to provide accurate information that advocacy is allowed, and that it will advance the mission that donors, funders and board members presumably support.
|
|
There is another reason why there is sometimes a backlash against nonprofits using advocacy strategies. At times, the resistance to such activity is the result of personal and business interests of some donors, funders and board members that conflict with the advocacy positions which a nonprofit might take to advance the mission. The response: Address these potential conflicts of interests that may affect current donors, funders and board members and seek a resolution that puts the mission first.
Going forward, the plan should be to explain the nonprofit’s advocacy role and positions on issues to prospective supporters—stressing that advocacy helps to advance the mission that has attracted the donor or funder in the first place. As for board member vetting and recruitment, fully explain the nonprofit’s mission-aligned advocacy role and positions on issues and clearly communicate the expectations for board member involvement in advocacy, thus assuring that there are no potential conflicts of interest. And, if any conflicts arise, determine how they can best be managed in keeping with the board’s policies or suggest non-board involvement opportunities within the nonprofit.
A Collective Agenda
What if nonprofit advocacy, lobbying and voter registration became the norm, not the exception, in Milwaukee? Imagine a critical mass of Milwaukee nonprofits engaged in issue advocacy and lobbying around a collective agenda that addresses the root causes of problems facing our community—one focused on challenging and changing the underlying systems that cause so much of the pain and injustice in Milwaukee. Imagine thousands of new educated, engaged and networked voters in Milwaukee unified around a collective agenda for systems change. Things would be different; things would be better.
To learn more about nonprofit groups, their missions and potential community engagement activities, call Stand For Your Mission at 202-349-2500 or visit standforyourmission.org, or call the Alliance for Justice Bolder Advocacy Project at 866-675-6229 or visit bolderadvocacy.org.
Frank Martinelli represents The Nonprofit Repositioning Initiative.
