As a steward of the social good, the nonprofit sector can be a powerful collective force for social change. It is uniquely positioned to serve in this role. Most nonprofit organizations were founded with the underlying mission to create stronger communities and a healthier, more vibrant society. They have front-line knowledge, expertise, and data to lend a crucial voice to the public policy dialogue. They are a bridge between policy and practice, articulating the needs of the broader community, putting a face on the people who will be affected by legislation, and influencing system change to contribute to the wellbeing of a democracy and its citizens. Yet, few nonprofit organizations realize this potential.

Is the nonprofit sector losing sight of its broader mission? What are the impediments to engagement in the public policy debate? How and where can the sector have the greatest influence? What can be done to foster greater involvement? The Rockefeller Brothers Fund seeks to strengthen civic engagement of individuals, nonprofit and other civil society organizations to advance constructive social change. The fund’s grant to the Alliance for Children and Families funded three focus groups held this year in Chicago, New York City, and Kennebunkport, drawing upon the insight of almost three dozen Alliance member agency executives and guests. While the focus groups were comprised entirely of representatives of human service agencies, much can be extrapolated to the nonprofit sector as a whole. This report is a summary and analysis of these discussions.

Most human service organizations were founded for the express purpose of correcting or mitigating social injustice. They keenly feel this obligation. Who better to represent the needs of the most disempowered members of society? Human service professionals see their clients in not only the context of their immediate needs, but also with a view to their broader environment – the social, economic, and political conditions that profoundly impact their lives. As such, the sector has the moral and civic imperative to engage the public policy debate and work for change.

Many directors of nonprofit organizations enter the field believing public policy bears little relevance to their job descriptions or to the operation of their agencies. They quickly learn that if they’re not paying attention at the local, state, and federal levels, they can be put out of business – and the communities they serve will be lacking critical services. The public sector has a profound impact on nonprofit organizations by making legislative and regulatory decisions that impact programs, services, clients, and funding streams. It is crucial that nonprofit organizations lend their voices to the debate and work for enduring social change.


IMPEDIMENTS TO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

The word "advocacy," often ill defined, represents a range of individual and collective activities. Entering the voting booth is a form of advocacy, as is testifying before Congress. Advocacy might entail efforts to educate the public, influence opinion, and mobilize action. It might involve issue analysis, and the formulation and promotion of specific policy. In its broadest sense, advocacy is an effort to leverage influence in the democratic process. Nonprofit organizations are involved in advocacy at various levels and to varying degrees.

Focus group members universally see the sector’s role as far more than a service provider. Service provision is grounded in the unwavering belief that the sector exists to work for the public good. Most of these organizations were formed on this foundation. However, times have changed. Focus group members recall that a generation ago, the field attracted people passionate about social justice and motivated by the chance to help shape the system. They acted as the social conscience of the community, working as change agents to improve the human condition. This kind of activism has greatly diminished in the past few decades, a victim of radically altered and reduced funding streams, reliance on government contracts, privatization, professionalization of social services, a bottom-line focus, and numerous other constraints.

Focus group members said they are just as committed to advocacy now, but they are advocating differently. Is advocacy about educating the public and raising awareness about issues important to the community? Most nonprofit agencies consider this as an essential role, and thus are highly engaged. Is it about working on a case-by-case basis, advocating around regulations and bureaucratic red tape to aid clients? In this, too, they are actively engaged.

If advocacy is about securing funding so nonprofit organizations can continue to serve their clients, they are involved as never before. However, if advocacy is about working proactively on long-term, broader issues to effect positive social change, few agencies are highly engaged. The focus has moved from values to dollars. With heavy dependence on government contracts and severe, even Draconian cutbacks in funding, the sector is reacting in a knee-jerk way to try to restore funding streams. Human service agencies, like most nonprofit organizations, are in survival mode. As such, they are forced to reactively battle the issues rather than proactively shape them.

In its efforts to maintain funding, the sector has sustained intense criticism, charged with acting only in its self-interest. Agency leaders adamantly refute this charge. They see no dishonor in advocating for funding streams to help strengthen organizations and support critical services. Most view it as equally noble, if not more noble, than advocating to change policy. They seek funds to serve more people. If their agencies did not exist, they wonder, who would help these disenfranchised members of society? Advocating for funding streams is a crucial imperative, but some focus group members argue that it isn’t advocacy. It’s fundraising – working to obtain funds for specific services for specific populations.

There is an increasing sense of frustration. For each family served, there are a dozen more families in line, and ever-dwindling funding streams to serve them. Agency CEOs understand that it isn’t possible to serve their way out of the problems their clients confront. Nevertheless, they lack time and money to challenge the forces that caused these problems. The paramount concern becomes the immediate task: service delivery. As a result, the focus has moved from poverty (tackling the root causes head-on and working for change) to poor people (providing services to individuals facing extraordinary circumstances). Nonprofit organizations now rarely view themselves as instruments of social change. In its struggle to keep up, the nonprofit sector is losing its voice.

It’s not just human services agencies that have lost a broader social focus. Focus group members note that policy makers, and even the wider society, are generally indifferent to the plight of women, children, and families. Their problems are increasingly seen as individual, local, and moral.

Focus group members say that ours has become a "blaming culture." In this country of such enormous wealth, people are shot in the street. They go to bed hungry, if they have a bed or a roof over their heads. Society tolerates this. The underlying philosophy is that these are bad people and they are somehow to blame. There is a sense that we’re throwing good money after bad people. There is little public will to combat these social ills. This is partly because the federal government is backing away from its social investment initiative. Public apathy is also caused by a widespread disillusionment with the political process. Pay-for-play politics, the dominance of powerful special interest groups, and the inability of government to solve social problems have contributed to a sense of frustration, futility, and apathy. Voting and other forms of civic participation have fallen even as the public’s displeasure and desire for reforms have grown.

Business Focus Erodes Mission

Are nonprofit organizations charities or are they businesses? Focus group members agree that one of the most fundamental changes in their field is the shift to running human service agencies as businesses. Nonprofit organizations are increasingly taking on the thinking, practice, and values of the market, and are becoming consumer commodities. Steep funding cutbacks, privatization, demands for greater efficiencies, and for-profit competition has resulted in greater pressure to rely on fees, contracts, and other venture activities.

Nonprofit organizations have gone from doing good (making a difference and advocating for causes to improve the human condition) to doing well, improving the bottom line, asserts one agency director. Agencies were often change agents in their communities. Now they are advocating more so on the basis of self-interest, he believes. "As we became larger and dramatic funding changes occurred, many agencies took on the corporate board model. Worker productivity and fee generation came first," he explains. "Not only are we driven by the bottom line, but many nonprofits are looking to entrepreneurial efforts to support their mission. Now we’re advocating winning contracts for services or increasing fee payments."

These agencies don’t believe they have a choice. They have to take on a business mindset so they can continue to support their mission. Nevertheless, with a contract culture and the growing business focus, increasingly the funders are in charge. Funders, not clients, have become their customers. Moreover, funders are demanding greater accountability, cost controls, and efficiencies. An activity that uses staff time, isn’t necessary to service provision, doesn’t contribute to the bottom line, and won’t have a direct, short-term impact isn’t going to get off the ground, focus group members say.

The push for outcomes measures has also contributed to the move away from advocating for wider social issues. Agencies are pushed to allocate funds only for tangible, measurable services that have consistent, proven outcomes. Nevertheless, outcomes measures for public policy advocacy are difficult to define and quantify. In addition, results are rarely achieved in the short term. An emphasis on outcomes thus leads nonprofits to narrow their focus to more easily defined and immediate goals than to nebulous, longer-range ones.

The nonprofit sector is distinguished from the for-profit sector by its abilities to serve as an independent voice and to work for positive social change. Commercialism is eroding the broader mission of the nonprofit sector, and nonprofits are in danger of losing the high ground of serving the public interest. The nonprofit sector may be losing those very qualities that characterize its role and distinguish its value to society.

The immediate barrier, focus group members agree, is lack of resources – money, time, and expertise to effectively address policy issues. Many human service agencies were heavily invested in public policy advocacy several decades ago, when United Way funding and foundation grants were largely unrestricted. However, United Way and other funders have moved from funding the agency to funding specific programs for specific populations. Funding levels are greatly reduced, and funds disappear quickly if impressive outcomes aren’t gained in relatively short order.

The way human service agencies are financed precludes the kind of values-based advocacy that was traditionally at the heart of the sector’s responsiveness to the human condition. Services are funded only at a level to keep the lid on – to temporarily make the problem more palatable, but not to solve it, focus group members observe. It’s a given that the human services sector is expected to make do with inadequate resources. Agencies are conditioned to provide services for less than their costs, operate on a shoestring, and be grateful for the few crumbs thrown their way. Thus, agencies are more or less complacent about the status quo. They have accepted that money isn’t available even for critical services. Agencies believe it’s futile to even ask for funding to hire staff, add technology, or otherwise build capacity and strengthen infrastructure.

With agencies vying for shrinking funds, funding for advocacy has to compete against funding for direct services. Although agency executives may see advocacy as an important role, service delivery is paramount. Advocacy goes by the wayside.

Even if funding is available for advocacy activities, however, agencies frequently find their voices are silenced. Many funders specifically disallow involvement in advocacy. Numerous focus group members say that every funding stream has a clause stipulating that money can’t be used for legislative or political purposes. They are forced to continually redefine how they engage the agency, board, and their clients without crossing the line concerning those funds. It’s a delicate balancing act.

Without paid staff members devoted to advocacy work, the job usually falls to an executive director who is already trying to keep too many balls in the air. The director is forced to respond based on the tyranny of the immediate. Advocacy is easily displaced when an executive director operates without an administrative assistant, thaws frozen pipes, manages staff personality conflicts, and arbitrates case management disagreements, says one agency CEO.

Just as critical as time and money is the expertise to advocate effectively. Those agencies not involved in broad-scale advocacy – and even many of those that are – typically have only the haziest idea of how the legislative process works, and cite a steep learning curve as a major drawback to advocacy work. How and where can they engage effectively? How do they get a policy introduced, let alone passed? The majority of nonprofit organizations also lack critical technology, data, and expertise to effectively shape and deliver their messages. Small agencies in particular don’t have the operational capacity to develop strategic planning, technology, information gathering, and myriad other tasks associated with an effective advocacy arm.

Consequently, many agencies shift the responsibility to the largest nonprofit organizations. They may believe they have met their obligation by paying dues to statewide or national advocacy associations. The assumption is that the larger agencies and advocacy associations have more influence and will represent the entire sector.

Advocacy associations cannot be all things to all members, however. Good policy for clients of a large agency isn’t necessarily good for those of a small agency. Associations and lobbyists don’t have a good grasp of individual agency programs, services, and clients, and tend to focus on the lowest common denominator. They are hampered by a disconnection from service delivery. Membership in a powerful advocacy association is essential, but agency directors caution that it should not substitute for individual advocacy efforts. The best spokespeople for an agency are those who know it intimately – the people who use the services and the staff who provides them. They will speak far more passionately for its causes.

As United Way has pulled back its funding, many nonprofit human service organizations have become heavily reliant on government funding. Fear of reprisal is an immense barrier to cause advocacy. These agency leaders say they are in the back pocket of the government and feel constrained about what they can do if they want their contracts to continue. "I have all this government money. How do I walk the line?" wonders one agency CEO. The fear of reprisal is legitimate. In New York City, agencies that dissented with former mayor Rudy Giuliani were quickly defunded. Several focus group members say that because they stood up to a government source they lost their funding.

Focus group members say they also have to walk a careful line with United Way, private foundations, and other major donors. All tend to be closely aligned with the values and philosophy of corporate America. If nonprofits advocate for policies that benefit families and children, they may be pushing against the interests of big business.

Can nonprofit organizations challenge entities from whom they subcontract? Focus group members say their ability to have an adversarial relationship depends on the amount of their discretionary or endowment income. The nonprofit sector is losing its independence as a result.

Boards of directors are frequently cited as a chief impediment to values-based advocacy. They are rarely supportive of an activist role in public policy. Boards often don’t understand the impact policy decisions have on the agency and its clients. They also believe they have little or no influence in shaping social policy. Board members tend to focus on service delivery and not the agency’s broader role in shaping public policy.

Part of that is the bottom-line focus. The board wants an agency executive who can bring in money, not one who is going to change the system. Board members are reluctant to take a stand that could jeopardize government contracts and private funding. They are concerned about taking a political stance that could jeopardize 501(c)(3) status. In addition, they are unwilling to designate money for advocacy that could, in their view, be better spent on direct services. Anything that won’t produce results in the short term is a hard sell. Advocacy requires a long-term sea change, focus group members say, and it’s difficult to change that culture.

These issues can be overcome with consistent board education. But differences in values and philosophy are greater obstacles. Most agency executives agree that their agencies have liberal, democratic agendum and conservative boards. Executive directors risk clashes over values, political perspectives, and social philosophy, and have to walk a very fine line. Numerous agency directors describe the struggle to find common ground with boards representing such disparate views. They say they have to battle for board approval for every position the agency takes on global issues. For many, the effort is too labor-intensive. "It’s not worth it to even stick my foot in," says one agency director. Another focus group member described his board’s mixed – and strident – reaction when he took a very vocal stand on an issue in the legislature. "One board member was outraged that I was ‘attacking the government.’ Another congratulated me and said it was a great use of my role," he recalls.

Numerous focus group members observe a natural conflict exists between board members’ support of the agency and their role as business leaders in the community. They are loyal to the agency and its programs, but they are generally unwilling to advocate for increasing taxes on their incomes or on their businesses. The inclination of board members is to reduce government spending, whereas agencies are lobbying to increase it so they can augment services. This is a significant obstacle in the agency’s ability to promote an aggressive social agenda.

Policy makers, funders, and even the general community view the human service sector with an increasing degree of cynicism, focus group members agree. For numerous reasons, the sector is losing its legitimacy. Though agency executives vehemently oppose the view that their sector is driven more by self-interest than by mission, they acknowledge that this cynicism is has some merit.

The sector has not policed itself well, notes one focus group member. "For decades, we were part of that silent group that watched a system failing. We didn’t stand up and say, ‘Let’s stop it.’ We earned that criticism the hard way," he says.

As funding cutbacks become ever more critical, nonprofit organizations are increasingly forced to make hard decisions about services. Too often agencies have been their own worst enemy, says one focus group member, because they are unwilling to give anything up. She also points to the sector’s reluctance, or even inability, to collaborate. Too often, the public sees a fragmented system of service providers unwilling to work together and fighting in their own self-interests. Public confidence is further eroded.

With a strong focus on the bottom line and critical funding cutbacks, maintaining service delivery takes precedence. Agencies are too busy scrambling just to retain funding to use their time and resources to speak out about larger social issues. The sector thus offers little forum for debate about the profound implications of government policies. This further contributes to the perception that the sector is operating out of self-interest and not necessarily for the public good.

Legislators in particular don’t see human service agencies as partners in improving social justice. They see another special interest group asking for a handout. "We issued a report on poverty levels, and the newspaper said we did it to keep our jobs – like that was the only reason we’d advocate on behalf of the poor!" exclaims one frustrated focus group member.

This skepticism is keenly felt by the staff of nonprofit agencies as well, agency directors say. Staff members are increasingly disillusioned with themselves and with their profession. When they haven’t been able to offer solutions to these grave social problems, how can they advocate effectively? Where is their credibility?

Like board members, agency staff members don’t understand the connection between service delivery and advocacy. There is a strong sense of internal complacency. Staff doesn’t comprehend the profound ramifications of policy decisions on their practice, their clientele, and the agency as a whole. If the agency is involved in any kind of values-based advocacy, it is generally understood to be the role of the CEO, with little relevance to the clinicians and other staff members. Several focus group members note that even their most sophisticated staff members do not know the meaning of the term "social justice."

Many focus group members, with decades of experience in the nonprofit sector, recall that when they entered the field schools of social work were macro-oriented, with a strong emphasis on broader social policy. Now public policy is rarely included in the curriculum; students are interested in clinical training so they can hang out their shingles. The result is an ever-wider gap between service delivery and social advocacy. Policy makers and clinicians alike have little understanding of the impact policy decisions have on service delivery and the people served by nonprofit agencies. Yet, it is its' connection to service delivery that affords the human service sector legitimacy as advocates for sound public policy.

Focus group members say that much of the advocacy that brings about systemic change has been taken out of their hands. The increasing demands of compliance, licensing, and accreditation are a massive strain on the already over-burdened system. Nonprofit organizations are overwhelmed by documentation, with no time left to address global issues.

The proliferation of consent decrees means counties and states are forming policies because they have legal hammers over their heads. Social policy is being decided by attorneys and documentation, focus group members say, not by formulating sound policy that is good for children and families.

Those agencies not engaged in broad-scale advocacy typically believe they have little or no ability to impact policy decisions, particularly at the federal level. They lack the money and relationships to influence policy makers, and don’t know how to attract influential people in support of their cause. They can’t begin to compete with powerful corporate lobbyists. Their phone calls aren’t returned; their input – if anyone will listen – carries little weight.

Term limits are often cited as a significant impediment to effective advocacy. The relationships nonprofit organizations do form with legislators are temporary. Efforts to educate policy makers and gain their support have to be begun anew every few years.

Due to the revolving door, people in public office lack background and a sense of history, and are deciding major issues without knowing the questions to ask.

The human services sector has generally not been especially successful in forming strong, effective coalitions. One agency executive notes that the system is built for them not to cooperate. If agencies are competing with each other, she says, they don’t get together and challenge the government. That keeps rates down. Focus group members also observe that whereas the political right readily mobilizes around fundamentalist principles, the left often fails to unify around a clearly defined vision. The result is disarray, a perception that disparate groups are acting in their self-interests, resulting in the failure to push for and win a progressive agenda.

The majority of human services agencies involved in broad social advocacy are engaged only peripherally, through membership in advocacy associations. But as policy decisions and funding cutbacks have growing implications at the state, county, and local levels, nonprofits are increasingly coming together with other organizations, both public and private, usually to advocate around specific issues that impact their clients or communities. There is a growing focus on consensus building, focus group members affirm.

All focus group members agree on the need for, and value of, collaborative advocacy efforts. Individual agencies rarely have the time and resources to advocate effectively, particularly around broader issues. Nor do they have the power and influence to gain attention. By pooling their money, expertise, and relationships, they can be a powerful force for change. Moreover, although a few focus group members say their funding was pulled when they joined a coalition that challenged the government, most focus group members believe there is protection in numbers. "We’re more brazen in coalition," says one focus group member. "They can’t pick us off as easily."

Agencies do not enter collaborations without serious reservations, however. Giving up control and reaching agreement on a common agenda is problematic. "Coalitions sound good on paper, but it’s very challenging to establish a common ground," observes the CEO of a statewide advocacy association. "Sometimes groups can agree on an overall mission, but they fall apart in the details."

In its simplest form, advocacy is an education and awareness process. It is a matter of listening, talking with others to identify issues and gather information, getting that information to decision makers, and empowering them to create realistic programs and enact legislation and regulations that truly serve the people’s needs.

Despite acknowledging the existence of formidable barriers to effective advocacy, Alliance member CEOs who participated in the focus groups see many opportunities for engagement and involvement, for transferring issues into activism. They caution, however, that effective advocacy requires a paradigm shift.

Values-driven advocacy requires leadership development, the study report concludes. It requires access to information, technology, and emerging data, and knowing how to use them. It requires a sophisticated knowledge of legislative and regulatory processes. It requires strategic planning, organization, and communications. It requires coalition building, networking, and creating and nurturing new relationships with civic and government leaders, donors, volunteers, and the public.

Effective values-based advocacy requires no less than a paradigm shift, focus group members say. The culture of nonprofits is to be an independent voice, to challenge conventional thinking, to strengthen and enrich society. Nonprofit organizations must reclaim those roots.

The sector needs to shift from micro-thinking, securing funding to deliver specific services to specific populations, to macro-thinking, finding ways to effect social change, building an enduring process to prevent conditions that cause need.

It’s a risky venture. The payoff is uncertain, and rarely occurs in the short term. With boards of directors intolerant of red ink, agency leaders fear they will not have windows of time to develop strategies and achieve outcomes. But once that paradigm changes, focus group members say, everything else changes with it. The organization will find a way to make values-based advocacy happen, no matter the obstacles.

The need for participation has never been greater. With funding cuts and caps, states facing bankruptcy, block granting, possible changes to lobbying laws and earned income tax credits, and countless other legislation and regulations that could imperil the sector, nonprofit organizations can’t afford not to be involved.

At the same time, focus group members see greater opportunities for engagement. They note a profound difference since 9/11. Nonprofit organizations, especially human service agencies, have attracted new donors and an influx of new volunteers. Their relationships with communities have broadened and solidified; they are now seen as vital resources and essential parts of the community fabric.

Critical funding cutbacks have been a catalyst for important dialogue about community and statewide needs. Against a background of increased need and decreased funding, legislators are turning to nonprofit organizations to lend informed voices to this debate.

These agency directors are extremely concerned about the ramifications of devolution. The federal government is increasingly relinquishing responsibility for global social programs that provide critical safety nets for society’s disenfranchised members. However, focus group members acknowledge devolution may afford local nonprofit organizations a greater voice in policy decisions.

Even hyper-conservative federal initiatives create new opportunities to tackle underlying issues. The federal push for marriage promotion isn’t going to solve the problems of teenage pregnancy, single parent homes, and broken marriages. However, the initiative has brought these issues into the public dialogue, prompting communities to work in coalition to clarify local needs, strategize solutions, and implement new progressive programs.

Focus group members identify strategies to transfer issues into activism. They understand that effective advocacy requires organizations to use their expertise and leadership platforms to articulate issues, generate public awareness and debate, influence public opinion, mobilize support, and stimulate action to shape sound public policy.

It is clear that for values-based advocacy to happen, nonprofit organizations must first make it an internal priority.

Effective advocacy requires strong leadership to inculcate the value and expectation of engagement. CEOs must be strong proponents of values-based advocacy -- not just through lip service, but also through active engagement.

Advocacy must be included in an organization’s mission statement and be a core value, and it must be included in the organization’s strategic plan, with clearly stated goals and an action plan to achieve them.

Focus group members effectively engaged in values-based advocacy included advocacy in their strategic plans. Some write plans annually, others every three to five years. A formal process is essential, they say, to set priorities, identify key relationships and funding streams, allocate resources strategically, and build capacity. Their plans also provide foundations from which to develop strategic partnerships and coalitions.

Agencies generally find they are most effective when they concentrate on a few issues that impact their clients or the communities they serve. They can more readily justify fund allocation to these efforts if issues have local impact. That commitment has to be backed by the capacity and resources to move rhetoric to action.

Advocacy is not just the role of a CEO or board president, but of every staff and board member. It should be included in staff job descriptions. Time should be allocated for advocacy activities. Some agencies put advocacy on every staff meeting agendum. Ongoing training must be provided, with talking points and other tools so staff can be effective. Staff should be engaged at the local and state levels where possible, using their service delivery expertise to help identify issues and solutions.

Having at least one staff member solely dedicated to public policy work is advantageous. It’s no excuse to say your agency can’t afford a staff position, says one CEO. If advocacy is a priority, agencies will find ways to make it happen. Funds can be reallocated; job descriptions can be changed. A dedicated staff member will be conversant and know how to navigate the system, frame the issues, and communicate the message. Whereas most focus group members believe only CEOs or board members carry enough weight to have impact, they suggest dedicated staff members can empower CEOs by identifying issues, tracking bills, identifying decision makers, collecting data, and shaping messages, giving CEOs and board members ammunition to effectively influence policy makers.

A public policy committee is crucial, say agency CEOs with effective advocacy programs. Most committees are comprised solely of board members. Others include staff and community representatives. Some include agency clients. It is helpful to have former board members on the committee, focus group members say. They have long-term relationships with an organization, keen understanding of its mission and services, and strong leadership qualities.

• Work with an executive director to create a strategic plan, and with the director and board to implement it.
• Identify broad issues that impact an organization’s programs, service delivery, and clients. One agency annually surveys its service providers to identify barriers its clients face. Some committees perform annual community needs assessment, working in collaboration with other organizations, to identify pressing issues facing the community.
• Study issues, talk with experts, and gather data to determine how the agency can be most effective. Assess agency strengths, possible partners, and experts. Identify issues that offer opportunities for leadership.
• Determine outcomes that realistically can be achieved and create an action plan to achieve them.
• Report to the board at every meeting, recommend key issues on which to focus resources, and obtain consensus. Work with the board to pass formal resolutions. Update the board on strategic plan progress.
• Work with the organization’s marketing staff to develop strategic communications.
• Identify, develop, and cultivate relationships with key decision makers.
• Identify and access funding streams to support advocacy efforts.
• Assess opportunities to join coalitions and work with grassroots constituents around common issues.

• Prepare talking points, letters to the editor, and other tools for staff, board members, and others to aid in advocacy activities.

Focus group members have mixed feelings about involving clients in advocacy. They expressed deep concerns about violating confidentiality. Many note there is a fine line between empowering and exploiting. However, they felt advocacy by clients has enormous potential, but can be difficult to achieve.

Many clients are stressed trying to feed their families and keep roofs over their heads. They can’t get involved in advocacy. However, clients can best speak to the human impact of policies and regulations. Having a client testify at a legislative hearing puts a name and face on policy decisions.

Several focus group members were intrigued by the notion of animating a client voice, of engaging clients in civic life in ways they haven’t been engaged. Some say this type of involvement achieves important therapeutic goals: facilitating independence and enhancing self-esteem. One CEO suggested training clients to train others. They learn to advocate for themselves and take leadership positions in helping organize others in the community. Individuals and communities are strengthened; social capital is enhanced.

A number of Alliance member agencies organize clients and other community members in grassroots campaigns around specific issues that impact families and neighborhoods. Others work more broadly, training clients for ongoing civic involvement. One agency held family strengthening workshops during the Alliance’s National Family Week 2003 (for more on National Family Week advocacy efforts, visit www.nationalfamilyweek.org). The workshops focused on public policy, teaching participants to make connections with elected officials. They were taught to present issues and identify to whom they should address their concerns. Staff members showed guests how to go on-line to find contact information and then send e-mails to local, state, and federal representatives. Most participants learned they have access to elected officials who are there to serve constituents. They hadn’t realized they have a voice.

This activity does not exploit clients, focus group members say. Rather, it empowers them, enabling them to take control of their lives. The agency becomes less a rescuer, more an enabler and change agent. Agency directors wonder if it’s possible for advocacy training to be included in the therapeutic process. Could social workers and clinicians accept that teaching clients advocacy is part of their role and responsibility as therapists?

Welfare reform, earned income tax credit, social security, and temporary assistance for needy families -- much of the glue-type funding that holds local programs together is set at the federal level. Accordingly, some CEOs feel it is imperative for nonprofit organizations to engage there. They cite active participation in coalitions and national advocacy associations as the most effective ways to influence federal decisions.

Focus group members also suggest agencies should work to influence people at the state level who are major campaign contributors to federal legislators. When people who have access to federal policy makers are familiar with the organization, its programs and clientele, and the issues, they can lean on federal legislators.

Additionally, local and state representatives who have relationships with an organization can take its concerns to federal legislators and frame them as issues that merit national attention and action.

The federal government is devolving responsibility for public policy and administrative decisions to state and local levels. Nonprofit leaders say this is where they have the greatest opportunities to influence policy, if they can get to know legislators and administrators one-on-one. They can also mobilize local constituencies to put pressure on those elected officials.

Billboards and publicity stunts don’t carry the day. Advocacy is, first and foremost, about relationships. It is identifying, forming, and nurturing relationships. It also is creating ongoing, constructive, two-way dialogue. Relationships with legislators and policy makers -- and with key administrative staff -- at the local, county, state, and federal levels. It includes relationships with their constituents, civic and business leaders, clients, volunteers, donors, and colleagues. It entails enlisting new constituents in the private and public sectors, and organizing grassroots efforts to enact social change.

Several agency executives emphasize influential relationships should be fostered in the same way agencies cultivate major donors. They require persistent, consistent, respectful outreach. Relationships don’t develop overnight. The time to establish them is before they are needed. Thus, when an urgent issue arises, organizations will have solid, established liaisons to turn to for support.

As is the case with successful fundraising, the key principle in advocacy is finding the right person to ask for the right thing for the right reason in the right way at the right time. Organizations should plan strategically to set aside time and resources they can commit to relationship building and expend energy committing to people who will be influential to their cause.

Many nonprofits underestimate their leverage with local representatives and state senators. Many also say when they make the effort they are surprised to find their legislators are responsive. Nonprofit organizations work in the backyards of local legislators. They are attuned to pressing issues, and can have a great deal of influence and credibility.

Why would policymakers want to listen? The secret weapon nonprofit organizations have is information. They can use front-line experience to educate policymakers about issues, provide statistics, and inform them of the human impact of their decisions. Armed with hard data, agencies can empower legislators -- Republican and Democrat alike -- to make sound policy decisions.

Focus group members say they are amazed that legislators are often uninformed. They’ve encountered policy makers who sorely lack information because they don’t have staff or resources to obtain it. Thus, a nonprofit can serve as a legislator’s think tank -- doing research, analyzing proposals and budgets, and suggesting effective alternatives. Rather than falling into an adversarial relationship, nonprofit organizations can create partnerships with policy makers, who turn to them for expertise.

Legislators may be unaware of the implications of bills and budgets. They may not know how to improve policy. Sometimes they scarcely have time to read legislation before voting on it. It’s not enough to tell policy makers what’s wrong with legislative proposals. Specific, concrete suggestions to improve a proposal must be offered, along with suggestions for funding. Data provided must be unimpeachable.

Legislative staff members are potent potential allies. Legislators come and go, particularly in states with term limits, but staff tends to remain stable. Busy legislators rely heavily on staff for research and background information on issues, especially issues that arise on short notice. Nonprofit organizations should seek out key staff people who handle specific issues, establish dialogues, and provide research and familiarity with the organization’s services and clients.

Public policy is also set administratively. Legislators may enact laws with the best of intentions, yet their creations sometimes are diametrically opposed to the intended effects. Once a law is codified and enacted, it can become a whole other beast. Entitlement programs, for example, can present insurmountable regulatory or process barriers.

As important as working to inform and influence policy makers is, working with administrative departments at the county, state, and federal levels is equally critical as they are instrumental in interpreting rules, and developing policy and practice that impact people.

Nonprofits can’t just release information and hope it is noticed. Messaging is critical. Seasoned advocates say this is where many organizations stumble. Finding out how to influence policy makers, whom they listen to and why, and what it will take to get their attention is critical. Communications should be direct, to the point. Specify what is being asked of the legislator and why.

Many CEOs say they can’t get phone calls returned when they try to contact policy makers. Not a problem, says another focus group member. Connect with the people who can -- labor leaders, major campaign donors, business execs, and others.

A board of directors is a nonprofit organization’s most potent tool. If board members can’t access legislators, they can link an organization to those who can. Focus group members are especially eager to form relationships with corporate power structures, an influential voting block that includes campaign donors. They believe a legislator is most likely to act on an issue if pressed by a powerful business leader.

There is a fine line between advocacy and marketing. Successful advocacy requires a sustained campaign to heighten awareness, educate, and influence opinion – not just among policy makers, but also within the public. Citizens voice their opinions to their legislators. Moreover, they vote.

Focus group members say there are essentially only two bases for clout: money or votes. Nonprofit organizations typically don’t have economic power, but they can influence those who do. They also can sway public opinion so voters express their views to legislators or elect people who represent those views.

The political right has been successful in swaying public opinion for decades. It is well funded, well organized, and presents data to support a narrow, focused agenda. The political left has difficulty mobilizing around a common agenda, focus group members say. Consequently, the nonprofit sector remains somewhat defenseless. Educating and influencing public opinion, and accommodating other perspectives can win broad support for a progressive agenda.

The media is a powerful tool to influence public opinion on a broad scale. Public policy debates often are won or lost on how they are framed in the media rather than through debate in the legislature. Americans get their information -- much of it inadequate, distorted, or inaccurate -- from the media. Nonprofit organizations are obliged to educate the public about issues, present data, influence opinion, and mobilize public will.

• Get to know print and broadcast reporters who cover issues of importance to the organization. Develop a mailing list and keep it updated. Invite media representatives to fundraisers, special events, and tours so they can see the agency in action.
• Work with the media to frame issues. Meet with editorial boards when possible. Provide human interest, tug-at-the-heartstrings anecdotes, but also present research, hard data that spells out the impact of policy decisions on people. Present issues in an understandable, non-partisan manner. Avoid global terms; use human terms. Explain how an issue or policy impacts families.
• Use agency success stories so the public recognizes that, provided the right services, people can move forward, gain independence, and contribute to healthy communities.
• Use public access cable channels to raise awareness about issues, to inform and influence public opinion. Broadcast issue forums. Invite legislators and administrators. Allow individuals to speak on issues impacting their lives.
• Target weekly and bi-weekly newspapers. They rely, largely, on the public for content and have wide readerships.
• Write op-eds and letters to the editor. Jump on action alerts generated by advocacy associations.

The nonprofit sector has been guilty of tunnel vision, communicating only with those with whom it agrees, failing to reach out to a broader constituency, say some focus group members. It has spent much time focusing on information that is of limited interest and not enough time listening. This has led to a perception of elitism, further distancing the sector from the middle majority, which remains virtually untapped.

Focus group members describe the "three-bucket" theory: the group on the right not on their side, the group on the left already on their side, and majority in the middle that might be influenced if familiarized with the issues.

The latter group should be targeted as critical constituents who can be educated on the implications of public policy so they can voice their concerns to legislators. Many group members believe scarce resources should be focused on groups that can be influenced. Others suggest, however, it might be possible to gain support from the right on narrow issues. The right disagrees oftentimes, but shares a common concern and could be enlisted to work toward a mutual goal of strengthening the community. "Find that inclusive piece, that shared feeling. There you find opportunity," says one agency director.

Nonprofit organizations need to do a better job of listening, understanding, and engaging in dialogue, says another. "We can find ways to weave our goals and objectives into a common purpose we can unite around. We can have cooperation instead of argument." One agency has become highly nuanced, "selling" parts of the organization to different constituencies. The agency is thus able to draw support from nontraditional audiences.

What moves any group to lend support and take action? The issue has to hit home. Issues must be linked to implications for the poor and disadvantaged, but also to the middle class. The message should be personalized to the target audience.

If they believe they will be impacted, and that they can make a difference, people are more likely to take action.

Collaboration

A critical need exists for greater resources and opportunities to form collaborative partnerships with other nonprofit organizations, and public, private, and community groups. Working together as a unified system, coalitions can more effectively address broad issues central to the group’s common mission. Coalitions are particularly crucial on big issues one agency can’t hope to have influence over alone. They can also attract funding streams unavailable to individual organizations. Working together, the sector can address social problems as they emerge instead of trying to stem the tide through temporary victories.

Organizations should court unusual bedfellows. To broaden support for critical issues, they must be willing to accommodate other causes. Organizations naturally seek traditional partners with similar agendas, but they should consider nontraditional partners with whom they can find compromise rather than confrontation. Groups that disagree vehemently on one issue might be able to cooperate on another. Focus group members cite numerous examples of disparate groups that have set aside petty jealousies and narrow agendum to work together in coordinated responses to critical needs.

The worsening budget crisis creates greater urgency for collaboration. Groups are more likely to come together during adversity, agency directors note. Two factors acted like magnets to draw together One Connecticut: The Campaign to Fight Poverty and Build Economic Security: the state’s financial crisis and comprehensive research on the implications of the proposed state budget. With a common "enemy" and empowering information to back their case, several hundred disparate groups joined forces and are achieving impressive successes.

The benefits of collaboration are increased organizational capacity and influence. A message from a large, unified front is potent. By pooling strengths, perspectives, and expertise, the major processes of advocacy can be broken down into pillars of competency rather than housed in a dozen separate silos. Vital resources such as funding, staffing, and research can be used effectively.

Each group also brings different values and agendum. The group is far richer for having different cultures and perspectives, but reaching compromise can be difficult. Collaborations can slow down decision-making, agency directors caution. Because the legislative process moves quickly, groups have to be able to respond on a near real-time basis. Every member of the group loses some autonomy to the greater whole, but groups say that can bring benefits. Traditional approaches are challenged, and new perspectives may be gained.

Focus group members strongly endorse the benefits of membership in national and statewide advocacy associations, which offer powerful tools for engagement. They also suggest working in collaboration with sister agencies in the community, educating them about common issues, and exploring concrete ways to engage each other. A community needs assessment can be a powerful organizing tool to use as a springboard for action. If the collaboration can present a unified response to an identified community need, it will have greater impact on decision makers.

Most focus group members say broad advocacy work has been curtailed with the elimination of unrestricted United Way funding. Others say they retain paid staff advocates funded through the United Way. As funding comes up annually, agency CEOs and staff work hard to educate United Way personnel about the ongoing impact advocacy has on the community.

Several focus group members say they rely on endowments for advocacy funding. Others point out private foundations and unions have interests in promoting public policy. Many foundations realize grants can have broader, long-term impact by preventing problems rather than funding services that offer band-aid solutions.

Several nonprofit organizations target community foundations for funding. One Connecticut is taking this a step further, appealing to all community foundations statewide to address common issues.

The agency directors who participated in the focus groups typify their fellow Alliance members and, indeed, the sector as a whole: they are extraordinary people doing extraordinary work to help others who are in extraordinary need. They passionately believe the sector exists to serve the public good, to strengthen individuals, families and communities, to contribute to the health and vibrancy of society. However, against a background of decreased funding and increased need, service delivery is taking precedence over the broader mission to serve as a force for positive social change.

Yet, nonprofit organizations lose an essential part of their purpose if they forego the broader mission. Public policy directly impacts service delivery, funding, and, most importantly, the day-to-day lives of the people they serve. Part of their commitment and responsibility to clients is to articulate for those who lack voices. The sector has a moral imperative to serve immediate needs and address larger social, economic, and political conditions that influence lives and communities.

Focus group members say it will take no less than a paradigm shift, moving beyond service delivery to building an enduring process to prevent the emergence of need. The sector must regain its roots. Passion and altruism characteristic of those working in this sector must be harnessed and brought to bear to effect positive, lasting social change.

Nonprofit agencies face many impediments to full political participation. Our focus groups, however, concluded their sessions with a sense of empowerment and excitement about engaging the democratic process. Strategic information, training, tools, and partnerships can increase the sector’s capacity for involvement, allowing it to effectively use its expertise and unique perspective to inform and influence public policy debate.

Focus Group Members and Guests

Tod Balsbaugh
Margaret Berglind
Farrell Cooper
Peter DeBiasi
Lee Fisher
Scott Hippert
David Jones
Jeanne Labozetta
Shaun Lane, University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration
John Pfleiderer
Katie Pritchard, United Way of America
Sorrel Bowman-Rogers
Mark Rosenman, The Union Institute
Pat Showell
Al Snyder

The Annie E. Casey Foundation
Consensus Organizing Institute
The Urban Institute
Empowering your board to succeed versus challenging them to fail
by Barbara Talisman, Talisman Associates, Chicago IL
How to Use the Internet to Organize a Protest
by Jim Carlton, Wall Street Journal, September