Transcript SNAP: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project Health

SNAP:
Strengthening Nonprofit
Advocacy Project
Overview of Findings
May, 2002
A multi-year research project
of Tufts University, OMB
Watch, and Charity Lobbying
in the Public Interest
Table of Contents
Section I
About the Research
Section II
About the Respondents
Section III
Findings
Part A: Language Makes A Difference
Part B: Policy Participation
Part C: Major Barriers and Incentives
Part D: Understanding the Rules
Part E: Who Makes the Decisions
Part F: Using Technology
Section IV
Implications and Next Steps
Section V
Acknowledgments
2
Section I:
ABOUT THE
RESEARCH
3
About the Research
Why the Research was Needed
• To understand how to motivate more public policy
participation by nonprofits in the U.S.
• To inform organizations working with nonprofit
leaders about the factors that influence and deter
public policy participation and how to help
organizations hurdle persistent barriers to policy
engagement.
• To investigate current perceptions of nonprofits’
lobbying, advocacy and public policy role.
• To provide a comprehensive body of national
research on the state of nonprofit advocacy and
public policy participation.
4
About the Research
The Key Research Questions
1) What words and phrases do nonprofits use to
describe public policy activities?
2) What internal and external factors motivate and
deter nonprofit participation in the public policy
process?
3) How do the staff of nonprofits and their volunteer
leadership make decisions about the course of
their public policy participation?
4) What resources are needed to strengthen
nonprofit advocacy and public policy
participation?
5
About the Research
Methods Used
• National survey of 2,735 randomly selected charities
(i.e., 501(c)(3) organizations) that file IRS Form 990,
with the exception of hospitals, universities, and
private foundations. Survey: January to June, 2000;
63.7% response rate.
• Approximately 45 telephone interviews with executive
directors that responded to the survey conducted
from September, 2000 to February, 2001.
• 17 focus groups of executive directors and board
members from February to September, 2001 in: MN
(Minneapolis/St. Paul), TN (Nashville), MA (Boston),
CA (Sacramento & Redding), TX (Austin & San
Antonio), MI (Detroit & Lansing), & one held in VA
with state nonprofit leaders from across the country.
6
About the Research
The survey did NOT go to:
• Hospitals
• Colleges and universities
• Private foundations
• Religious congregations since most do not file IRS
Form 990
• Other organizations that do not file the IRS Form 990,
such as those with budgets of less than $25,000
• Organizations that are not charities, such as
501(c)(4)s (social welfare) and 501(c)(6)s (trade
associations)
7
About the Research
Research Design
A stratified sample of 501(c)(3) (charity) organizations
filing IRS Form 990 in 1998 was selected
501(h) Electors
Non-Electors
With Lobbying
Expenditures
Without
Lobbying
Expenditures
X
X
X
X
501(c)(3) (charities) can choose – or “elect” – to be governed by section
501(h) of the tax code. These “Electors” then know how much they can
spend on lobbying.
Charities not making this choice fall, by default, under a vague “no
substantial part” test, which we call Non-Electors
8
About the Research
Who Received & Responded to the Survey
501(c)(3) Orgs Filing IRS 990 in 1998
N=220,622
Charities with Lobbying Expenditures
N=1,024
Excluded Orgs
N=14,591
Charities Without Lobbying Expenditures
N=204,298
501(h) Electors
Non-Electors
501(h) Electors
Non-Electors
N=804
N=929
N=4,124
N=200,174
Questionnaires Mailed
N=448
55.7%
Questionnaires Mailed
N=576
62.0%
Questionnaires Mailed
N=701
17.0%
Questionnaires Mailed
N=1,013
0.5%
Questionnaires Returned
N=320
71.4%
Questionnaires Returned
N=375
65.1%
Questionnaires Returned
N=460
65.6%
Questionnaires Returned
N=583
57.6%
Note: 3 of the 4 groups – Electors and Non-Electors with lobbying expenditures and Electors without lobbying expenditures -were over-sampled to ensure a statistically valid analysis of each group.
9
About the Research
Who Completed
the Written Survey
Staff
15%
Board Other
4% 9%
Exec Dir or
Pres
72%
Focus Groups
Participants were:
• Organization heads/senior staff
• Board members
Types of Groups:
• General nonprofit
• Groups whose primary focus is
advocacy
• Health
• Foundations
Interviews of survey respondents
45 executive directors who
volunteered on the questionnaire to
be interviewed.
10
Section II:
ABOUT THE
RESPONDENTS
11
About the Respondents
On average, 25% of a respondent’s revenue comes from individuals,
with 82% of respondents receiving revenue from individuals.
Percent of Respondents
Reporting Different Sources
of Revenue
Where $1 of Revenue
Comes From
Other
8%
82
Individuals
Events
54
Foundations
53
Services
15%
Corp
6%
52
Govt
Corporations
47
Services
47
Events
11%
Govt
23%
3
Other
0
20
40
Individuals
25%
60
80
100
Foundation
12%
12
About the Respondents
Annual Expenses
Range: $500 to $457.6 million
Millions
Average Expenses
Thousands
5
4
Median Expenses
500
$4.1
$450.6
$438.7
400
$2.9
3
300
$
$
2
200
1
100
0
0
All
W/Out Top 10
All
W/Out Top
10
13
About the Respondents
• The average age of responding organizations
is 34.1 years. The median age is 25 years.
• Two-thirds of respondents have 11
professionals or fewer on staff (the range is
from 0 to 3,600).
• 50% of respondents have a total paid staff of
11 or fewer (the range is 0 to 5,500).
• The average number of volunteers is 2,084.
However, the number drops to 150 when the
10 largest organizations are dropped.
14
About the Respondents
How Many Have
Members?
No
Members
31%
Members
69%
Of those with members:
• 53% have individual
members
• 23% have nonprofit
organizational members
• 16% have corporations
or trade association
members
• 8% have government
agency members
15
Section III:
FINDINGS
Part A
Language Makes A
Difference
16
Language Makes a
Difference
On a survey question regarding the frequency of policy participation, onethird of the questionnaires used the word “lobby,” another third
“advocate,” and the final third “educate.” The response was very
different depending on the word used.
Respondents that Never
Lobby, Advocate, or Educate
29
Never Lobby
Never
Advocate
15
Never
Educate
12
0
10
20
% of Respondents
30
17
Language Makes a
Difference
The definition of “lobbying” in this survey is
broader than the IRS definition
We asked if they have
done: “Lobbying on
behalf of or against a
proposed bill or other
policy pronouncement”
• 61% of those who report no lobbying expenses
to the IRS on the Form 990 indicate on our
survey that they do “lobby.”
• This confirms we are measuring different types
of behavior than that reported to the IRS – and
means our data cannot be compared to the IRS
IRS has a narrower
Form 990 data.
legal definition based on
attempts to influence
legislation. IRS has legal • This suggests that those writing for nonprofit
audiences need to use more consistent
exemptions to “lobbying”
language to talk about lobbying, advocacy and
and does not include the
public policy participation – or at least be aware
broader policy issues
of varying definitions.
our survey does.
18
Language Makes a
Difference
Call it Anything Except “Lobbying”
• A health care executive in Boston, MA said his
organization calls it “impact analysis.”
• A human services executive director in Austin, TX claims
he doesn’t lobby after describing a lobby effort to get a
spending bill enacted in Texas.
• The head of a voluntary association in Sacramento, CA
said the organization lobbies, but will never use the word.
She said, “we educate legislators.”
19
Language Makes a
Difference
Call it Whatever You Want, Just Do It
• The head of a MN environmental group emphasized that
you can’t keep “putting out forest fires everyday. You have
to change the system… to impact public policy is very
important for nonprofits.”
• A director of a community services organization in TN
reflected comments from many other nonprofit leaders:
Nonprofits need to “get beyond that negative connotation
and realize this is their voice and without it, they're left
behind.”
• Some MI foundations felt that they should support
coalition building, research and other approaches to help
grantees engage in public policy.
20
FINDINGS:
Part B
Policy Participation
21
Policy Participation
We looked at 9 types of activities:
• Testifying
• Direct Lobbying
• Indirect or Grassroots Lobbying
• Responding to Government Requests for
Information
• Working in Planning or Advisory Groups
with Government Officials
• Meeting Government Officials about Work
• Releasing Research Reports
• Discussing Grants/Contracts with
Government Officials
• Interacting Socially with Government
Officials
Of these 9 activities,
focus group participants
unanimously defined
policy participation as
those activities in red
italics.
Our analysis classifies a
charity as a
“participator” if they
engage in one or more of
the three red italicized
activities regardless of
frequency.
22
Policy Participation
A Good News – Bad News Story
The Good News
Respondents say they participate in the public policy
process and that they lobby…
86
Participation
78
Grassroots Lobby
74
Direct Lobby
71
Testify
0
20
40
60
80
% of Respondents
100
23
Policy Participation
A Good News – Bad News Story
The Bad News
But the frequency of participation is low. For example,
69% either never do direct lobbying or do so
infrequently…
Grassroots Lobbying
High
19%
Very High
18%
Direct Lobbying
Low
19%
Other
63%
Very Low
22%
None
22%
High
15%
Very High
16%
Low
19%
Other
69%
Very Low
24%
None
26%
24
Policy Participation
A Good News – Bad News Story
The Bad News
And, for example, 78% either have never released a
research report to the media, public or policymakers or do
so infrequently.
Testifying
High
11%
Very High
12%
Release Research
Low
19%
Other
77%
Very Low
29%
None
29%
Low
22%
High
12%
Very High
10%
Other
78%
Very Low
25%
None
31%
25
Policy Participation
Charities say that lobbying and participation in
public policy is a core part of their mission…
• In focus groups, many executive directors said that being a
policy advocate is a key responsibility of being an executive
director.
• As a MN housing group said, “We do legislative work. We put
together an agenda and advocate for [it].”
• “We carry out a core function of government; therefore we
insist on a partnership with government. But that sometimes
means we have to pressure government for a place at the table
and to act upon our recommendations.” – a PA disability
association
• An executive director of a small human services organization in
NE notes: “I try to sit on as many committees and commissions
as possible so I can try to influence public policy.”
26
Policy Participation
But some do not see public policy participation as
important, ethical, or a wise use of resources
• Many executive directors felt that spending time on lobbying
detracted from doing the work that they should or must be
doing – such things as fundraising, dealing with staff issues,
and day-to-day crises.
• “We simply don’t do those types of things,” said a faith-based
group in San Antonio, TX.
• “It is not our mission to engage in public policy. It is
inappropriate to lobby,” said a nonprofit executive of an
organization dealing with substance abuse in Sacramento, CA.
• Some board members do not fully understand the role charities
play with regard to public policy or actually have negative views
about them engaging in lobbying – or even advocacy.
27
Policy Participation
Even When Charities Engage in Policy They Do
Not Think of Themselves as Influencing
Policy
• 46% of survey respondents who said they “never
make any effort to influence government” also
identify themselves as “participators,” meaning they
either lobby or testify.
• This suggests that charities do not view their policy
participation as attempting to influence government.
• One recipient of our survey called to say that “our
organization is inappropriate for the study because
we’re not involved in public affairs.” Yet, when asked
if they deal with public officials, she said, “Oh yes, we
harass our state legislators all the time.”
28
Policy Participation
Most Groups that Lobby
Do Not Make it a Priority
Lobbying Frequency
• 3 of 5 respondents that
lobby say they do so at a
low level.
• A majority (33%) of low
level lobbyers do it at the
lowest level available on
the survey.
Highest
21%
Lowest
33%
High
20%
Low
26%
29
Policy Participation
Direct Lobbying Comparisons
By Different Types of Charities
(On a 0-4 Scale)
2.20
2.10
2.00
2.01
1.92
1.80
1.77
1.73
Survey average
1.60
1.57
1.40
1.20
1.25
1.16
1.15
1.00
.80
n
er
th
O n
io
ig py
el o
R th r
n
ila
n
Ph
tio
Ac
al
ci
So
n
io s
at ice
re rv
ec e
R nS
a
um
H
tio
t
lthen
eam
Hn
iro
v
En
ca
ts
Ar
u
Ed
.60
.77
30
Policy Participation
Grassroots Lobbying Comparisons
By Different Types of Charities
(On a 0 to 4 Scale)
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.0
Survey average
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.0
.9
n
er
th
O n
io
ig y
el op
R th r
n
ila
n
Ph
tio
Ac
al
ci
So
n
io s
a t ce
r e r vi
ec e
R nS
a
um
H
tio
t
lthen
ea
H nm
iro
v
En
ca
ts
Ar
u
Ed
.5
31
Policy Participation
Testifying Comparisons
By Different Types of Charities
(On a 0 to 4 Scale)
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.7
Survey average
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
.9
.5
.5
n
er
th
O n
io
ig y
el op
R hr
nt
ila
n
Ph
tio
Ac
al
ci
So
n
io s
a t ce
r e r vi
ec e
R nS
a
um
H
tio
t
lthen
ea
H nm
iro
v
En
ca
ts
Ar
u
Ed
0.0
32
FINDINGS:
Part C
Major Barriers and
Incentives
33
Barriers & Incentives
Money, tax rules, and staff skills are the top
three barriers to policy participation
81
Limited $
68
Tax law
64
Skills
55
Org Attitude
54
Public Attitude
52
Govt Funds
51
Attorneys/Acct
0
20
40
60
80
% Respondents Say It's A Barrier
100
34
Barriers & Incentives
Limited Funds as a Barrier by Type of Charity
(On a 0 to 4 Scale)
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
Survey average
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.6
n
t
lthen
ea
H nm
iro
tio
er
th
O n
io
ig py
el o
R hr
nt
ila
n
Ph
tio
Ac
al
ci
So
n
io s
at ice
re rv
ec e
R nS
a
um
H
v
En
ca
ts
Ar
u
Ed
1.4
1.5
35
Barriers & Incentives
Tax Law/Regulation as a Barrier
by Type of Charity
(On a 0 to 4 Scale)
1.70
1.65
1.60
1.61
1.55
1.53
1.50
1.45
1.46
1.46
1.40
1.43
1.35
1.36
Survey average
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.22
1.15
1.15
1.14
1.10
n
t
lthen
eam
Hn
iro
tio
er
th
O n
io
ig py
el o
R th r
n
ila
n
Ph
tio
Ac
al
ci
So
n
io s
at ice
re rv
ec e
R nS
a
um
H
v
En
ca
ts
Ar
u
Ed
1.05
1.00
36
Barriers & Incentives
Staff Skills as a Barrier by Type of Charity
(On a 0 to 4 Scale)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
Survey average
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
n
er
th
O n
io
ig y
el op
R hr
nt
ila
n
Ph
tio
Ac
al
ci
So
n
io s
at ce
re rvi
ec e
R nS
a
um
H
tio
t
lthen
ea
H nm
iro
v
En
ca
ts
Ar
u
Ed
.9
37
Barriers & Incentives
Role of Government Funding
Three of four respondents that get
government grants feel that government
funding is a barrier to their participating in
policy matters.
100
17
80
60
7
13
52
80
40
20
48
24
0
All
No Govt $
Respondents
No Barrier
Low Barrier
Government Funding as
Barrier by Amount of
Government Money
25
35
%
As government revenue increases so
does the barrier level.
Govt $
High Barrier
2
1.8
1.6
Level of
1.4
Barrier
1.2
on a 0
1
(None) to
0.8
4 (Major)
0.6
Scale
0.4
0.2
0
None
<10%
10-20% 20-50%
% of Revenue From Gov
>50%
38
Barriers & Incentives
Nonprofits raised major fear of government
retribution for engaging in public policy matters
• One human services director in TX noted that they expected
their state grant to be eliminated or cut because they lobbied an
opposite point of view of a legislative staffer who now works in
the state agency providing grants.
• One large voluntary organization claimed they “lost 80% of their
state grants because of lobbying.”
• One director of a health care provider in MA said, “Literally, you
take a position critical [of a policy], the next day the special audit
team from the state, they’re in all your records… [I]t’s very hard
to be an advocate when you’re dependent upon state money.”
• In MI, many supported the comment made by a participant that
“government grants can dilute advocacy.” A PA disability group
added: “If you [receive] government funding then there are
subtle ways government can coerce you. When this happens
our Board begins to tremble.”
39
Barriers & Incentives
Role of Foundations
Although 58% of respondents said that receiving foundation funds is not a barrier, it
is a barrier for certain types of groups.
Those that do not lobby see foundation
funding as a statistically significant barrier
when compared to those that do lobby.
Foundation Funding as Barrier
by Level of Lobbying
No Lobby
32
Low
Lobby
46
41
High
Lobby
28
0
1
Level of
Barrier 0.8
on a 0
0.6
(None) to
4 (Major) 0.4
Scale
0.2
24
40
%
High
Highest
60
Foundation Funding as Barrier by
Amount of Foundation Money
1.2
30
20
As the percentage of a charity’s revenue
from foundations increases so does the
perception that foundation revenue is a
barrier to lobbying.
80
0
None
<10%
10-20%
% of Foundation Revenue
>20%
40
Barriers & Incentives
It is perceived that foundations are reluctant to provide
resources for meaningful policy participation
•
Advocacy is ignored. The director of a health group in PA summed it up:
“Foundations are interested in national advocacy but not in supporting it
locally… They want to have a national impact.” Yet national groups also say
foundations do not support advocacy.
•
Advocacy is restricted. As a TN human services group said, “All the
major foundations have a clause [in grant letters] that says you cannot do any
lobbying with their money, every one of them.”
•
It takes a crisis. The director of a MN housing program echoed a
common refrain: “In the past, they [foundations] have denied us [grants]. But
now the housing situation here is getting so desperate that they realize that
they need to get behind the advocates.”
• There is no consistent support. A national arms control organization
noted that even when foundations do provide support for advocacy or
lobbying, they don’t understand the need for continued support. “Foundations
will fund something for a few years…Unfortunately, two or three years is not
how change works. They want instant gratification… Foundations think there
is an instant solution for social problems.”
41
Barriers & Incentives
Ironically, as government and foundation
revenues increase, respondents tend to become
more involved in policy matters
Policy Participation by
Foundation Revenue
Policy Participation by
Government Revenue
Govt $
No Govt $
95
n
datio
n
u
o
F
77
N
60
70
80
90
% Participating
100
91
$
ion $
t
a
d
un
o Fo
60
81
70
80
90
100
% Participating
42
Barriers & Incentives
What Motivates Policy Involvement?
Support Org Mission
23
Raise Issue Awareness
23
15
24
Defend Advocacy Rights
18
19
20
Degree of Motivation
High
72
52
Obtain Govt $
0
75
52
20
Protect Programs
81
58
39
37
40
60
80
100
% of Respondents
Highest
43
Barriers & Incentives
Impact of Perceived Government Interest in Your
Organization on Policy Policy Participation
100
90
80
70
% Participating
Respondents that
believe
government
officials are
interested in their
organization tend
to participate
more in public
policy matters
60
50
94.8
94.3
86.3
40
70.4
30
20
10
0
s
ly
ime
ea l
t
R
e
t
No
Som
a lly
Usu
Level of Interest
y
Ver
44
Barriers & Incentives
0 (never) to 4 (high) Scale
Participation Level
Policy participation, by all measures, is significantly
higher as the number of government initiated contacts to
any staff member increases
4
Type of Policy Participation by Number of
Government Initiated Contacts
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Testify
Lobby
# of Govt Initiated Contacts
None
<2
2 to 3
Indirect
Lobby
>3
Release
Research
Meet w/
Govt
45
Barriers & Incentives
Budget Size is a Great Predictor
of Policy Participation
Participation by Budget Size
100
90
% Participating
Respondents with
annual expenses
of $1 million or
more are
significantly more
likely to
participate in
policy than those
with expenses
below $1 million.
80
70
60
50
<$25K
$25$100K
$100K$499K
$500K$1M
$1M$2.5M
$2.5M$5M
$5M$10M
>$10M
46
Barriers & Incentives
Staff Size is a Predictor
of Policy Participation
Participation by Staff Size
100
90
% Participating
As organization
size increases by
number of staff,
respondents
participate more
in public policy.
80
70
60
1 or Less
2 to 3
4 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 25
Over 25
47
Barriers & Incentives
Respondents that
belong to
associations that
100
represent them
before
government are
80
more likely to
participate in
public policy
% 60
matters
Respondents
Role Of Membership in Associations
95
76
that are 40
Participators
20
0
Represented
Not Represented
48
Barriers & Incentives
Policy participation remains high regardless of whether respondents are
represented by a local, state or national organization.
However, the frequency of participation is significantly higher when the respondent
belongs to a national organization. Direct lobbying is significantly higher when you
belong to either a state or national organization.
Types of Associations &
Participation
98
96
95
90
80
70
2.2
Participation
(0-4 Scale)
% Participation
100
Type of Association and Frequency of
Participation
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
60
Direct Grassroots Testify Release
Lobby
Lobby
Research
50
Local
State
National
Local
State
Natl
49
Barriers & Incentives
Number of Times Per Month Contacted by
Associations to Take Action
Two-thirds of
respondents that
belong to
associations that
represent them
before
government are
asked once a
month or less to
contact
policymakers
60
57
50
40
%
30
23
20
12
10
8
0
4 or More
2 to 3
1 or Less
Never
50
Barriers & Incentives
Ask and You
Shall Receive
As frequency of
requests to take
action are made
by associations,
respondents
increase the
number of times
they act upon the
request.
When contacted 4
or more times per
month, 78% of
respondents take
2 or more actions
per month.
How Often Respondents Act Upon Requests by
Associations to Take Action
Contact and Actions Per Month
Never
Act
Act 1 or Act 2 to
Less
3 Times
Act 4 or
More
Never Contacted
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Contact 1 or Less
8.5%
90.0%
1.3%
0.2%
Contacted 2-3 Times
4.7%
47.9%
46.9%
0.5%
Contacted 4 or More
1.9%
20.3%
33.0%
44.7%
51
FINDINGS:
Part D
Understanding the
Rules
52
Understanding the Rules
There is a broad understanding of some of the
general laws and regulations governing policy
participation
• 94% know they cannot use federal funds to lobby
• 91% know they can talk to elected officials about
public policy matters
• 87% know they cannot endorse candidates for office
• 82% know they can take policy positions without
referencing specific legislation
53
Understanding the Rules
Two areas in which education is still needed deal
with key components of policy participation
• Only 72% know they can support or oppose
federal legislation
• Only 79% know they can support or oppose
federal regulations
54
Understanding the Rules
Two areas that present potential major
problems for respondents
• 50% thought they could not lobby if part of their
budget comes from federal funds
• 43% thought they could not sponsor a forum or
debate featuring candidates for office
55
Understanding the Rules
Understanding of federal lobbying laws and
rules is not very deep and fairly limited
• Even in focus groups of high participators, most
executives did not know basic information about
lobby laws, such as how much lobbying they can
do or even what constitutes lobbying by IRS
definitions.
• Board members and foundation staff, in
particular, do not have a good understanding of
lobby rules.
56
Understanding the Rules
Correct Answers to Survey Questions
by Type of Charity
7.0
(Maximum correct is 8)
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.3
6.0
6.2
Survey average
6.1
5.9
5.5
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.9
4.9
n
er
th
O n
io
ig y
el op
R th r
n
ila
n
Ph
tio
Ac
al
ci
So
n
io s
at ice
re rv
ec e
R nS
a
um
H
tio
t
lthen
ea
H nm
iro
v
En
ca
ts
Ar
u
Ed
4.5
57
Understanding the Rules
Elected officials do not understand the rules
faced by 501(c)(3) organizations
• During focus groups, executive directors in
different cities spontaneously raised concern
about pressure that politicians put on them for
organizational campaign contributions, even
though charities are prohibited from making such
contributions.
• Many directors choose to make personal
campaign contributions because they are worried
that it might affect the organization’s ability to
raise policy issues with the elected official.
58
FINDINGS:
Part E
Who Makes the
Decisions
59
Who Makes the
Decisions
Is There a Person who
Has Public Policy
Responsibility?
Who is That Person?
58
Director
32
Staff
27
Board
No
27%
Yes
73%
Lobbyist
18
Board Cmtte
18
9
Volunteer
0
20
40
% Reporting
Public Policy Responsibility
60
60
Who Makes the
Decisions
Who Has the Most Influence in Decision-Making?
Exec Dir
Board Chair
Board
Staff
Donors
Other
0
1
2
3
4
Average Influence on a 0 (low) to 4 (high) Scale
Govt Relations
Program Strategy/Implementation
61
Who Makes the
Decisions
• The executive director has the most influence regarding
government relations and is most often identified as the
person with responsibility for public policy.
• Yet organizations with an executive director in charge of
public policy are statistically less likely to engage in all
forms of public policy participation – testifying, direct
lobbying, grassroots lobbying, and releasing research to
policymakers.
• Organizations where either a lobbyist or staff are in
charge of public policy are significantly more likely to be
engaged in public policy than when the executive director
or a board member is in charge of public policy.
62
Who Makes the
Decisions
• The executive director is most often identified as the person
with responsibility for public policy
• Policy participation is significantly higher when such
responsibility is entrusted to others
Rank Order of Charity’s Participation by Type of Person
Responsible for Public Policy
(1 = Highest; 6 = Lowest)
Testifying
Direct
Lobbying
Grassroots
Lobbying
Releasing
Research
Lobbyist
1
1
1
2
Staff
2
2
4
1
Board Committee
3
3
2
4
Volunteer
4
4
3
3
Executive Director
5
5
6
5
Board Member
6
6
5
6
63
FINDINGS:
Part F
Use of Technology
64
Use of Technology
90% of respondents use email, while 63% use it
for public policy purposes
Fax
94
68
Email
90
63
Web
84
45
73
Phone Conf
44
Video Conf
6
14
Internet Video 12
0
Policy
General
20
40
60
80
100
% Using
65
Use of Technology
Organization Size and Use of Email:
A Digital Divide?
Use of Email by Budget Size
As budget size
increases so does
use of email,
including for
public policy.
90
% Using
87% of
respondents not
using email have
annual expenses
of less than $1
million.
100
80
70
60
50
<$100K
$100K$500K
$500K$1MIL
$1MIL$2.5MIL
$2.5MIL$5MIL
$5MIL$10MIL
$10MIL or
more
66
Use of Technology
Use of Email and Lobbying
To what extent do those who use email
engage in lobbying?
As use of email
increases, it is
significantly more
likely that
respondents
lobby.
However, use of
email is not a
good predictor of
frequency of
lobbying.
45
40
35
30
25
%
Lobbying 20
15
10
5
0
44
34
22
No Lobby
Low Lobby High Lobby
67
Section IV:
IMPLICATIONS AND
NEXT STEPS
68
Implications & Next Steps
Addressing Barriers to Participation is Vital
• There are persistent barriers to public policy
participation that nonprofits face that must be
addressed if there is to be a robust civil society
• Even when motivated, many are not ready,
lacking organizational infrastructure and staff
skills
• However, some nonprofits, particularly those
providing direct services, view policy participation
as beyond their scope
69
Implications & Next Steps
The Challenge:
Turning the Extraordinary into
the Ordinary
Ordinary Tasks
• Service Delivery
• Fundraising
• Staff Issues
• Responding to Dayto-Day Issues
• Administration
Extraordinary Tasks
• Lobbying
• Testifying
• Policy Advocacy
It is essential to help nonprofits understand that public policy
participation is as important as other day-to-day organizational activities
70
Implications & Next Steps
Some of the Key Training Needs
• Organizational capacity building for public policy
• Government grant rules on lobbying
– Although 1/3 of nonprofit revenue comes from
government, 50% of nonprofits don’t know they can
engage in advocacy if they get government grants.
– Focus groups show that understanding of lobby
restrictions under grant rules is very poor
• Lobby and advocacy rules
– Nearly 30% of nonprofits do not know they can lobby and
advocate. Moreover, focus groups show the understanding
of the laws and regulations is not very good – even among
those who are very engaged in public policy.
– Nonprofits need to better understand the rules around
electoral activity, particularly since many are being asked for
candidate endorsements
• How to lobby and advocate effectively
71
Implications & Next Steps
Other Important Issues
• The rules regarding lobbying and advocacy need to
be simplified in order to encourage greater
participation
• Different strokes for different folks. Not all nonprofits
have the same needs with regards to strengthening
public policy participation. Training and technical
assistance should be differentiated for the audience.
• Foundation staff need a better understanding of the
importance of nonprofit public policy participation and
the legal opportunities for funding advocacy activities.
• Training board members on the importance of public
policy participation is very important and largely nonexistent.
72
Implications & Next Steps
Schedule for Future Actions
Summer
• Report on public policy participation of health organizations
• Report on use of email and technology for public policy
• Testing of website, NPAction.org, a resource center for information
about nonprofit public policy participation and use of technology
Fall
• Comprehensive report based on this Overview data
Winter/Spring
• Reports on various types of nonprofits
• Special analyses
• Public release of NPAction.org
• Release of book on advocacy incorporating SNAP data
73
Section V:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
74
SNAP Advisors & Partners
Advisors
Jim Abernathy
Audrey Alvarado
Nancy Amidei
Marcia Avner
Srilatha Batliwala
Robert A. Boisture
Neil Carlson
Porthira Chhim
Rick Cohen
Pat Conover
Pablo Eisenberg
DeeAnn Friedholm
Joe Geiger
Matthew Hamill
Kim Hsieh
Frances Kunreuther
Jeff Kirsch
Focus Group Partners
Sharon Ladin
Jim Masters
John McNutt
Debra Minkoff
Rick Moyers
Thomas P. Pollak
Susan Rees
Elizabeth Reid
Judith Saidel
Doug Sauer
Margery Saunders
Cinthia H. Schuman
Peter Shiras
Vince Stehle
Debbie Stein
Carmen Delgado Votaw
Susan Weiner
California Association of Nonprofits
Council of Michigan Foundations
Massachusetts League of Community
Health Centers
Michigan Nonprofit Association
Minnesota Council of Nonprofits
McConnell Foundation
Nonprofit Resource Center
Tennessee Conference for Social
Welfare
United Ways of Texas
Special Thank You
National Center for Charitable Statistics
Jeff Krehely
Elizabeth Rowland
Amy Stackpole
Heather Gorski
Tom Troyer
75
SNAP Supporting
Organizations
• Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector Research
Fund
• Atlantic Philanthropies
• Nathan Cummings Foundation
• Ford Foundation
• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
• David and Lucile Packard Foundation
• Surdna Foundation
76
SNAP Project Team
OMB Watch
Tufts University
Gary D. Bass
Executive Director
Jeffrey M. Berry
Professor
Kay Guinane
Manager, Community Education Center
Kent Portney
Professor
Matthew Carter
Policy Analyst
Erin Desmarais, Catherine Ma, Louis
Tavaras, and Mo Twine
Project Assistants
Ryan Turner
Coordinator NPAction.org
Barbara J. Western
Assistant to the Executive Director
Melissa Brennan
Administrative Assistant
Former employees Patrick Lemmon,
Heather Hamilton, and Kelly Patterson
Charity Lobbying in the
Public Interest
David Arons
Co-Director (& SNAP Project Director)
Bob Smucker
Co-Director
Carolyn Nelson
Project Assistant
77