Time for Cooler Heads and Warmer Hearts

December 11, 2014

Just when Congress was on the verge of a bipartisan and bicameral agreement to do something positive for people who are hungry and in need of assistance in local communities across America, the White House issued a statement saying that President Obama’s “senior advisors would recommend that he veto” the Supporting America’s Charities Act (H.R. 5806), which would restore and make three charitable giving incentives permanent. In the House, some Democrats are considering a no vote on this previously bipartisan, common sense legislation.


It is inconceivable that our President – the former community organizer who understands the plight of the hungry, ran on a platform of ending partisanship, and has vetoed only two bills during his six years in office – would veto a bipartisan bill that is designed to help Americans help their neighbors.

Therefore, it would seem that the advisors’ threat to urge the President to violate his own values and veto this needed bill was the result of one of two causes. Either the veto recommendation was made out of lack of understanding that the larger so-called “one-year” extenders bill that the House passed last week provides only a couple of weeks of relief for charitable nonprofits. Or it was the result of knee-jerk partisanship. Neither is acceptable.

One Year Is Only a Couple of Weeks

That “one-year” retroactive extenders package with 55 provisions certainly helps for-profit businesses and individual taxpayers for a full year; a for-profit business that spent money on research last summer can retroactively take a credit, and individuals can deduct local and state taxes they paid last spring.

But extending the expired charitable giving incentives is of little value to the work of charitable nonprofits, because the incentives would be helpful for only a couple of weeks:  from the time the President signs that bill until the end of the year. The concept of “retroactive incentives” is an oxymoron that doesn’t fit in the charitable context:

  • Fresh produce and meat that was available on loading docks last March can’t retroactively be donated next week to feed hungry Americans.
  • Older Americans can’t retroactively donate money they’ve already spent out of their Individual Retirement Accounts, having not waited all year to find out whether Congress would finally restore the expired giving incentive.
  • Those wanting to donate land to protect the environment for future generations certainly need more than a couple of weeks to arrange for lawyers, surveyors, and more to pull together all the paperwork. 

That’s why a separate bill was needed to take these needed incentives for charitable giving out of the annual on-again/off-again partisan fray and provide certainty into the future.  Republican House Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp and the Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden – who have battled each other earlier over other matters – decided at the end of this congressional session to unite on a bipartisan basis to provide real relief in local communities through the Supporting America’s Charities Act (H.R. 5806). These leaders should be commended for agreeing to agree, for a change that benefits all of our communities.

Why would any Representative oppose something that will help their communities?

Some claim that they’ve already passed an extenders bill. But this is no mere “check-the-box” exercise.

As shown, the so-called “one-year” extenders package is flawed when dealing with charitable giving incentives. Real people in communities will be hurt by blocking these key provisions.

Some ask, “why these provisions and not others?” It is because these provisions go to the heart of our communities and are non-controversial. There is broad support on both sides of the aisle. Trying to include more has already failed repeatedly in this Congress. Blocking something good at the very end of the session because something even better could not be achieved is not leadership.

Or perhaps the partisan rancor is so entrenched that politics comes before people. I hope that’s not the case. Nonprofits are the nonpartisan sector. It would be a shame to treat people in communities, and the overextended nonprofits assisting them, as pawns in a partisan political game. Especially when 56 House Democrats joined with 221 Republicans in voting for a similar bill on a bipartisan basis last summer.

Delay in making any of these giving incentives serves no public or policy goal, but limits the ability of nonprofits to achieve their missions, whether through feeding people who are hungry, conserving land for future generations, or addressing myriad other needs in communities across America.

We call on Congress and the White House advisors to work for the American people with cooler heads and warmer hearts.  Do the right thing by supporting America’s charities in serving their local communities.  Vote for and sign H.R. 5806, the Supporting America’s Charities Act.

Using Data to Drive Solutions to Government-Nonprofit Contracting Challenges (Part 2)

May 2, 2014

Faced with overwhelming data from NFF and others that government-nonprofit contracting systems are creating costly and unnecessary challenges throughout the country, a number of state associations of nonprofits, in partnership with their respective governments, are working to fix these problems. These efforts seek to eliminate waste and streamline processes while still maintaining, and even increasing, accountability. The results, while still evolving, are an impressive array of common-sense solutions that can be replicated at the local, state, and federal levels.


Already, we are seeing a variety of strategies being implemented, all developed through joint efforts between nonprofits and government, and all designed to eliminate the problems that the data demonstrate exist. These fixes are not difficult and many are inexpensive. They include:

  • standardized contracts: to reduce the need for reinventing the same wheel over and over again
  • the creation of document vaults:  that allow nonprofits to submit common supporting documents once, rather than re-file the same things repeatedly, and allow taxpayers to pay for storage in one spot rather than dozens of places
  • consolidation of monitoring and audits: one audit to look at everything instead of five audits to look at the same documents, again)
  • centralized contracting and grant offices: which promotes consistency

While most of the action is in the states, there is also progress at the federal level to remedy these issues. In late December 2013, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released newUniform Guidance for federal grants. The Uniform Guidance is designed to streamline grant processes and practices—and help organizations better cover their costs.


Year after year, NFF’s data have shown how far short government and others fall from truly covering the full costs of the programs they support. Unfortunately, government is the furthest behind the curve, with 40% or more of respondents saying that government funding never covers full costs.

The Uniform Guidance released in December 2013 mandated–for the first time ever–that federal agencies (and non-federal entities using federal money to pay for services) negotiate indirect cost rates based on the nonprofit’s real costs or, at the nonprofit’s election, reimburse nonprofits a minimum of 10 percent of their modified total direct costs. In essence, the new Uniform Guidance recognizes the legitimacy and importance of indirect costs for organizations to be effective, as well as the government's responsibility to cover the costs of services it purchases.

As I stated in my previous blog posting , the data validate the depth of the contracting problems and give momentum to efforts to reform government contracting and grant systems.  The data are informing the decision-making process by helping to ensure that the identified solutions are developed based on actual, rather than perceived, problems. 

Yet data defining the problems and solutions addressing them are not enough. The key, and often lacking, ingredients are nonprofit awareness and engagement. Nonprofits that perform services on behalf of governments through contracts and grants frequently accept the status quo, thinking that the problems are of their own making or have concerns about rocking the boat. As shown, gathering collective data demonstrate that these problems are not isolated instances, and actions by state associations of nonprofits and others are showing that solutions are at hand. Yet we can only create positive change when nonprofits work together with their government partners to turn data and ideas into actions. Stay informed about the progress of these efforts or get involved and strengthen the case for reform by sharing your nonprofit’s stories with your state association of nonprofits.

Beth Bowsky is Policy Specialist - Government-Nonprofit Contracting for the National Council of Nonprofits, a trusted resource and advocate for America’s nonprofits.

Bringing Data to the Government-Nonprofit Contracting Debate (Part 1)

April 28, 2014

Despite what we’d like to think, things aren’t getting much better for the nonprofit sector. That’s what the findings from the recently-released 2014 Nonprofit Finance Fund (NFF) State of the Sector Survey revealed.

For decades, issues related to outdated, redundant, and cumbersome government-nonprofit contracting and grant processes, and their effect on nonprofit organizations, have been anecdotal. Those with government contracts and grants know the reality all too well—contracting and grant practices are fraught with unnecessary costs for both governments and nonprofits, diverting resources from mission. Duplicative application and reporting requirements, such as multiple audits of the same records, continue to strain the nonprofit infrastructure. These redundant processes create added costs for nonprofits to respond, and costs to taxpayers for duplicative reviews.

For too long, the extent of the problems and their impact remained undocumented and uncertain, with the stories from nonprofit leaders often believed to be exaggerated or merely anecdotal. It’s only in the past few years that we have actual data to prove the problems. The annual State of the Sector surveys conducted by NFF and data from the Urban Institute’s research measure and document the negative impact that broken government-nonprofit contracting systems have on the nonprofit sector. These are no longer just anecdotes, but undeniable trends that demand attention.

A Closer Look at the NFF Survey

Consistent with experiences of those working day in and day out in their communities, the 2014 NFF Survey reveals that demand for services continues to increase, while the ability of nonprofits to meet growing needs continues to decline. Fifty-six percent of nonprofits responding to the survey say they are not able to meet the growing demand for services, the highest level ever reported in this survey. Even more startling is that 87 percent of lifeline organizations — those nonprofits helping the most vulnerable in our communities with their most basic needs — report the need for services is still growing. What’s more, they expect the demand, as well as their financial challenges, to be even more difficult to meet in 2014.

Many of the problems nonprofits are experiencing relate to government-nonprofit contracting and grant practices. While demand for services is increasing, almost half of those surveyed said that federal and state government funds they receive for providing services have declined over the past five years. Three out of four reported that government funds have remained the same or declined.


Twenty-four percent say reimbursements for indirect costs have declined during these same five years. Almost two-thirds rarely or never receive enough to cover their actual costs. Further adding to the difficulties, more than half of nonprofits surveyed said that payments from all levels of government are late. Practices that force nonprofits to continually operate in this “survival mode” compromise their ability to be effective and efficient in serving their communities.


The data from NFF and the Urban Institute measure and document the effects of government-nonprofit contracting systems that have become increasingly dysfunctional over the years, resulting in processes that now contain unnecessary and burdensome requirements that add to costs for both nonprofits and governments.

Although there is still a great deal of work to do, this substantive data is providing the impetus for several states to begin reforming their contracting and grant systems. In the next blog, I’ll discuss solutions and progress that states have made to work toward better processes for government, nonprofits, and communities. Stay informed about the progress of these efforts or get involved and strength the case for reform by sharing your nonprofit’s stories with your state association of nonprofits.

Beth Bowsky is Policy Specialist - Government-Nonprofit Contracting for the National Council of Nonprofits, a trusted resource and advocate for America’s nonprofits

What is the biggest threat to nonprofit missions that no one is talking about?

November 19, 2013

This question is quite timely, given increasing community needs. The Nonprofit Finance Fund’s nationwide research found that in 2012, for the first time in the history of that organization’s surveys, a majority of nonprofits reported that they could not meet the increased demands for their services. And that was before the first round of sequestration cuts and the recent federal shutdown shifted more burdens onto nonprofits and thereby foundations.

First, help your grantees see the growing external threats to their (and your) missions.

Since the Great Recession began, all levels of government have been shifting their own financial burdens onto nonprofits and foundations. They’ve done so by:

Every dollar that governments divert from nonprofit missions is a dollar that nonprofits must raise elsewhere. But the math just doesn’t add up.

According to Giving USA 2012 and Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2012, the nonprofit sector as a whole receives almost half (49.6%) of its revenue from earned income (such as tuition, payments for health care, and ticket sales). Government is the second largest source of revenue (32.2%), paying nonprofits to deliver contracted services on behalf of governments. Private philanthropy provides the third largest collective amount of funding through giving from individuals (9.6%), foundations (2%), bequests (0.9%), and corporations (0.8%).

With foundations giving two percent of the total, each foundation would have to give 16 times more every year to replace government spending. That, of course, cannot happen, yet many policymakers assume that nonprofits and foundations can magically fill the gaps. The math proves how misguided that thinking is.

You can help your grantees learn about federal, state, and local public policy developments across the country that affect nonprofits by encouraging them to take advantage of the Council of Nonprofits’ free, bi-weekly newsletter, Nonprofit Advocacy Matters, at http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/news/e-newsletters.

Second, focus on state, not federal.

The real action is in the states, not D.C. During this session of Congress, only 46 laws have been enacted, while this year state legislatures have enacted or adopted more than 39,500 laws. Consequently, to protect and advance their missions, nonprofits and foundations must invest more attention and funding to state policy matters.

To illustrate the danger, while many nonprofits and foundations have focused exclusively on federal threats to charitable giving incentives, several state legislatures quietly pursued similar limitations. Fortunately, our state associations of nonprofits and allies prevented that from happening this year in Hawai’i, Oregon, Minnesota, Kansas, and North Carolina through advocacy efforts that demonstrated to legislators how vital charitable giving is to communities.

There is safety in numbers. Encourage your grantees to join the state association of nonprofits in their state. (Your foundation can join, too, as well as provide funding that leverages your contribution to help all nonprofits in your state.)

Third, provide general operating support rather than just narrow program dollars.

Help your grantees by contributing general operating support grants that allow them to be nimble in responding to external forces and engage in policy work that threatens their (and your) missions.

Fourth, demand more.

For too long, too many attorneys for private foundations have encouraged use of outdated boilerplate language in grant award letters that scare grantees away from doing anypolicy-related work. Such overreaching language is unnecessary and inhibits the ability of nonprofits to solve root causes of problems. Review your grant award letters; if they contain language discouraging grantees from engaging in advocacy, tell your legal advisors to adjust the language like other foundations do to allow charitable nonprofits to defend against harmful policy proposals.

Fifth, give encouragement.

The grueling pace of the last five years has taken a serious toll on many nonprofit leaders. Perhaps the greatest gifts you can provide right now are moral support and encouragement to be champions for their missions by telling their stories to policymakers and the media.

Nonprofits and foundations cannot continue to ignore or avoid public policy threats that endanger their missions. Your support can help charitable nonprofits to see that advocacy is core to advancing their missions – which also helps protect and keep philanthropic resources where they belong – supporting philanthropic missions, not filling government coffers.

Nonprofits' Work to Prevent Bad Acts Is Never Done

November 11, 2013

Nonprofit leaders know that even one dollar diverted from a nonprofit's mission is too much. In an era when more than half of nonprofits surveyed reported that they didn't have resources to meet the increased demands for their services last year, individual nonprofits can't afford any fraud. And the sector as a whole can't afford the reputational damage from even the hint of fraud.

Recent headlines in The Washington Post and elsewhere cast doubt on nonprofits' stewardship of their finances. Such headlines can mislead casual readers into believing that the sector is rife with problems, when in fact it is not. Nonetheless, nonprofit leaders should renew our resolve to get to an ideal world where the number of nonprofits that are victims of fraud is down to zero.

What can we do? First, take this seriously; use the Post's article as a blaring wake-up call that bad actors can infiltrate and hurt even the best nonprofits. You cannot have an attitude that "it can't happen here," because it can happen anywhere. The nonprofit featured by the Post, the American Legacy Foundation, was created by state Attorneys General as a result of their victorious case against tobacco companies in the 1990s, and many current and former Attorneys General have served on the Foundation's board. They would be the last to countenance fraud. If it can happen to them, it can happen to you. (Full disclosure: I was a senior official in a state Attorney General's office when the American Legacy Foundation was established.)

Second, every nonprofit should pull out your existing ethics and accountability materials, discuss them with staff and board members as a refresher of your "zero tolerance" policy, and explore ways to update and improve the materials. If your nonprofit has not yet adopted an accountability program, then do so now. Programs such as Principles and Practices for Nonprofit Excellence and Standards for Excellence: An Ethics and Accountability Code for the Nonprofit Sector offered by many state associations of nonprofits across the country equip nonprofits with proven practices for effective nonprofit governance. Another resource is Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice: A Guide for Charities and Foundations by Independent Sector. The key to success is not the particular plans as much as creating a culture of ethics; having group discussions about which program would be the best for your organization will set the right tone for a positive culture.

Third, we need to expand the work of GuideStar, the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, and Charity Navigator to combat the "overhead myth." The costs for accountability and ethics programs count as "overhead" that too often gets short-changed. Getting governments, foundations, and individual donors out of the mindset that administrative costs are bad and seeing them instead as an essential investment in the core infrastructure of organizations is vital to the health and protection of nonprofits and those they serve.

Also, although individual nonprofits cannot formally police other nonprofits, we all can reinforce our sector's expectation of high ethics. How? One way is to share ethics and accountability materials with colleagues in other nonprofits. It doesn't have to be an exhausting campaign; if each nonprofit board member and CEO proactively reached out to just two other organizations to share an accountability or ethics resource, that supportive act reinforces mutuality of expectations.

Now that immediate responses dispelling the Post's headline have been published and more balanced in-depth and detailed analyses reported, it's time for nonprofits to pivot to broader efforts to rid the sector of bad actors. Although the tenor of headlines are often salacious, we can still learn from the underlying data developed by The Washington Post, the Tampa Bay Times, and The New York World. They reveal harm from certain categories of individuals injuring nonprofits and the public (e.g., self-dealing investment advisors, private fundraising telemarketers draining dollars through nonprofit shells to line their personal pockets, and corrupt politicians abusing nonprofits they control to funnel public money to themselves or their families). Such bad actors must be stopped.

Nonprofit leaders and state charity regulators share similar goals here, so collaboration to protect the public and nonprofit resources is essential. Therefore, we extend our hand of support to the National Association of State Charity Officials to work together as state-level partners to develop solutions that target the bad actors preying on the public by misusing the good name of charity.

Without the public's trust and confidence, charitable nonprofits will not be able to fully deliver on their missions to serve their communities. Nonprofit board members, leaders, funders, volunteers, donors, and regulators are all in this together, so let's take proactive steps to prevent fraud and ensure that nonprofits are living up to the high standards the public expects and deserves.

Nonprofits Must Respond Swiftly to Critical News Stories

October 29, 2013

For the second time in recent months, a major newspaper has overreached to give all nonprofits a black eye by publishing an article essentially questioning the integrity of nonprofits that have been victimized by fraud or unfortunate circumstances.

On Sunday, the Washington Post’s Web site promised to take readers “inside the hidden world of thefts, scams, and phantom purchases at the nation’s nonprofits.” That came after the Center for Investigative Reporting and the Tampa Bay Times this summer declared “America’s 50 worst charities rake in nearly $1-billion for corporate fundraisers.”

Both stories show that nonprofits were victims of fraud and unethical acts by individuals, but the stories slanted the presentation to make it sound as if nonprofits were the perpetrators. Indeed, most of the organizations mentioned in the 50 worst charities series are extreme outliers, apparently set up primarily to funnel money to professional fundraisers while using names meant to evoke more established legitimate charitable organizations.

In The Washington Post story, the reporters had access to more than a million tax forms nonprofits filed over four years. They found that 1,000 nonprofits checked yes in response to a question on those returns about whether their group had suffered a “diversion of assets.”

Using that tiny percentage, the article then gave the misimpression that the nonprofit world is rife with “financial skullduggery,” when in fact it was the approximately 1,000 nonprofits themselves that were the victims of scams by for-profit vendors, employee theft, and outside investment advisers.

No matter how much we dislike the ill-informed and negative slant of pieces that appear in the press, it’s important to recognize what the public is saying about them. In both cases, people are making comments on the online stories saying they will never donate to a charity again.

Thus, we cannot sit on the sidelines silently when false or misleading statements are made about our integrity and the work we do helping people and solving problems in our local communities.

Here are four ideas every nonprofit should try to advance as they seek to educate the local and national press about how we really work:

  • Nonprofits are transparent. Nonprofits make disclosure and openness a badge of honor. The Forms 990 that were used for these and other articles are available to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most private companies don’t make nearly as much information available to the public. Many nonprofits prominently display their commitment to transparency on their Web sites by posting their federal filings for all to see.
  • Fraud can happen to anyone—even law-enforcement officials. The Post played down two key facts about the main nonprofit cited in its investigation: the American Legacy Fund was established by state attorneys general as part of the settlement of the states’ lawsuit against tobacco companies, and state attorneys general (current and former) continue to occupy many seats on the fund’s board. If the attorneys general, who know what to look for, could not prevent fraud from happening or know to intervene while it was happening, that shows that it can happen anywhere to any organization, even those with knowledgeable leaders and the best of intentions. (Full disclosure: I was a senior official in a state attorney general’s office when the Legacy Fund was established.)
  • Nonprofits’ work to prevent fraud and promote ethics is never done. All nonprofits must continue to be aggressive in promoting ethical conduct and financial transparency. The nonprofit community must earn the public’s trust every day not only by complying with the law but also by modeling and promoting integrity, transparency, and accountability.
  • Overhead costs are essential to nonprofit operations. Putting administrative control systems in place to prevent fraud (through training and deterrence) costs money, yet too often grant makers say their money can be used to pay only for “programs” without recognizing or helping to defray administrative costs essential for program delivery. Similarly, many government contracts with nonprofits prevent reimbursement of such overhead costs.

As newspapers have cut back their staffs, fewer and fewer reporters possess a deep understanding of how nonprofits work. That’s why it is essential for nonprofits to make working with the news media a regular advocacy tool to advance and protect your nonprofit’s mission. Every misleading article is an attack that makes it harder to bring in resources needed to do good work.

So no matter what your organization’s mission, reach out to a local reporter today. Show him or her not just the impact your nonprofit is making in the community but also a shining example of good governance and transparency that is a hallmark of the nonprofit community.

Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post

October 28, 2013

Dear Editor,

The Washington Post’s lead story in this Sunday’s paper, “Inside the hidden world of thefts, scams and phantom purchases at the nation’s nonprofits,” does an extraordinary disservice to nonprofits, the communities they serve, and the people who support them.

All the article does is punish nonprofits that have done the right thing. An examination of the disclosures of those nonprofits listed shows that most were victims of improper actions, not the perpetrators. Furthermore, it demonstrates how those nonprofits’ internal controls identified and dealt with the issues caused by others. Stories such as this undercut public trust when in fact nonprofits have been open and transparent.

Nonprofits take pride in the degree of transparency that made the data behind this article readily available. In fact, many nonprofits participate in Principles and Practices or Standards for Excellence programs administered by state associations of nonprofits to go above and beyond what is legally required. Charitable nonprofits should be commended for this transparency, not attacked for it.

What Do Government Shutdowns Mean to Nonprofits and Philanthropy?

October 15, 2013

The federal government shutdown is the latest example of maneuvers by politicians at the local, state, and federal levels that force charitable nonprofits and private philanthropy to subsidize government. Nonprofits and philanthropy need to open our eyes, analyze the mounting dangers from this transfer of government responsibilities, and rally together to stop the assaults on our missions and viability.

Indirect Maneuvers That Shift Burdens to Nonprofits and Philanthropy

The partial closure of the federal government is yet another attempt to offload public responsibilities onto private philanthropy and nonprofits. In 2008, after the Great Recession hit, politicians at all levels of government began making severe austerity cuts to reduce or eliminate government spending. Since then, they have cut $1.3 trillion in spending – but they haven’t simultaneously reduced human needs.

When politicians stop funding basic human services, education, et cetera – whether through specific program cuts, arbitrary cuts through sequestration, or the current shutdown – they shift massive burdens onto the backs of innocent charities. They seem to expect that we will always fill the gap. Yet the math doesn’t work.

According to research in Giving USA 2012 and Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2012, the nonprofit sector as a whole receives almost half (49.6%) of its revenue from earned income (such as tuition, payments for health care, and ticket sales). Government is the second largest source of revenue (32.2%), paying nonprofits to deliver contracted services on behalf of governments. Private philanthropy provides the third largest collective amount of funding through giving from individuals (9.6%), foundations (2%), bequests (0.9%), and corporations (0.8%).

Every dollar that government cuts from contracted services is a dollar that charities must raise elsewhere. Every program delivered directly by government that gets cut results in more individuals turning to nonprofits. And every government employee who loses his or her job due to cuts produces another family with increased needs – and another cost shifted from government to charities.

When cutting funding without eliminating needs, politicians are effectively walking into foundation board rooms to divert foundation giving away from the arts, civil rights, the environment, and other causes that the foundations support and reallocate those private dollars to fund public obligations for basic human services that the politicians abandoned. Philanthropy alone cannot fill the vast and growing gaps.

Direct Maneuvers That Take Resources from Nonprofits and Philanthropy

Since the onset of the Great Recession, nonprofits have seen politicians make calculated decisions to take money away from nonprofit missions. These intentional moves shove more financial burdens onto charities and philanthropy as governments:

Again, policymakers expect nonprofits and philanthropy to magically fill the gaps they create.

Dangers Lurking in the States

The dysfunction of Washington politicians has diverted attention away from significant threats to charitable nonprofits that have been erupting in states and municipalities across the country. During this session of Congress, only 41 laws have been enacted, while this year state legislatures have enacted or adopted more than 38,000 laws. The real action is in the states. To protect and advance their missions, nonprofits and philanthropy must invest more attention and funding to state policy matters.

For instance, while many nonprofits and foundations have concentrated exclusively on federal threats to charitable giving incentives, several state legislatures quietly pursued similar limitations. Fortunately, our state associations of nonprofits and allies prevented that from happening this year in Hawai’i, Oregon, Minnesota, Kansas, and North Carolinathrough advocacy efforts demonstrating to legislators that charitable giving is vital to communities.

Nonprofits and philanthropy are beginning to recognize that they cannot continue to ignore or avoid public policy threats that endanger their missions. But this realization is coming late when the threats are daunting. Charitable nonprofits across the country need support and encouragement from donors to be active advocates. Your support can help charitable nonprofits to see advocacy as core to advancing their missions – which also helps protect philanthropic resources for missions, rather than for filling government coffers.

Indeed, perhaps the best answer to the “Ask the Center” question is to ask other questions:

  • How much more can charitable nonprofits take on before America’s cultural, spiritual, and social safety nets simply collapse?
  • What can your family or community foundation do to help support nonprofit advocacy in your state?
Syndicate content