Stanford Social Innovation Review

I don’t have a ready answer for the question of “how” (”...how can umbrella organizations like IS, Nonprofit Congress, National Council of Nonprofit Associations, the Council on Foundations and others, best help change the environment to increase the odds their members can succeed?")

What I’m wondering about, though, is whether these umbrella organizations are looking at “the third sector” as a primary means of civic engagement on the parts of the general populace?  There is an argument to be made that as non-profits have become more oriented towards service-to-clients, they have become more corporate or quasi-public in nature.  A larger version of this argument is made by Crenson and Ginsberg in “Downsizing Democracy: How America Sidelined Its Citizens and Privatized Its Public.” They chronicle the shift in local government from being primarily for the purpose of civic engagement to its purpose today which is primarily a kind of “customer service”.  What passes for “civic engagement” nowadays, according to Crenson and Ginsberg, is volunteering to work with disadvantaged clients of nonprofit agencies.  The punchline of all this is that “citizens” have been replaced with “clients”.

Looking at this in a broader context, we can see the trends in the nonprofit sector along with this trend in local government in light of the erosion of the role (and credibility) of the press as the convener of “the public sphere.” In today’s America, the largest gap, arguably, is in the engagement of the citizenry in its public sphere.  I believe that this is an essential feature and should be an essential societal function of nonprofits as a sector.

What this actually looks, acts and feels like would differ considerably between the various kinds, sizes and locales of nonprofits.  But the essential question to all of us would be: what is our sector’s role in society and in the public sphere and what is needed to protect and sustain that role?

Cindy L Myers, PhD
Executive Director
Center for Restorative Practice
San Rafael CA
http://www.restorativepractice.org and http://www.restorativepractice.org/blog

»» Posted by: Cindy L. Myers, PhD on November 5, 2007 07:32 PM

Peter, this is a great thought-provoking piece and I agree with the points you make here. It brings to mind the ongoing discussions within the sector about whether our role is to put ourselves out of business or continue to find ways to grow bigger and stronger and keep serving more people.  I think the argument that’s being made now to policymakers and Presidential candidates is that since nonprofits are an essential part of the country’s fabric, we need to be supported so we can keep doing what we do, but without a clear statement of how essential our voice and expertise is to systemically addressing the social ills we were formed to pursue.  The question you raise is an important one for umbrella organizations - “Should a stronger nonprofit sector be at the top of our wish list?”.  Perhaps not, maybe what we really need is a stronger advocacy agenda to move all of our missions forward together.  I think some of what IS and the Nonprofit Congress have tried to do is to inform the sector about policy that impacts or hinders our ability to achieve our missions, but what you seem to urge here is that we may be focusing on the wrong policies, on the least impactful ones that are easy to gain consensus on, not the social policies re: poverty that you mention.  Maybe IS and the Congress are doing the sector more of a disservice by watering down the messages.  It would be interesting to see how their membership would respond if given the option to pursue advocacy on particular social policy.

»» Posted by: Rosetta Thurman on November 8, 2007 10:10 AM

I appreciate Pete’s commentary, especially his appeal that the nonprofit sector seek out a societal agenda founded on the “highest common denominator.” I’m also glad that Independent Sector ardently drives the question about the desirablity and achievability of common nonprofit sector agenda, because, by doing so, IS keeps those things that bind us at the forefront.  At the core of Pete’s opinion piece is the following statement:  “But if there is anything nonprofits share in common, it is the belief that people can make a difference by working together, and that in many instances, they owe it to each other to try.” Can we please use the P-word here: politics?  Isn’t it through the “working together” of politics that we in democracies supposedly achieve a modicum of common good?  We’ve made such great strides in America over the last few decades in raising awareness of public service through charitable organizations, especially among the current generation of students emerging from colleges and universities.  That suggests to me that we’ll have plenty of folks entering the work force who will, now or later, bring intelligence, excellent skills and compassionate attitudes to the nonprofit sector.  But we’ve done an abysmal job of holding up public service through political activism and government service as an honorable and necessary precursor to a civil, progressive society.  A strong, vibrant nonprofit sector—contrary to what many people espouse—does not necessarily denote a strong, vibrant democracy.  Rather, the diffusion of ostensbily “public” responsibilities into a diffuse, dispersed and, often, market-competitive private nonprofit sector may merely indicate fundamental governmental failure and paralysis resulting from an absence of coalesced political will among the democratic electorate and elected leaders.  Service to communities and society through the nonprofit sector and its vast and varied organizations and institutions certainly has many merits.  However, I believe that we achieve common wealth and express common cause to the powerful societal engine of government through political engagement, political service and political activism, not through a retreat to the defensive ramparts of our often-too-precious organizational missions.

»» Posted by: Paul Vandeventer on November 13, 2007 11:06 AM

Peter - As the executive director of the National Council of Nonprofit Associations (NCNA), of which the Nonprofit Congress is an initiative (as opposed to an separate organization), I offer my thoughts to your question on how we can “best help change the environment to increase the odds their members can succeed”. The first step is to identify the common values of the sector. You can read my blog post about the values at http://www.nonprofitcongress.org/?q=node/352

Well it is true that we share a common belief that people can make a difference by working together, what really distinguishes the nonprofit sector are our values. A central tenet of our values is to serve not ourselves but others - our neighbors, communities, cities, countries and the conditions that confront us on a daily basis. Yes, we do want to make a difference and that difference is to enrich the lives of those known and unknown to us because they matter and because we care. That is, in my view, the justification for strengthening the nonprofit sector.

»» Posted by: Audrey Alvarado on November 13, 2007 08:46 PM

Thanks to everyone for your comments so far.

Cindy, your comment raises the important question of what role nonprofits are meant to play as vehicles for civic engagement, which seems to move in the same direction Paul rightly points us.  To my mind, for some nonprofits that is an important role, for others it is not.  There are some good reasons to worry that the increase in government contracting with nonprofits for service delivery may dampen advocacy on behalf of the communities they serve.  I agree there should not be any false separation between service and engagement.  Ideally they would go together, where possible.  There is undoubtedly a tension there, though, which brings to mind one of my favorite quotes, from Bishop Helder Camara of Recife, Brazil: “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” So politics is unavoidable, it seems, once we begin to try to change root causes.  (This all could be the subject of another post entirely . ..)

Thanks Paul, then, for bringing the “P” word – politics – out into the open. Ultimately a change in our politics should be the result of reinvigorating our sense of commitment to each other, of shared fates.  Meeting the challenges we face – thriving under the impacts of globalization, increasing energy independence, redeveloping a well educated people, moving more people out of poverty, providing real access to health care for all – absolutely cannot be done without government playing a larger and more positive role, as you so eloquently and forcefully point out.

Thanks also Audrey and Rosetta, for your comments.  To your point, Rosetta, I agree we need a stronger advocacy agenda for nonprofits, but I don’t think nonprofit associations like Independent Sector or the Nonprofit Congress are watering anything down.  The work that they and other umbrella groups do is vitally important.  I do think they many times feel pulled to address to the broadest common concerns of their very diverse membership, which unfortunately can lead them to the issues that are least salient to their members and most isolating from the public.

Audrey, I like the nonprofit values statement from the Nonprofit Congress that you highlight in your blog post.  What I was trying to emphasize is that different messages are appropriate for different audiences.  The Nonprofit Congress values statement speaks first to nonprofits, to my mind. When groups like Independent Sector, NCNA and others are not speaking to their member nonprofits but instead address the public or legislators, I think they should emphasize broader themes, rather than continue to talk about the interests of their member nonprofits.  Those themes should be about what kind of lives we want our fellow citizens to be able to lead, what kind of society we want to live in.  I’m under no illusion this shift would be easy, because these nonprofit associations are very passionate about serving their members and developed habits of speaking can be hard to overcome. 

I would love to continue this discussion and look forward to any responses or future comments.

»» Posted by: Peter Manzo on November 14, 2007 12:38 PM

Mr. Manzo,

I wanted to direct your—and your readers’—attention to an intriguing new initiative by New Profit, Inc. called America Forward.  The purpose of the America Forward campaign is to elevate the ‘08 candidates’ and policymakers’ attention to public policies that would help cultivate and expand social entrepreneurship (specifically innovative, results-driven non-profit organizations that are producing remarkable, scalable solutions to the country’s most challenging problems).  I encourage you to check it out when you have a chance at http://www.americaforward.org.

Andy Davis
MBA Candidate, Class of 2008
University of Michigan - Ross School of Business

»» Posted by: Andy Davis on November 15, 2007 03:13 PM

WHEN IS SOMEONE FINALLY GOING TO WRITE ABOUT THE “NORMAL DISTRIBUTION CURVE” OR THE “BELL SHAPED
CURVE”. 
THE POOR WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US. IT IS FANTASY TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR NUMBERS CAN BE REDUCED TO ZERO.
ALSO “POOR” NOT ONLY REFERS TO MONEY, BUT ALSO TO INTELLIGENCE, MOTIVATION, ATTITUDE, ETC.
“DO-GOODERS” SHOULD GIVE THEIR HELP TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL USE THE HELP WELL. (AND NOT
BUY DRUGS, OR DRINK IT AWAY.)
I REALIZE THAT THE CRUSADERS WHO NEED TO BE “REDEEMED”, OR SAVED OF GUILT, WILL VALUE THIS URGE TO
GIVE MEANING TO THEIR LIVES.
DAHLMANN

»» Posted by: PAUL W. HORN on November 15, 2007 03:27 PM

Peter:

Nice try.  Hope you’re not too disappointed when things don’t change in November 2008.  More freedom and more personal responsibility is the answer—not more collectivism. 

The roll of religious, non-profit, and social service organizations is to provide for needs that neither the private-sector not the government meet. 

For my part, I would rather have people’s gratitude directed at the “Independent Sector” rather than government. 

Hospitals, schools, mentoring, etc. are always done best by those who are call to minister unto the least of these.

Bureaucrats make bad social service providers because they do not bring the joy of service to their task.

»» Posted by: Cicero on November 20, 2007 03:09 PM

Dahlmann or Paul, thanks for your comment. Income actually is not distributed in a bell curve shape, far from it.  Income is distributed along a power curve (think of the 80-20 rule). That makes a world of difference, especially when we begin to consider what sorts of common good or shared commitment we can and should take on as a society.

Further, to both Paul and Cicero’s point, I trust a close second reading of my post will show no dilution or denial of the responsibility of individuals. Each of us indeed must bear responsibility for what we do in our lives.  We cannot each control, however, the environment in which we do it, and that is where talking about shared goals, shared values is important.  Who could ever be against “more freedom and personal responsibility,” as Cicero advocates, but the trick is in what real levels of freedom people have.  “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal a loaf of bread,” as Anatole France wrote.  We are all equally unfree in those ways, but most of us have enough power that it doesn’t matter. 

Collective will is a far cry from collectivism.  Further, the independent sector could never do all of the things we need to have done, the big things that are important to all of us but beyond our power as individuals or even private groups of well meaning people:  fire and police protection, including protection for property rights and other freedoms; roads and bridges; ensuring some level of overall literacy in the population (abolish the public school system and see how quickly there is a precipitous drop in the share of our citizens who attain even the unsatisfactory levels of education we bemoan today), and more.  There is a very proper role for private voluntary action and for government. 

I’d agree with Cicero’s observation that “hospitals, schools, mentoring, etc. are always done best by those who are call [sic] to minister unto the least of these.” Very true, so long as we recognize that a great many people, in public service and in private organizations, heed that calling. 

Which brings me back to what I presume Paul intended to invoke, Jesus’ observation that “the poor will always be with you.” To read that as advocating that we just get used to poverty is a huge misinterpretation.  But more importantly, Jesus also said “whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do to me.” I don’t know how any of us could take that to heart and then draw the conclusion that we are not meant to take on at least some responsibility for the least of us.

As for how we all, together ("collectively," in the pejorative), meet this responsibility, Fireblades, your comment is dead on, the system we has serious flaws.

Thanks again to everyone for your comments!

»» Posted by: Pete Manzo on December 5, 2007 12:39 PM

While I like the premise of the post - that advocating for a “stronger” sector doesn’t seem to make much sense - I’m not sure that a higher cause of “people working together” amounts to much substantive as a position in our political debates. One of the fundamental faultlines between our political parties today (at least in theory) is very different beliefs about where that working together should happen - conservatives say in the third sector, liberals say through the public sector. So I’m not sure what we end up advocating for in policy terms when we say people should work together other than for them to engage in civic life somehow.

And if we’re talking about helping people engage in civic life, then the nonprofits are perhaps better off modeling and supporting better engagement than they are advocating for it to the public.

»» Posted by: Emily on December 10, 2007 06:05 PM