The 12th annual Nonprofit Public Policy Symposium, held on September 22, 2023, consisted of two sessions with six presentations, including commentaries from nonprofits leaders, scholars, and government officials. The first session highlighted the structural barriers nonprofit leaders face on a regular basis in doing their work. Tiana Marrese (University of Pennsylvania) kicked off the presentations by discussing the ways that equitable childcare can help attract and maintain an intrinsically motivated nonprofit workforce. Gretchen Van der Veer (Fair Chance) and Michelle Jackson(Human Services Council) then discussed their experiences with nonprofit coalition-building in New York City and Washington, DC. Lastly, Tamara Keshecki (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), Brenda Bushouse (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), and Eric Griffith (Duke University) presented their work evaluating nonprofit participation in COVID-19 relief programs and how the federal government can learn from recent experience to better support nonprofits in the future.
In the second session, presenters took different but overlapping perspectives on how effective partnerships involving nonprofits have looked or could look in the future. First, Andrea Hill (Tennessee Nonprofit Network) and Janet Lo (Shelby County Government) discussed their experiences when the Shelby County government in Tennessee worked to formalize a partnership between the county government and the local nonprofit community. Similarly, the third presentation, by Julia Mahoney, Will Alston, and Ken Seeley (Denver Office of Nonprofit Engagement), outlined nonprofit-focused projects being undertaken by the Denver city government and shed light on how collaboration helps the area’s nonprofit and public sectors. Sandwiched between these local case studies, Angela Eikenberry and Nuri Heckler (University of Nebraska at Omaha) described an unrealized partnership in which policymakers free philanthropic wealth from longstanding binds by changing the Rule Against Perpetuities and work with communities from which wealth was extracted, often by exploitative means, to provide reparations.
The symposium included commentary from session leaders Jeff Moore (Independent Sector) and Alan Abramson(George Mason University), as well as from the discussants, Ronda Jackson (KABOOM!) and Heather MacIndoe(University of Massachusetts Boston). Woven throughout the presentations, this commentary helped create connections between topics. One theme that flowed through the symposium was the need for the federal and other governments to create a formalized structure to enlist expertise on the nonprofit sector. For example, Abramson explained that most interests have some kind of representation in the federal government (e.g., farmers have the Department of Agriculture, labor has the Department of Labor). Abramson explained that the nonprofit sector is lacking an office, even if it is small, that could be a positive voice for nonprofits and understands the sector’s needs. His comments mirror those of others throughout the symposium who reported negative experiences with federal programs developed with little understanding of the nonprofit sector and which were then confusing, frustrating, and ill-designed for nonprofits. For example, Keshecki, Bushouse, and Griffith pointed out that the Paycheck Protection Program loan application asked nonprofits for the name of its owners , followed by questions about their banking relationships. These parts of the application were not designed for nonprofits, who don’t have owners and may not have strong banking relationships, and made completing the application process stressful and confusing. Keshecki, Bushouse, and Griffith theorize this frustration led to a chilling effect, resulting in fewer nonprofits completing the application process and ultimately receiving aid. If someone in the federal government understood nonprofits and was a voice for their needs, this could have been avoided.
A second theme of the symposium was that the nonprofit sector should not shy away from advocating for itself. Ronda Jackson, in her work with KABOOM!, has seen nonprofits hesitant to work with government funders because government often requires nonprofits to accept underfunded contracts, late payments, and other adverse government practices. KABOOM! also feared entering into advocacy work because they believed the common misconception that nonprofit advocacy could affect their tax status. The experience of KABOOM! echoes the fears and frustrations of nonprofit organizations across the country. As explained by Jackson, though, accepting adverse government policies, such as underfunded contracts, maintains current systems which hurt the sector. Jackson said the nonprofit sector is better off saying “no” rather than accepting contracts that do not deliver the resources necessary to provide quality services. She explained that less-than-quality services hurt communities and reduce public opinion of nonprofits. Advocacy, though, can make a difference. As Gretchen Van der Veer described, in Washington, DC, for example, the Coalition for Nonprofit Equity organized nonprofits’ efforts to change policy and, due to their efforts, the city council passed the Nonprofit Fair Compensation Act requiring the DC government to fully fund indirect costs. Building nonprofit coalitions and demanding better treatment can bring about changes and aid nonprofit work across the sector.
The presenters also expressed that data is an important tool to inform the public and policymakers of the issues facing nonprofits. When answering questions from symposium participants, Marrese made an appeal – often heard from researchers – for better data. She explained that she cannot answer all her own questions, or those of her audience, about the impact of childcare on nonprofit workforce outcomes because that information is simply not available. This leaves the nonprofit sector without the information and insights it needs to better advocate for its workforce. In Denver, on the other hand, the Office of Nonprofit Engagement has used data to self-assess, better understand how nonprofits perceive the city government, and uncover common issues nonprofits face. This has helped build more productive communication between the government and nonprofit sectors. Data is not only an important tool to highlight current barriers to nonprofit performance but is also an important means through which the sector can reflect on the past and prepare for the future. Eikenberry discussed the central role that gathering data could have in creating the political will for reparations. By exploring past ills and connecting them to current structures of wealth, scholars assert, as explained by Eikenberry, that the movement toward reparations could gain momentum and change public opinion through storytelling. Whether using real-time data to shine a light on the needs of the nonprofit sector or analyzing past data to inform the future, data collection and analysis can play a central role in bolstering the sector and helping nonprofits make a larger positive impact in their communities.
A final takeaway from the symposium is that everyone benefits when nonprofits partner with researchers, governments, and one another. Abramson, in his remarks at the beginning of the symposium, acknowledged that collaboration takes time and intentionality, but pointed out the opportunities that exist when relationships and cooperation are fostered. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the arts and culture sector met regularly to share information and updates. Keshecki describes these regular interactions as essential for arts and culture organizations to get out of their silos and help one another access needed resources. Nonprofits face underfunded government contracts, grants that do not account for operating costs, staff burnout due to red tape, and other common frustrations. It is no surprise that in this context nonprofits do not feel they can take on more. Collaboration among nonprofits helped convince the government to find resources that the nonprofits needed to operate. If nonprofits partner with governments, they can develop two-way lines of communication that can ease red tape. By partnering with researchers, nonprofits can discover efficiencies and learn best practices. When partnering with other nonprofits, they can discover ways to better navigate systems and share the burden of advocacy. In the end, collaboration is often worth the cost.
By: Kristina Podesta, PhD Student, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University
