SNAP: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project Overview of Findings May, 2002

1. SNAP:Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy ProjectOverview of Findings May, 2002 A multi-year research project of Tufts University, OMB Watch, and Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest

2. 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

3. Section I:ABOUT THE RESEARCH

4. 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.

5. About the Research • The Key Research Questions • What words and phrases do nonprofits use to describe public policy activities? • What internal and external factors motivate and deter nonprofit participation in the public policy process? • How do the staff of nonprofits and their volunteer leadership make decisions about the course of their public policy participation? • What resources are needed to strengthen nonprofit advocacy and public policy participation?

6. 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.

7. 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)

8. About the Research Research Design A stratified sample of 501(c)(3) (charity) organizations filing IRS Form 990 in 1998 was selected 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

9. About the Research Who Received & Responded to the Survey 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.

10. About the Research 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.

11. Section II:ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS

12. 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

13. About the Respondents Annual Expenses Range: $500 to $457.6 million

14. 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.

15. About the Respondents 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

16. Section III:FINDINGSPart ALanguage Makes A Difference

17. Language Makes a Difference On a survey question regarding the frequency of policy participation, one-third 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.

18. Language Makes a Difference The definition of “lobbying” in this survey is broader than the IRS definition • 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 Form 990 data. • This suggests that those writing for nonprofit audiences need to use more consistent language to talk about lobbying, advocacy and public policy participation – or at least be aware of varying definitions. We asked if they have done: “Lobbying on behalf of or against a proposed bill or other policy pronouncement” IRS has a narrower legal definition based on attempts to influence legislation. IRS has legal exemptions to “lobbying” and does not include the broader policy issues our survey does. 18

19. 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.”

20. 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.

21. FINDINGS:Part BPolicy Participation

22. 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.

23. Policy Participation A Good News – Bad News Story The Good News Respondents say they participate in the public policy process and that they lobby…

24. 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 Direct Lobbying

25. 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 Release Research

26. 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.”

27. 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.

28. 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.”

29. Policy Participation Most Groups that Lobby Do Not Make it a Priority • 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.

30. Policy Participation Direct Lobbying Comparisons By Different Types of Charities (On a 0-4 Scale) Survey average

31. Policy Participation Grassroots Lobbying Comparisons By Different Types of Charities (On a 0 to 4 Scale) Survey average

32. Policy Participation Testifying Comparisons By Different Types of Charities (On a 0 to 4 Scale) Survey average

33. FINDINGS:Part CMajor Barriers and Incentives

34. Barriers & Incentives Money, tax rules, and staff skills are the top three barriers to policy participation

35. Barriers & Incentives Limited Funds as a Barrier by Type of Charity (On a 0 to 4 Scale) Survey average

36. Barriers & Incentives Tax Law/Regulation as a Barrier by Type of Charity (On a 0 to 4 Scale) Survey average

37. Barriers & Incentives Staff Skills as a Barrier by Type of Charity (On a 0 to 4 Scale) Survey average

38. 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. As government revenue increases so does the barrier level. % 38

39. 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.”

40. 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. As the percentage of a charity’s revenue from foundations increases so does the perception that foundation revenue is a barrier to lobbying. Those that do not lobby see foundation funding as a statistically significant barrier when compared to those that do lobby. 40

41. 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.”

42. Barriers & Incentives Ironically, as government and foundation revenues increase, respondents tend to become more involved in policy matters

43. Barriers & Incentives 81 75 72 39 37 Degree of Motivation

44. Barriers & Incentives Impact of Perceived Government Interest in Your Organization on Policy Policy Participation Respondents that believe government officials are interested in their organization tend to participate more in public policy matters Level of Interest

45. Barriers & Incentives Policy participation, by all measures, is significantly higher as the number of government initiated contacts to any staff member increases # of Govt Initiated Contacts

46. Barriers & Incentives Budget Size is a Great Predictor of Policy Participation Respondents with annual expenses of $1 million or more are significantly more likely to participate in policy than those with expenses below $1 million.

47. Barriers & Incentives Staff Size is a Predictor of Policy Participation As organization size increases by number of staff, respondents participate more in public policy.

48. Barriers & Incentives Respondents that belong to associations that represent them before government are more likely to participate in public policy matters Respondents that are Participators

49. 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.

50. 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