The Chronicle of Philanthropy posted this article on Election Day, citing nonprofit and government experts who say nonprofits will find a “sympathetic ear” in the Obama administration. But in the comments, Jed Emerson gives what I think is pretty important advice:
Actually, before we go advocate for non-profits and the things we care about, perhaps those of us who identify as being in the citizen sector should take this moment to pause and re-connect with what it is we are ultimately attempting to do.
Maybe we ourselves should re-define our tools and tactics in this new day and in the midst of a number of profound challenges. The opportunity of Obama’s presidency and his call to rise above partisanship is more than simply a chance to bolster our individual causes and organizations in light of what may be a more receptive administration. We should first stop to reflect upon the array of issues we care about and consider how beyond our own organizational agendas we might better partner with the business community, make use of our own assets most effectively (the 95% foundations invest for financial performance alone, for example) and whether, in fact, we have the courage to rise above the strategies/tactics we have executed during a period of partisanship to create new, yet more powerful approaches to advancing sustained impact and change in our world.
The new administration will inherit budget limits and international demands (among many other things…) that will require we do more than simply speak louder for our issues.
Yes, let’s certainly be engaged and, of course, we should promote the solutions we feel will work best —but lets not assume that in this new opportunity we have already created the best partnerships, ideas and innovations to the problems that have plagued us for years…
Later on, Edward Skloot (formerly Executive Director of the Surdna Foundation) co-signs with this:
Jed’s right, though I’d put it differently. Since the cupboard is bare and our standing as a sector is not (yet) high on the food chain we have to face the likelihood that our budgets are going to suffer, direcly through contributions or indirectly through federal contracts sent down through the states.
This calls for our willingness to be ready to do a quid pro quo, prioritizing what we have to have and what we will do to maintain it. On the foundation side, more mission-based investing, loan guarantees, etc., would improve our lot on the supply side. So would be some greater transparency about how funders are choosing to do their triage.
Without doing our own net-zero calculations and coming up with our own “best” scenario, we’ll see an unstoppable diminishment of funds from all sources.
