Advocacy is a loaded word in the nonprofit context. And when nonprofit leaders, advisors, and others discuss the role of nonprofit advocacy, there are often misunderstandings, tension, and conflict.
Some will say all 501(c)(3) organizations must advocate for their mission. Others will say that not all 501(c)(3) organizations should engage in advocacy depending on their capacity, position, and risk tolerance.
Some will say that charities, collectively, are failing to use lobbying as a tool to advance their mission. Others will warn that they must be careful about engaging in too much lobbying or lobbing on issues that might get them into trouble.
Some will say it’s a management decision. Others will say that the board should weigh in when advocacy involves significant risks to the organization and its ability to advance its mission.
There are merits to all of these positions, but we (and I include myself) must avoid falling into the trap of not first defining what we’re talking about when we discuss the subject of advocacy.
As a lawyer with substantial experience working with nonprofit boards on matters of governance and advocacy; teaching nonprofit leaders, government officials, and students about advocacy; and thinking and writing about these matters (nerd alert!), I offer the following observations:
1. Merriam-Webster defines advocacy as the act or process of supporting a cause or proposal. If that’s what we’re discussing, there would probably be little debate that all nonprofits should and do engage in advocacy.
2. Advocacy is not limited to lobbying (i.e., lobbying is just one of a great many forms of advocacy). Consider the following examples:
- supporting or running public awareness campaigns regarding the issue of importance that is related to advancing the nonprofit’s mission and values (the “issue”) (e.g., wearing a ribbon or other symbol, amplifying social media posts)
- supporting or running campaigns on broader matters that encompass or are closely associated with the issue but possibly with less associated risk (e.g., supporting the preservation of natural environments instead of opposing offshore oil drilling)
- researching matters related to the issue that may allow for greater understanding of the issue and advancement of the nonprofit’s position or desired course of action
- convening community members to discuss the issue
- educating the public on the issue, which might take the form of an article, a speech, an interview, a workshop, a class, a film, an object of art
- educating professionals and others with strong interest, expertise, and/or influence on the issue
- engaging in get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives in a non-partisan manner but with the knowledge that a more civically engaged populace is likely to advance the issue consistent with the nonprofit’s position
- providing capacity support or technical assistance to other organizations with strong interest, expertise, and/or influence on the issue
- developing and promoting a standard, best practice, certification of a practice or process that relates to the issue
- relationship-building around the issue, which might be with other nonprofits, donors, legislators/lawmakers, executive branch officials (including agency representatives), potential supporters, and those taking an opposing position on the issue (note that building relationships with legislators and their staffers may not constitute lobbying if not discussing a particular piece of legislative law)
- supporting or affiliating with another organization that is better positioned to lead an advocacy campaign on the issue (e.g., 501(c)(3) organizations might consider support or affiliations with state nonprofit associations like CalNonprofits)
- supporting or affiliating with another organization with ability to influence elections so long as such support is consistent with applicable laws (e.g., a public charity may make grants to, or even structure a parent-subsidiary relationship with, a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization so long as the charity’s support is restricted from partisan political campaign intervention )
- community organizing and coalition-building around the issue
- advocating to executive branch officials and agencies
- litigating to advance the nonprofit’s position or desired course of action related to the issue
- demonstrating or protesting consistent with the nonprofit’s First Amendment rights
- supporting nonviolent civil disobedience (but at risk of potential loss of tax-exempt status and other penalties – to the organization and to its participant supporters – whose severity may depend on the actions taken)
3. Many forms of advocacy – even to address high-profile controversial issues (e.g., women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, DEI, climate change, immigration) – are low-risk. Such advocacy can still be incredibly meaningful as a showing of understanding, support, and solidarity. And it can catalyze broader and bolder actions by persons and organizations better-positioned for such efforts.
4. Staff may have varying opinions on a nonprofit’s course of action on an issue. And such opinions may be very personal, very passionate, and very informed. But there’s no pleasing everyone and some person or group may need to make decisions that leave others feeling disappointed, upset, or angry. This is not an easy dynamic through which nonprofit leaders must navigate, but it should be understood throughout the organization that these leaders have fiduciary and operational responsibilities that extend beyond any one issue or constituency. They must consider, among other things, legal compliance, financial sustainability, institutional reputation, employee safety, donor expectations, beneficiary interests, and the organization’s long-term ability to advance its mission. The following strategies may be helpful in managing different viewpoints:
- fostering a culture allowing for respectful debate and disagreement, and unity in implementation when moving forward
- ensuring that staff understands the broader decision-making framework that the fiduciaries must consider and follow
- centering on the organization’s purpose (its mission, core values, and immutable vision) and promoting the understanding that there may be a difference of opinion on the appropriate strategic steps to advance the purpose (in the short- and long-term)
- soliciting staff feedback and engaging in respectful dialogue with staff (and perhaps certain other key community members) on the issue
- supporting a transparent decision-making process with respect to staff (while still ensuring appropriate confidentiality of materials and individual board member communications)
- committing organization-wide to cohesive implementation and communications once decisions are made, respecting both organizational and individual integrity
5. Staff leadership and the board may also require advance discussion and coordination about certain advocacy activities. Staff leadership may be responsible for determining how to implement the strategic direction guided by board-approved policies, directives, and budgets, but stewardship of different elements of the advocacy-related decision may rest with multiple groups. The board typically would not make decisions on how the organization must advocate on certain matters, but the board may appropriately exercise its authority to create guideposts to help ensure that the advocacy decisions made by staff leadership advance the organization’s mission consistent with its values and applicable laws without assuming risks that do outweigh the benefits associated with those decisions. In some cases, the board’s guidance may provide staff leadership with more options than they otherwise may have assumed were available. Board-staff discussions of organizational risk-tolerance on matters of great relevance to the mission and also to the core values of the organization can help staff leadership understand that they have the board’s support in certain agreed-upon areas. At the same time, these discussions may help raise issues to staff leadership that provide the group with a broader perspective about legal compliance and risks, fiduciary obligations, and the impact to future beneficiaries and the mission on a longer time horizon. And they may help inform the board about the importance of the matter to the mission and to the communities served, the menu of possible courses of action, and the potential consequences of each alternative, including the associated reputational risks.
Ultimately, I believe that nonprofits should engage in advocacy in support of their missions and in the best interests of the organization (short- and long-term), which almost certainly means that such activities should also be consistent with their core values (both those adopted by the leadership and those reasonably expected by their core constituencies). Certain forms of advocacy may involve more risk than others, and boards and staff leadership should discuss and make decisions about strategy with appropriate information and knowledge. This may be aided by guidance from trusted organizations, persons with expertise, and other resources. One starting point that I have been promoting for the past few years is the Purpose-Driven Board Leadership model championed by BoardSource (disclosure: I’ve been on the BoardSource board for the past six years).
Additional Resources
Nonprofits and the Draft Tax Bill: Lobbying & Advocacy
Nonprofit Advocacy in a Post-Election Year (not updated after publication in Mary 2025 but with some helpful references)
Upswell 2023: Decline of Nonprofit Advocacy & Public Engagement