Rediscovering Decency

Print Share on LinkedIn More


 Poor March
Image credit: Library of Congress; Demonstrators participating in the Poor People’s March at Lafayette Park and on Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C.

Half a century ago, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. led the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. If they are aware of it at all, most Americans think of the march as the venue for Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. Some of us who remember the march recall it as a march to redress economic conditions—the disparities in income and employment that afflicted people of color, then as now…except that the economy today for people of color as a whole is much worse than 50 years ago.

Five years later, Rev. King led the Poor People’s Campaign back to Washington at a time when national unemployment was under four percent and unemployment for blacks was less than seven percent. Compare that to last month: In July, the national unemployment rate was 7.4 percent, with the white unemployment rate at 6.6 percent. For blacks, the rate was 12.5 percent—almost double that of whites. The number of people employed in the U.S. is less than it was seven years ago even though the nation’s population has increased by 18,000,000 people. A February census report put the poverty rate for African Americans at over 25 percent. In the black community, 39 percent of children lived below the federal poverty level; among Latinos, 34 percent. The most astounding (and yet relatively unknown) figure on poverty in the U.S. is that, as of 2011, there were 1.65 million households in this country in which people lived on $2.00 a day or less per person. That is the definition of “extreme poverty,” a condition people think is associated with developing countries and the world’s commitment to cut by half over the next two decades, but it exists in the affluent United States itself.

Where is the March on Washington or Poor People’s Campaign of today to protest these conditions? After an election campaign spent giving poverty a wide berth, President Obama has only just now begun to utter the “p-word” directly and raise concerns about job creation for working-class people, who have been relegated to low-wage, shorter work-week jobs, and about increasing the minimum wage. But action commensurate with those words has been limited to an array of campaign-style speeches and tours. Most Democrats in Congress generally stick to a focus on the middle class and rarely veer toward straightforward discussion of the need for explicit and robust anti-poverty programs.

One of the contributing factors is the silence of the nonprofit sector. As Pablo Eisenberg wrote this week in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “In the last decade or so, nonprofits have stopped caring about the plight of the poor.”

“Today, matters of poverty seem to be off the radar screen of nonprofits,” Eisenberg says. “Most nonprofits…remain satisfied in pursuing their more-narrow agendas, whether related to the environment, education, or gay marriage. They show little concern about the ravages brought on the country by income inequality, homelessness, hunger, and unemployment. That couldn’t be more evident than in the failure of nonprofits to rush to oppose the massive assault on food stamps now working its way through the House of Representatives.”

Undoubtedly, many of the nation’s top nonprofits will bristle at being called out in Eisenberg’s op-ed, but there’s no doubt that the ardor of the nonprofit sector to tackle poverty based on calculations of political acceptability or access to funding has waned. It is hardly in evidence the way it was when the nation rallied around the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964, leading to the creation of a critical infrastructure of poverty-fighting institutions and programs: VISTA, Head Start, Legal Services, the Jobs Corps, Community Health Centers, and the Community Action Program.

Can the nonprofit sector rediscover the “decency,” as Eisenberg puts it, to be concerned about economic inequities and social justice? He asks whether Darren Walker, the incoming president of the Ford Foundation, and other prominent nonprofit and philanthropic leaders might “find the courage to lead a campaign to put poverty back on the agendas of nonprofits.”

While Eisenberg probably targeted Walker partly because of his roots as a leader of a nonprofit community development corporation in Harlem, Walker will be now heading a top foundation and, in theory, responding to the activism and initiatives of nonprofit leaders on the front lines. So we asked nonprofit leaders themselves what they thought might make nonprofits take up the cause of fighting poverty and make it an integral part of the identity of nonprofits of all stripes. Here is what some of them said:

  • Once the executive director of the National Council of Nonprofits and the board chair of the National Council of La Raza, and most recently the interim CEO of the Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington, Audrey Alvarado has been pushing for revived attention to issues of poverty for decades. “I’m afraid that in our own struggles to survive the economic challenges we all face, we have forgotten the true purpose of our work,” Alvarado writes. “Have we become hardened by the messages that those in need, the poor, deserve what they get?…The nonprofit sector must again rise up and be the flag bearers for a caring and compassionate society. Let’s not forgot our roots and work to eliminate the poverty divide in this country.”
  • Moises Loza, the executive director of the Housing Assistance Council, a national advocate for rural housing and community economic development, notes the significance of poverty in rural America. Eighty-six percent of 429 persistently poor counties are entirely rural. His prescription? “Nonprofits have been retreating while fighting to keep programs of assistance from being eliminated or drastically reduced. This ‘fight to keep what we have’ has taken our time and energy from a rigorous offense to become the poverty warriors that got us into this line of work,” Loza writes. “Keeping what we have that works is important, but advocacy and outrage should not take a back seat. We also have allowed others to dictate our agenda. We shouldn’t parrot the agenda others are setting, we should set our own and as nonprofits speak for those who continue to be forgotten.”
  • Brenda Peluso, the director of public policy for the Maine Association of Nonprofits, joins Loza in the call for a reemphasis on nonprofit advocacy. “To turn this around, nonprofits need to be more active in public policy, but I understand the reasons they don’t—lack of time and money, fear of confrontation, fear of turning donors off, restrictions on lobbying (none with federal money) and lack of understanding what they can and can’t do.” The executive director of the Maine Association, Scott Schnapp, underscores Peluso’s call for increased policy advocacy, but cautions that the roots of the problem are in political campaigns. “The concern among politicians that their opponents will utilize any efforts to address poverty related issues as a campaign weapon is largely paralyzing them. In an environment with a constant election cycle, where more and more money is necessary to run competitive elections, this fear, as well as their concerns about potentially alienating donors, has effectively muzzled strong political conviction around this issue.”
  • “I would simply say that it’s not only the politicians or the nonprofit sector that’s not hitting the problem of poverty squarely on the head, but foundations have side stepped the issue too,” says Robert Jackson, a Mississippi state senator as well as the executive director of the Quitman County Development Organization in Mississippi’s Delta region. “My question is how do you get foundations to get off metrics and become concerned about poor people’s existence, from day to day?…Nonprofits need to refocus foundations squarely on the issue of poverty rather than where they have driven off the road now onto wherever.”

All well and good from fine people truly dedicated to fighting poverty, but these statements are stronger on the analysis of nonprofits’ not taking on poverty than they are about what might turn the nonprofit sector around. We would add to their comments with these specific suggestions to reanimate the nonprofit sector to stand up against poverty:

If the problem is that foundation funders aren’t taking this issue on, it’s time for the nonprofit sector to place the issue of poverty at foundations’ doorsteps. Could it jeopardize relationships with funders to be so bold and forthright and call them out, as Jackson has done, for their pathetic support of an anti-poverty movement? We would bet the following: Those nonprofits that have the courage to speak out—loudly—to foundations and peer grantees will be the ones that establish profile and get recognition for the ability to tell the truth. Nonprofits shouldn’t argue themselves into a paralytic corner, but speak out. They might learn, in consequence, that the dangers of punitive reprisals by foundations for pushing and prodding on their grantmaking are overstated. Many foundations will welcome the candor of straight-talking nonprofits, and many foundation program officers will find nonprofit candor a useful tool for them to make their arguments with foundation execs and trustees for better anti-poverty grantmaking.

If the problem is an unwillingness of nonprofits to deviate from the political line of the Obama administration, that is even worse. President Obama needs a vocal, mobilized nonprofit to call him on his shortfalls of his actual policy agenda for nonprofits. On national nonprofit issues, the National Council on Nonprofits has been one of the rare “nonprofit infrastructure” organizations to remind the White House about nonprofit needs when it appeared that the White House showed evidence of 501(c)(3) memory lapses concerning provisions of the Affordable Care Act. As the primary deliverers of services to the poor, nonprofits should be calling on the president to restore funding that had previously cut, to fight against the continuation of the sequester, and to remember where his constituency’s policy priorities lie. The president gives a good speech about moving the economy, but it’s time for a lot more than campaign-style speeches. If nonprofits, as we have suggested and Eisenberg implies, have declined to take on the president because of some desire to support him against Republican congressional obstructionism, they will be allowing a centrist president to continue a decades-long reduction of the federal anti-poverty commitment.

Loza and Schnapp identify another problem: the imbalance in campaign finance in national elections means that the wealthy can buy lots of influence with their largesse. Poor communities will never be able to match the rich corporate donors that ply candidates with campaign contributions. With the self-protecting, self-serving attitudes of the affluent in full sway in recent decades, nonprofits have to realize that an anti-poverty agenda will be smothered in lip service and squashed somewhere between the White House and Congress. It will never succeed unless the power of the rich to purchase candidates is eliminated. Putting campaign finance reform on the nonprofit public policy advocacy agenda is a substantive step toward promoting stronger anti-poverty activism in the nonprofit sector. 

Eisenberg called out a number of national organizations for their obsession with the charitable deduction—still hardly in peril—while remaining unwilling to make poverty part of their agendas. It’s time that these nonprofit associations and leadership groups recognize that they can no longer hide behind the deduction as a proxy for concern for the poor. A significant portion of tax-deductible charitable donations doesn’t get anywhere near the poor. Whatever the merits of maintaining the charitable deduction in its current form, the nonprofit sector has to blend advocacy into its anti-poverty work, and that means advocacy for government funding that’s vitally important to make nonprofits present and effective to the poverty fight. Eisenberg and Alvarado are both right that fighting poverty is a core value of the nonprofit sector, long forgotten in many parts, but legitimately an item worth raising on the agendas of nonprofits and foundations across the board.

The president may be reluctant to mention much about the poor, even though he doesn’t face a reelection battle. This is the issue where nonprofits can’t swallow their tongues because Obama is “one of us” or someone who says the right stuff. It’s time for nonprofits to call each other out regarding what they are doing to address the widening socio-economic disparities in our nation.



  • Linda

    Unfortunately, nonprofit organizations are caught in this neoliberal paradigm whereas a number of them have become an extension of the federal government through social services contracts. With that, there are often restrictions placed on who can and cannot be assisted. For instance in a city I will not name, a participant in a job development program has to read at 8th grade level, not have an arrest or conviction record and be registered for the armed services.When a nonprofit receives funds from this city, it has to comply with these regulations which limits the number of participants in the program. I find that the nonprofits rarely challenge the limitations because of fear that they are not considered for future awards.

  • Judith

    I agree that nonprofits and those outside of the nonprofit bubble have to put more pressure on foundations to focus on the roots of poverty. So many foundations simply follow the wishes of those that established the endowment without looking at the changes that have occurred in our society due to financial, environmental, and social upheavals. With their money, foundations can have a huge effect on one or two issues in their community, if they directed their energies. Thanks Rick, for alerting me to Eisenberg’s article and bringing attention to this issue.

  • Simone Joyaux

    Thanks, NPQ and Rick, for regularly raising the issues of a truly great nonprofit sector: raising the uncomfortable issues, asking the cage-rattling questions, speaking out rather than being silent, advocating (and yes, lobbying) for better public policy, for equity and fairness.

    Sadly, that isn’t the nonprofit sector we have. Instead, we have fear and financing. And increasing fear and financing.
    – Fear of government disapproval and government action. And we all know that government has issued laws and regulations to stop nonprofit actions. And we know that government funding imposes restrictions, as Linda notes in her comment.
    – Fear of donor disapproval…whether it’s a foundation or a corporation or an individual donor. And yes, those donors do express their disapproval.

    So now we have many NGOs that focus narrowly on mission…rather than embracing a mission that also includes public policy that affects mission beneficiaries…rather than embracing a mission that includes questioning government and speaking out about broader societal issues.

    Then sometimes, something so egregious happens that the nonprofit sector — or at least certain organizations in the sector — get sufficiently agitated that they go beyond their narrow missions. How can the nonprofit sector see its role, primarily, as direct service to reduce the effects of an economy and society gone wild? How can the NGO sector think it’s okay to provide services to women without helping to level the playing field for women? How can the NGO sector avoid (out of fear and financing and narrow missions) the origin of problems?

    There’s the babies in the river story: We leap in and rescue the babies flowing down the river. But we need more organizations going to the head of the river to stop the systems that are throwing the babies into the river. It is never enough to give people fish to eat when they are starving. It isn’t enough to teach them to fish. We have to give them a place on the river to fish from. And we have to teach them to organize so they can fight the polluters who polluted the river!

    So we have to keep shouting that silence is consent. We have to demand of ourselves and each other to speak out, to recognize the role of public policy and society and privilege. Otherwise the nonprofit sector becomes useless. And useless becomes irrelevant.

  • Anne Eigeman

    Interesting perspectives on the sector and thought provoking questions for the future. Thanks.

  • S. Walter

    Rick, some of your right of center friends look forward to seeing you & Eisenberg “calling out” the middle-class entitlements (and their political protectors on both sides of the aisle) that are crowding out government funds for the poor!

  • michael

    As Pablo Eisenberg wrote this week in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “In the last decade or so, nonprofits have stopped caring about the plight of the poor.”

    I have a lot of respect for Pablo, but this line is offensive. Everyday I see extraordinarily nonprofits doing basic footwork on the front lines working hand-in-hand with the poor and indigent. Perhaps they don’t have the time or money to travel to Washington in order to attend fancy policy dinners, but it doesn’t mean they stopped caring.

    I suspect Pablo knows that….and if given the chance would rewrite that piece.

  • Terry Fernsler

    Well written, Simone. To your comments and the article, I would add that most nonprofits have fallen prey to a scarcity mentality, chasing after “scarce resources” rather than recognizing the boundless possibilities that can come through sharing, trust, and communication.

    Third Sector Radio USA

  • Jan Mowbray

    I disagree with the impression the statement leaves: “Today, matters of poverty seem to be off the radar screen of nonprofits,” Eisenberg says. “Most nonprofits…remain satisfied in pursuing their more-narrow agendas, whether related to the environment, education, or gay marriage. They show little concern about the ravages brought on the country by income inequality, homelessness, hunger, and unemployment. That couldn’t be more evident than in the failure of nonprofits to rush to oppose the massive assault on food stamps now working its way through the House of Representatives.”

    I sit on many boards of various agencies and organizations – social justice, historical, preservation/conservation, etc – In my experience many non-profits have had their funding cut, and they’re fighting to remain functional with an ever dwindling pool of funding.

    Funding is usually unlikely to pay for admin staff, they are forced to remain focused on their “narrow objectives”.

    I’m speaking from the Canadian perspective but I’m sure it’s not much different in the U.S. Social planning agencies have the same funding issues and they are doing their best to focus on the social justice issues you mention. A Living Wage is an increasingly important issue.

    I would encourage your readers to watch the Dan Pallotta YouTube video
    “The way we think about charity is dead wrong”.
    We have to begin the discussion with funders and donors, create awareness in order to make a difference.
    At our local social planning agency’s AGM this fall, we’re going to use that video to provide a basis for a discussion with the attendees, many of whom represent our funders.

  • john r. ford

    As a low level activist in the civil rights movement, a first generation Community Action Program Director and eventually a government bureaucrat, I remember that the non profit sector was only slighly involved in anti poverty work, The CAP agency were defanged early in their lives and the traditional local non profits were only here and there deeply involved in the civil rights aand anti poverty movements. It is important to remember that most nonprofits are community agencies and unless part of a national organization such as the YMCA or Boys and Girls clubs they do whatever they do for a local client group and do not know the so called national leaders and do not take nte of what they have to say. Most national organizations with local affiliates were then and are now mostly involved with the “inside baseball” that is pertenine to their affiliates survival. While there are many local entities concerned about poverty they d not have a national voice and are unlikely to follow “national leaders’ so called since they do not know them and do not see these leaders and important to their local efforts. If we are to have a robust national effort to reduce or eliminate poverty it will need to take plae in the political arena with volunteers and political figures with courage and resources. Then maybe some non profits will follow

  • Lori Beamer

    Thank you for this editorial.

    I want to note that there are organizations out there addressing poverty. As a new non-profit providing poverty awareness education throughout Oregon, we feel that we are catalyzing an authentic evaluation of the poverty experience. By bringing in experiential education, history, data, and authentic storytelling; we are fueling action planning to address and humanize the poverty experience. We must work together to bust the associated myths of poverty and dissolve the attached stigma.

    We talk to numerous non-profits who are addressing poverty. What we need is more collaboration to create an empowered functional and dynamic movement!