Why Nonprofits Should Revisit Their Mission Statements to Empower Civic Engagement

Nonprofits should consider revisiting their mission statements to incorporate civic engagement and voter education as part of their core activities. Empowering beneficiaries to participate in the democratic process aligns with nonprofit values and strengthens community impact.

Ted Bilich

Many nonprofits that are directly involved in voter education or public policy advocacy structure their mission statements to emphasize civic participation. But even those that do not currently engage in these activities may still consider incorporating them. Given the need to empower nonprofit beneficiaries as noted in a previous post, all nonprofits should consider this move.

Models Abound

As one might expect, organizations like the Alliance for Justice are 501(c)(3) nonprofits that have missions directly focused on nonprofit advocacy. The Alliance for Justice’s mission is to “build the strength of progressive movements by training and educating nonprofit organizations on advocacy and harnessing their collective power to transform our state and federal courts.” AFJ’s Bolder Advocacy program provides excellent resources on how nonprofits can engage in such activities while complying with the law. Similarly, Nonprofit VOTE states that it “equips our nation’s nonprofits with nonpartisan tools and resources to help the communities they serve participate in voting and democracy.”

Independent Sector’s mission is to “lead and catalyze the charitable community, partnering with government, business, and individuals to advance the common good.” As one element, Independent Sector sponsors the Nonprofit Voter Empowerment Project, which is designed to “develop tailored voter engagement strategies to meet their organization’s unique needs.” As that Project notes, “there is widespread support for nonprofit civic engagement and advocacy. In fact, a public poll commissioned by Independent Sector revealed that voters overwhelmingly want to see nonprofits actively participating in civic engagement in the communities they serve.”

Other nonprofits have recognized that merely providing services for their beneficiaries does not suffice to meet the problem in its entirety. Offender Aid and Restoration of Arlington, Virginia, for instance, not only provides services to those returning from incarceration and their families, but also works “upstream” to “confront[] & dismantle individual racism & racism in the legal system & across all systems” (emphasis added).

The Madison Public Schools Foundation “raises private funds, develops community partnerships and advocates for Madison [Wisconsin’s] public schools, students and teachers.” (emphasis added). Thus, MPSF advocates for increased public education funding and asks interested parties to “[w]rite a letter to the editor” and “contact” their “elected officials.” It also supports action by educators to “rally” at the Wisconsin State Capitol “in an effort to push people to the polls to bring change to Wisconsin’s education system.”

While OAR of Arlington and MPSF do not call out electoral activities explicitly in their missions, other nonprofits do – without any negative consequence. Following this model, One Arizona’s mission is “to increase civic participation among Arizonans to improve the lives of Latinos, young people, and single women.” Black Lives Matter Georgia states that part of its mission is creating positive transformation within communities of color “[t]hrough education, training, and advocacy initiatives.”

Thus, a nonprofit focused on a particular beneficiary group may presumably include language in its mission about "empowering” those beneficiary communities “to engage in democratic processes" or "educate the public and beneficiaries on civic duties," aligning with the legal requirement to remain nonpartisan.

Why Make a Formal Mission Change?

If nonprofits are permitted to engage in advocacy and that advocacy may include assisting beneficiaries to engage in the political process, why shouldn’t nonprofits just do this without messing with their formal missions? Three reasons:

  • Legal Issues. Nonprofits receive their tax-exempt status based on their mission and activities outlined in their founding documents. Those documents may change, but engaging in activities outside of their mission may put their charitable status at risk.
  • Donor Trust. Donors give you money based on your mission. If you create and fund programs outside of your mission, donors may feel duped and your reputation would suffer.
  • Focus. Mission statements focus a nonprofit. Your board should make a formal choice to expand your mission statement.

So, a lot is riding on this election cycle. Nonprofits’ beneficiaries should be urged to vote, and nonprofits should consider adding language to their mission statements to allow them to get out the vote.

Risk Alternatives provides training and support for organizations that want to improve their resilience, sustainability, and growth. For more information, email info@riskalts.com or call 608-709-0793.