Chap 6

6.
Teaching the public policy context of

nonprofit management
Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan
INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC
It is impossible to fully understand public policy without understanding the

role of nonprofit organizations. Likewise, successful management of nonprofit
organizations is dependent upon knowledge of the public policy context in
which they operate. In some instances, nonprofits are integral policy actors,
influencing policy outcomes and making policy through provision of services.
At other times, nonprofits are affected by policy decisions, even constrained
by regulatory policies. In all cases, nonprofits are inextricably entwined with
public policy (Almong-Bar and Schmid, 2014; Basinger, 2014; Vaughan and
Arsneault, 2020).
This is not a recent phenomenon – nonprofits have long been imbedded in
the public policy process. Whether member-serving (e.g. chambers of com-
merce, labor unions, other professional associations) or among the myriad
and more commonly recognized public charities, none exist without affecting
or being affected by public policy. Nonprofits frequently influence policy
through advocacy efforts and direct lobbying (Lu, 2018; Smith, 2008). The
nonprofit sector encompasses policy entrepreneurs who identify and raise
awareness of a host of public problems, without whom some issues might
never reach the government’s agenda. They are often voices in the policy
formulation phase, providing research and analysis, testimony, and vital
information from the front lines needed to shape effective public policy (Fyall
and Daniel, 2018). The process of policy implementation also involves use of
nonprofit organizations as service contractors, but beyond simply implement-
ing government programs, nonprofits make public policy through their deci-
sions about the services they provide, the clients they serve and the problems
they seek to address. Additionally, as service providers, organizations in the
not-for-profit sector have an important role to play in providing evaluation and
feedback that helps to close the loop on the policy process (see Balassiano and
Chandler, 2010).
94
Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:20PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Teaching the public policy context of nonprofit management 95
Table 6.1 NACC graduate curricular guideline 6.0: public policy,

advocacy, and social change
6.1 Various roles of nonprofit organizations and voluntary action in effecting social change, including
but not limited to, influencing the public policy process in local, national and international
contexts.
6.2 Public policies of significance specific to the nonprofit sector and their past, current, and potential
impact on the sector, nonprofit organizations, and philanthropic behaviors.
6.3 How individuals as well as nonprofit organizations can shape public policy through strategies such
as community organizing, association and movement building, public education, policy research,
lobbying, and litigation.
6.4 Role of board members, staff and volunteers as agents of and for social change, grounded in
particular mission-driven effort.
6.5 Framework and guidelines for lobbying, as allowable, within different types of nonprofits as
delineated across local, national and international contexts.
Source: Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (NACC) curricular guidelines (2015, p. 12).
Accordingly, it is advisable for those studying the nonprofit sector to thoroughly

understand the public policymaking process and nonprofits’ relationship to it.
Equally important, policymakers and public sector employees would be well
served to better understand the complexities of the nonprofit sector because
of the increase in scope and impact of not-for-profit organizations (Bushouse,
2017; Goss, 2016; Reckhow, 2016; Horne and Paris, 2010; Sandfort and Stone,
2008). To that end, the Nonprofit-Policy Framework – which considers the
array of ways in which nonprofits make, influence, are affected by, and are
subject to public policy – is a useful means to organize teaching regarding the
interrelatedness and often interdependence of not-for-profit organizations and
public policy (Vaughan and Arsneault, 2020). The four facets of the frame-
work encompass each of the five elements identified within the Nonprofit
Academic Centers Council (NACC) Graduate Curricular Guideline 6.0 Public
Policy, Advocacy, and Social Change (included in Table 6.1).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Noted policy scholar B. Guy Peters defined public policy as “the sum of
government activities, whether pursued directly or through agents, as those
activities have an influence on the lives of citizens” (1999, p. 4). The agents
noted by Peters are often nonprofit organizations that engage in the long and
complex policy process. In the classic model, this process involves six stages:
(1) problem identification; (2) agenda-setting; (3) policy formulation; (4)
adoption; (5) implementation; and (6) evaluation. Voluntary associations are
often involved in each stage of the process (see Smith and Grønbjerg, 2018;

96 Teaching nonprofit management
Tompkins-Stange, 2015). Teaching the role of public policy in nonprofit

management is based on a conceptualization of nonprofit–policy relationships
as interconnected pieces of the policy process puzzle in which nonprofits:
(1) make policy; (2) influence policy; (3) are affected by policy; and (4) are
subject to policy (see Vaughan and Arsneault, 2020). In some cases nonprofits
are the policy actors, changing policy through advocacy, issue framing, and
direct service delivery; at other times, the nonprofit is acted upon by policy
decisions that affect the nature of their work. Each of these facets is discussed
in relation to the stages of the policy process and with regard to the NACC
Curricular Guidelines in the sections that follow.
Facet 1: Nonprofits Make Public Policy
A key aspect of this framework is the contention that nonprofits make public
policy (see Smith and Lipsky, 1993). The role of interest groups in affecting
change in public policy is extensively discussed in the political science litera-
ture, but nonprofits are more than interest groups. When not-for-profit organ-
izations open a homeless shelter, they decide which segments of the homeless
to serve, when they organize a community garden, they decide in which neigh-
borhood it goes, when they operate a summer concert series, they determine
the time of day and types of music to present; in each of these examples, the
nonprofit has made public policy decisions. As Smith and Lipsky note, direct
delivery of public programs means that employees in the not-for-profit sector
often “now represent public policy to the people” that they serve (1993, p. 13).
This facet of the framework incorporates the role of nonprofits in effecting
social change (NACC guideline 6.1) via the public goods and services they
provide.
Facet 2: Nonprofits Influence Public Policy
Nonprofits have long played a significant role in influencing public policy

through their role as advocates or through direct lobbying (also known as
advocacy). Those in the nonprofit sector can act as policy entrepreneurs,
identifying and raising awareness of public problems, manipulating a prob-
lem’s policy image and framing the issue through a combination of emotional
appeal, symbolism, and factual evidence surrounding the issue (Baumgartner
and Jones, 1993; Stone, 2002). In addition, nonprofits are often vital in the
policy formulation phase during which lawmakers may ask them to provide
data or research findings, to participate in committee meetings, or to submit
position papers. The significant role that nonprofits play in influencing public
policy is reflected in the attention given by NACC; four of the five NACC

curricular guidelines related to public policy (6.1, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5) address
ways in which nonprofits influence public policy as agents of social change.
Not only do nonprofits propel public policy, they must also respond to
it – when indirectly affected by policy as well as directly subject to it. NACC
Guideline 6.2 encompasses “public policies of significance specific to the
nonprofit sector.” This seems aimed directly at government regulation of non-
profit organizations, but it is important for students to understand how public
policies can also have an indirect impact on their operations. Facets 3 and 4 of
our framework illustrate this distinction.
Facet 3: Nonprofits are Affected by Public Policy
In the course of defining public problems, meeting public needs, and address-
ing collective action dilemmas, not-for-profit organizations are continually
affected by public policies that were not designed for them. It has long been
recognized that changes to tax policy, for example, can positively or negatively
affect the level of charitable giving by donors (Auten et al., 2002). The US tax
reform measures adopted in 2017 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act include
a significant increase in the standard deduction, which is expected to reduce
the number of itemizers to approximately 5 percent of taxpayers. This provi-
sion does not directly change the regulation of nonprofits or their tax-exempt
status, but is expected to indirectly affect the sector via an estimated decrease
in giving to charitable nonprofits of up to $24 billion (National Council of
Nonprofits, 2018, pp. 4–5).1
Facet 4: Nonprofits are Subject to Public Policy
Nonprofits operate within an environment in which they are subject to regu-

latory policies from all levels of government (Vaughan and Arsneault, 2020).
At the state level, offices of attorney general or secretary of state regulate
nonprofit activity, and cities increasingly arrange for nonprofits to make
payments in lieu of taxes (PILoTs) to offset the costs of local public services
(Hopfensperger, 2013). Most notable is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
which, because it grants tax-exempt status, has become the default agency reg-
ulating the voluntary sector. There is a persistent myth that public charities are
not allowed to lobby, so it is imperative that students understand what activity
is permissible (as emphasized by NACC guideline 6.5). The IRS stipulates
and provides guidance regarding permissible lobbying activities across the
spectrum of 501(c) organizations and foundations (Colinvaux, 2017).

TEACHING APPLICATION MINI CASE STUDIES AND

EXERCISES
Having students research organizations or read existing cases provides deeper

understanding of the extensive policy role of nonprofit managers. Teaching
with cases allows students to engage in critical analysis, think through problem
resolution, and apply the theories and frameworks of the field (Hatcher et al.,
2018; Winston, 2000). Rich case examples allow students to see that various
elements of the NACC guidelines on policy, advocacy, and social change are
part of the day-to-day operations of nonprofits. Even small nonprofits must be
attuned to regulations that affect their operations, tax policies that reduce their
ability to raise donations, or rules that change their clientele. The following
mini cases are used as assignments or in-class exercises to illustrate the four
facets of the nonprofit–policy relationship.
Facet 1: Nonprofits Make Policy: Mini Case No. 1 with Discussion

Questions
A useful case study to illustrate the nonprofit–policy relationship (NACC

Guideline 6.1), particularly how nonprofit organizations bring about social
change through policy, involves children’s advocacy centers (CAC). The
National Children’s Advocacy Center (NCAC) was established in Huntsville,
Alabama in 1985, because child victims of sexual abuse were often subject
to multiple levels of trauma – first by their attacker and again by the criminal
justice and public health systems designed to protect them. As pressure to
collect evidence for prosecution of offenders grew, the emotional needs of
child victims were typically ignored (Mann, 1984a, 1984b). Frustrated with
this process, policy entrepreneurs Bud Cramer and colleagues organized a new
nonprofit response that would alleviate the trauma of prosecution inflicted on
children. Through Cramer’s leadership and the efforts of many volunteers, the
NCAC became a model for public policy and led to the creation of centers
throughout the US (Cramer, n.d.; Chandler, 2000; see also Vaughan and
Arsneault, 2020).
A children’s advocacy center (most of which are nonprofit) is a central-
ized, child-friendly facility in which law enforcement, social services, legal,
medical, victims’ advocate, and counseling professionals come together as
a team to interview, examine, and provide support services to child victims.
This successful model of policy and implementation led to the creation of
another nonprofit, National Children’s Alliance (NCA), which advocates for
legislation related to CACs, as well as providing information “and technical
assistance to promote the development and operation of children’s advocacy

centers across the United States” (Vaughan and Arsneault, 2008, p. 414).
Procedures developed and services provided by the original NCAC as it
worked with the criminal justice and public health communities to ensure
compassionate treatment of child victims were, de facto, public policy. The
diffusion of their model is a clear example of ways in which nonprofits make
policy through service delivery and influence the policy process across local
and national contexts (NACC guideline 6.1).
• Identify another nonprofit organization that makes policy through direct

service delivery. Discuss the ways in which that organization brought
about social change through its operations. Was the nonprofit’s de facto
public policy subsequently formalized through formal policy change?
Facet 2: Nonprofits Influencing Policy through Advocacy: Mini Case No.

2 with Discussion Questions
The voluntary sector role in advancing civil society is abundantly clear when
the sector engages in “community organizing, association and movement
building” and similar strategies to shape public policy (NACC guideline
6.3). An evolving example of how nonprofits influence policy through social
movements and collective action involves the issue of gun control. Spurred
by the Valentine’s Day 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School (MSDHS) in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 and injured 15 others,
student survivors of the mass shooting launched two nationwide protests. First
a National School Walkout, and then the March for Our Lives, with a protest
march and rally in Washington DC and over 800 “sibling marches” around
the globe (Shear, 2018). The students partnered with established gun control
organizations including Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords Courage, and
created March for Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)4 social welfare organi-
zation, affording them maximum ability to lobby legislators (March for Our
Lives, n.d.).
In addition to mobilizing hundreds of thousands of marchers and protes-
tors, MSDHS students met with state and federal lawmakers, gave media
interviews, and advanced a five-point policy platform. They called for digital-
ization of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms records, universal back-
ground checks, the closing of the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows
private sales of firearms without a background check, a ban on high-capacity
magazines, and a ban on assault-style weapons (Simon, 2018).
• Has March for Our Lives been successful in influencing public policy?
What challenges and opportunities has the organization faced in promoting

policy change? To what extent has the nature of the public problem made it
more or less likely that nonprofit advocacy would result in policy change?
Facet 3: When Nonprofits are Affected by Policy: Mini Case No. 3 with
Discussion Questions
NACC guideline 6.2 addresses the significance of public policies and their
“potential impact on the sector, nonprofit organizations, and philanthropic
behaviors.” The Southwest Colorado-based nonprofit 4CORE (Four Corners
Office for Resource Efficiency) provides a good example to discuss how
a small, local nonprofit can be affected by federal public policy that was
not intentionally designed to affect the sector, thereby illustrating the third
facet of the framework. Covering five counties in the southwest corner of
Colorado, 4CORE is a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to advance
“the effective and efficient use of energy” in homes and businesses in the
region. It provides energy efficiency education, serves as a hub for energy
information, and assists residents, especially those with low incomes, with
innovative energy-saving solutions (http://fourcore.org/about/). However,
a change in federal energy policy with the new presidential administration in
2017 changed the way the organization funds its operations (Romeo, 2017).
First, a cut to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice
program of nearly 80 percent meant there were far fewer available federal
grants. Further, 4CORE was advised to write their federal grant proposals
differently, eliminating the use of the term “climate change,” for example.
Finally, 4CORE’s executive director explained that with fewer federal dollars
available, the organization must begin to focus on seeking local funding to
continue its mission (Romeo, 2017).
This example of a local nonprofit with less than $200,000 in average annual
revenue should resonate with students in similar organizations. It will probably
be easy to identify other public policies of significance to the nonprofit sector
and individual organizations (NACC guideline 6.2). Nonprofit leaders must
be aware of the impacts that federal, state, and local policy change will have
on their organizations and be ready to take advantage of policies that might
facilitate their work, like new grant opportunities. On the other hand, they also
need to prepare for policies that will negatively affect their work, as in the
examples provided here.
• How can nonprofit organizations protect themselves from the adverse

effects of policy change? Can they position themselves to benefit from
policy action? What resources are available to nonprofit organizations to
identify and track potential policy threats and opportunities?

Policy Implications of Nonprofits’ Missions: Mini Case No. 4 with

Discussion Questions
Nonprofit organizations are mission-driven and their missions have public

policy implications. NACC Guideline 6.5 highlights the importance of board
members, staff and volunteers in promoting social change through their
actions, grounded in the organization’s mission. The following mini case is
used to illustrate ways in which mission statements reflect policy, and the
importance of aligning staff activities with a nonprofit’s policy orientation.
Four prominent animal-related nonprofits – American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), American Humane (AH), Humane
Society of the US (HSUS), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA) – oppose cruelty to animals. Their mission statements, however,
reflect dramatically different views on policy-related activity designed to
protect animals from cruelty. PETA, for example, promotes itself as an animal
rights organization, and routinely utilizes tactics referred to on their website
as “colorful and controversial gimmicks” to “grab headlines,” allowing them
to take their animal rights message around the world. Staff and volunteers for
the organization promote social and policy change, often through “colorful
demonstrations, stunts, and campaigns” designed to raise awareness of their
mission that states: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for
entertainment, or abuse in any other way” (PETA, 2018, p. 1).
The commitment of American Humane, an animal welfare organization, is
“to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals” (AH, 2018). Its
commitment to certify humane treatment of farm animals and those used in the
entertainment industry stands in sharp contrast to PETA’s mission. Serving
as a board member, staff, or volunteer for American Humane therefore has
very different policy implications than working with PETA. It is important for
students to consider the policy dimensions of the actions taken by individuals
across the spectrum of employment with nonprofits. Social change involves
policy change.
• Mission statements reflect the policy priorities of organizations. Working

for or donating to a nonprofit organization implies support for the mission
of the organization and therefore has policy implications. Accordingly,
should a nonprofit organization decline a donation or refuse a volunteer
based on the policy dimensions of actions taken by that individual? Explain
your answer.

Nonprofit Lobbying: Mini-Case No. 5 with Discussion Questions
Policy scholars discuss the concept of policy venue as an institutional point at

which policy change can take place (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). NACC
guideline 6.5 includes this concept in its discussion of lobbying “across
local, national, and international contexts.” These different contexts provide
nonprofit organizations multiple venues for policy change. Further, each state
offers different venues to set policy, independent of federal control. As such,
lobbying by nonprofits often involves multiple levels of government as well as
multiple branches of government. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
provides a compelling case of legislative success by a nonprofit organization
in the US (see Vaughan and Arsneault, 2020).
In 1980, after her daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver, Candy Lightner
created MADD as a way to channel her anger and frustration over inattention
to the problem of drinking and driving. MADD’s goal was to influence public
policy and change public opinion because in 1980 driving under the influence
of alcohol was not considered a public problem. “[D]rinking and driving was
how people got home. It was normal behavior” (Davies, 2005, p. 10).
Officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
were aware of the growing problem related to drunk driving and were similarly
frustrated by the lack of attention to it. Because the federal government lacks
authority to compel states to change their legal drinking age, set penalties for
drunk driving, or establish the blood alcohol content limit for what constitutes
being legally drunk, nonprofit lobbying efforts to promote policy change were
particularly relevant. MADD provided the organizational structure through
which others came forward with their stories of injury and loss, made dona-
tions, and established MADD chapters in their own communities; MADD also
went to work lobbying state legislatures. Within three years of its founding,
129 new anti-drunk driving laws had passed in more than half of the states,
making MADD one of the most successful examples of nonprofit influence on
public policy. The organization has continued its efforts to influence policies
related to drunk, and now drugged, driving for over thirty years (Davies, 2005;
MADD, 2018).
Importantly, MADD is a 501(c)(3), public charity organization, thus its
ability to engage in both direct and grassroots lobbying is heavily regulated
by the IRS. Many nonprofits that engage in extensive lobbying choose to form
as 501(c)(4) organizations or create separate 501(c)(4) entities, which are
free from lobbying restrictions. MADD has chosen to remain a 501(c)(3) and
retain the ability for its donors to receive a tax-deductible donation. In order to
remain within the allowable limits for lobbying expenditures, MADD files IRS
Form 5768 (501(h) election) with its tax filings. While it engages in significant
lobbying activity at the state and federal levels, its 501(h) election provides

clear limits on lobbying expenditures (Smucker, 1999). For example, in 2015

MADD’s non-taxable lobbying limit was $250,000. The organization spent
just over $48,000 on grassroots and $100,000 on direct legislative lobbying,
coming in well under the federal limit (MADD, 2015).
• Discuss the multiple venues the US federal system of government offers

nonprofits in their attempts to influence public policy.
ASSIGNMENTS, DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, AND

RESOURCES
1. Exploring the Policy Implications of Giving
A web-based exercise used to explore the policy implications of donations to

support animal causes involves asking students to explore the “about us” and
other sections of the website for each of four well-known animal-related non-
profits. Students must identify and compare the missions, views on animals,
and positions on policy issues of PETA (www.peta.org), Humane Society of
the United States (www.humanesociety.org), ASPCA (www.aspca.org) and
American Humane (www.americanhumane.org).
This assignment works at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and
for students in face-to-face and online courses. Either during class discussion,
via an online discussion board, or in a written assignment, students discuss
how a donation to each organization supports significantly different stances on
public policy issues. This exercise illustrates the relationship between policy
goals and nonprofit missions.
2. Practicing Advocacy2
Students, working individually or as a group, collect background information

and data on a policy issue relevant to a nonprofit organization. This could be
their own workplace, an organization for which they volunteer, or an organiza-
tion assigned by the instructor. This assignment simply asks students to act as
advocates, rather than lobbyists; they should be able to articulate the difference
between the two.
The final product is a position paper, poster presentation, or oral presenta-
tion. Students should include: (1) Identification of the issue/problem about
which their organization wants to advocate, and their position; (2) Research
of the facts and data backing up their position, and include examples (if they
exist) of the solutions implemented by other organizations.
This assignment works at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and
for students in face-to-face and online courses. Undergraduates may need to

learn that organizations such as the Census Bureau and Centers for Disease
Control exist and collect relevant data; a class period could be devoted to strat-
egies and sources of research. Graduate students should already possess these
skills; however, we suggest instructors identify prerequisite skills required to
complete the project and encourage graduate students to seek assistance in
developing skills if needed.
Faculty can note that data are gathered on many topics from many sources
at the federal, state, and local levels: public health departments, social service
agencies, departments of education, environmental protection agencies, and
others. Nonprofits, including foundations, are excellent sources of data as
well, including the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count, the Police
Foundation’s Police Data Initiative, and the Kaiser Family Foundation’s State
Health Facts database.
Adapting to online: The presentation can be uploaded as a PowerPoint, Prezi,
Keynote, video, etc., and viewed by the instructor and class. In order to provide
feedback for a successful online project, the assignment should be broken into
steps. Students could first complete their identification of the issue/problem
for their organization; next, they could complete their position statement, and
so on. The assignment culminates with the presentation, discussed above. The
website Facultyfocus.com includes a number of tools for instructors to create
effective online group assignments (https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/
online-education/how-to-design-effective-online-group-work-activities/).
3. Creating a Policy Wiki
The class Policy Wiki is an exercise in collaborative learning in which groups

of students or the entire class can add to collective knowledge. The Policy
Wiki could focus on a single topic, such as advocacy and lobbying or the
policy process, or it could combine all policy topics. The final document could
serve a variety of purposes, the simplest of which would be the creation of an
exam study guide.
There are several learning management systems, including Moodle,
Blackboard, etc., which allow for the creation of wikis. The advantage of
using your institution’s learning management system is that the wiki is easier
to track and grade. There are also wiki software packages, some of which are
free. Wikipedia provides a tool for users to compare software options.3
This assignment is particularly well suited to online courses, but would
also be valuable for a face-to-face class, and works at both the graduate and
undergraduate levels. For undergraduate students, the instructor may wish to
provide a list of concepts such as Lobbying, Advocacy, Substantial Part Test,
H Election, and so on, and students would add to each wiki entry during a spec-
ified time, which could be the entire semester. It is best to divide large classes

into smaller wiki groups; the final document from each group could be shared
with the entire class. The instructor can monitor and add to each Policy Wiki.
Graduate students would work more independently, creating their own
Policy Wiki to identify and define important terms, or explore how concepts
are connected, such as how issue framing affects both public and government
agendas. A written reflection piece discussing ways in which graduate students
could apply this assignment in their own work environments is a nice way to
put course assignments into practice.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
The diversity of nonprofit organizations as well as the diversity of students

studying them can lead to a vast range of examples and topics for discussion.
1. Choose a public policy in which a nonprofit organization has played
a role and trace the nonprofit role in the policy process. Discuss each
stage at which nonprofits are evident and relevant, from problem iden-
tification to policy evaluation.
2. Identify and discuss an example for each of the following: (a) nonprof-
its make public policy; (b) nonprofits are affected by public policy; (c)
nonprofits are subject to public policy; and (d) nonprofits influence
public policy.
Questions 3 and 4 would also be suitable for a discussion board in an online
class:
3. Nonprofits are often considered to give “voice to the voiceless” in
public policy. Discuss how nonprofit organizations, particularly foun-
dations, are in a unique position to identify public problems as well as
influence and implement public policy. What constraints do they face?
4. In what ways does lobbying differ for different types of nonprofit
organizations? Under what circumstances would these differences
influence which 501(c) tax-exempt status is sought by an organization?
Resources
Social media can be a useful tool to transmit information about new develop-
ments in the sector. Pinterest, for example, can be used to set up topic boards
for a class; relevant news articles can be pinned for easy access by students,
even after they have completed the class.4

Just as tools are helpful in managing the scope of the nonprofits/public

policy spectra, it is useful to identify sources to assist with complex, tech-
nical topics. Lobbying rules, for example, are particularly complex. Expert
sources are better able to keep up with legislative changes and understand
their implications, such as the National Council of Nonprofits (https://www
.councilofnonprofits.org/everyday-advocacy) and Alliance for Justice (www
.afj.org). The IRS also provides excellent online resources about these topics,
including specific guidelines on lobbying for charitable nonprofits (www
.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying), and its rules regarding gaining and
maintaining tax-exempt status for 501(c) 3, 4, 5, and 6 organizations (www.irs
.gov/charities-non-profits/life-cycle-of-an-exempt-organization). Practitioners
utilize these sources, increasing confidence in their importance and utility.
CONCLUSION
This chapter identifies and discusses the four facets of the Nonprofit-Policy
Framework – nonprofits make policy, nonprofits influence policy, nonprofits
are affected by policy, nonprofits are subject to policy. The five mini case
studies with discussion questions illustrate many aspects of nonprofit–policy
relationships. General discussion questions, as well as suggestions for activ-
ities that are suitable for take-home, in-class, or online assignments, provide
practical application of the concepts. Websites and additional resources are
included to promote additional study.
The chapter concluded with the primary teaching note encouraging a con-
sistent emphasis on the policy perspective when teaching and learning about
the elements of nonprofit administration. The nonprofit relationship with
public policy includes much more than a discussion of getting and keeping
tax-exempt status or a debate over lobbying. It is imperative that students
understand that nonprofits and public policy form a symbiotic relationship and
they cannot be understood independently of one another. All that nonprofits
do and all that they are have policy implications, so teaching about nonprofit
management requires teaching about public policy.
NOTES
1. National Council of Nonprofits has compiled a list of resources to help better
understand the impact of the new federal tax law on nonprofits. It is avail-
able on their website which was accessed 9 January 2020 at: https:// www
.councilofnonprofits.org/how-tax-cuts-jobs-act-impacts-nonprofits.
2. For faculty interested in making advocacy/lobbying a semester project, see Pat
Libby & Associates (2012). The Lobbying Strategy Handbook, especially chapters
8–10.

3. To compare wiki software packages see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison

_of_wiki_software accessed 10 June 2018.
4. An example can be accessed at: https://www.pinterest.com/shannon3666/not-for
-profit-organizations/(accessed 9 January 2020).
SUGGESTED READING
Arsneault, S. and Vaughan, S.K. (2015). Symposium Introduction: Blurred Lines:
Preparing Students to Work Across the Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors.
Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(3), 311–434.
Berry, J.M. (with David F. Arons) (2003). A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Boris, E.T. and Steuerle, C.E. (eds) (2017). Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration
and Conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Farley, K.E.W., Goss, K.A. and Smith, S.R. (2018). Symposium: Advancing
Philanthropic Scholarship: The Implications of Transformation. PS: Political
Science & Politics, 51(1), 39–66.
Vaughan, S.K. and Arsneault, S. (2020). Managing Nonprofit Organizations in
a Policy World, 2nd edn. Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh, Publishers.
REFERENCES
AH (American Humane) (2018). About us. Accessed 30 March 2018 at https://www
.americanhumane.org/about-us/.
Almong-Bar, M. and Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human
service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
43(1), 11–35.
Auten, G.E., Sieg, H. and Clotfelter, C.T. (2002). Charitable giving, income, and taxes:
An analysis of panel data. American Economic Review, 92(1), 371–82.
Balassiano, K. and Chandler, S.M. (2010). The emerging role of nonprofit associa-
tions in advocacy and public policy: Trends, issues, and prospects. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 946–55.
Basinger, N.W. (2014). Charitable nonprofits in the West and their implications for
public policy. California Journal of Politics & Policy, 6(1), 187–206.
Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American
Politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Bushouse, B. (2017). Leveraging nonprofit and voluntary action research to inform
public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 50–72.
Chandler, N. (ed.) (2000). Best Practices for Establishing a Children’s Advocacy
Center Program, 3rd edn. Washington, DC: National Children’s Alliance.
Colinvaux, R. (2017). Nonprofits and advocacy. In Elizabeth T. Boris and C. Eugene
Steuerle (eds), Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict, 3rd edn.
(pp. 191–215). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cramer, Congressman Bud (n.d.). Children’s issues page. Accessed 11 July 2003 at
http://cramer.house.gov/NR/exeres/62705873-6F79-454C-AF23-19C0ABC47098
.htm.
Davies, L. (2005). 25 years of saving lives. Driven, Fall.

Fyall, R. and Daniel, J.L. (2018). Pantries and policy implementation: Using nonprofit
priorities to understand variation in emergency food assistance. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4S), 11S–33S.
Goss, K.A. (2016). Policy plutocrats: How America’s wealthy seek to influence gov-
ernance. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(3), 442–48.
Hatcher, W., McDonald III, B.D. and Brainard, L.A. (2018). How to write a case study
for public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(2), 274–85.
Hopfensperger, J. (2013). Cities ask tax-exempt nonprofits to pay for services.
Governing, 28 January. Accessed 9 January 2020 at http://www.governing.com/
topics/finance/mct-cities-ask-tax-exempt-nonprofits-to-pay.html.
Horne, C.S. and Paris, T.V. (2010). Preparing MPA students to succeed in government–
nonprofit collaboration: Lessons from the field. Journal of Public Affairs Education,
16(1), 13–30.
Libby, Pat and Associates (2012). The Lobbying Strategy Handbook. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Lu, J. (2018). Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy:
A meta-analytical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4S),
177S–203S.
Mann, J. (1984a). Getting tough on child abuse. The Washington Post, 23 November,
p. B3.
Mann, J. (1984b). Sexual abuse. The Washington Post, 13 June, p. C1.
March for Our Lives (n.d.). Frequently asked questions. Accessed at https://
marchforourlives.com/faq/.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) (2015). Form 990. Accessed 9 January 2020
at http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/942/942707273/942707273
_201512_990.pdf.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) (2018). About us. Accessed at https://www
.madd.org/about-us/.
National Council of Nonprofits (2018). 2018 Tax Law Checklist: New Federal Tax
Law – Now What for Nonprofit Board and Staff Members? Updated 26 March 2018.
Accessed 9 January 2020 at https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/tax-law-checklist-nonprofits.pdf.
Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (2015). Curricular Guidelines. Accessed 9
January 2020 at http://www.nonprofit-academic-centers-council.org/NACC-WP/wp
-content/uploads/2019/01/NACC_Curricular_Guidelines_100615.pdf.
PETA (2018). Animal rights uncompromised: PETA’s tactics. Accessed at 9 January
2020 https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/peta-tactics/.
Peters, B.G. (1999). American Public Policy: Promise and Performance, 5th edn. New
York, NY: Chatham House.
Reckhow, S. (2016). More than patrons: How foundations fuel policy change and
backlash. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(3), 449–54.
Romeo, J. (2017). Amid uncertain future, 4CORE looks for other ways to thrive.
Durango Herald, 5 October. Accessed 9 January 2020 at https://durangoherald.com/
articles/187531-amid-uncertain-future-4core-looks-for-other-ways-to-thrive.
Sandfort, J. and Stone, M. (2008). Analyzing policy fields: Helping students under-
stand complex state and local contexts. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2),
129–48.
Shear, M.D. (2018). Students lead huge rallies for gun control across the U.S. New York
Times, 24 March. Accessed 9 January 2020 at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/
24/us/politics/students-lead-huge-rallies-for-gun-control-across-the-us.html.

Simon, S. (2018). Parkland student David Hogg on the gun control movement driven
by teens. National Public Radio, 24 March. Accessed 9 January 2020 at https://www
.npr.org/2018/03/24/596647455/parkland-student-david-hogg-on-the-gun-control
-movement-driven-by-teens.
Smith, S.R. (2008). The increased complexity of public services: Curricular implica-
tions of schools of public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2), 115–28.
Smith, S.R. and Grønbjerg, K.A. (2018). Introduction to Special Issue of NVSQ:
Nonprofits and public policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4S),
5S–10S.
Smith, S.R. and Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for Hire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Smucker, B. (1999). The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide, 2nd edn. Washington, DC:
Independent Sector.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York,
NY: W.W. Norton.
Tompkins-Stange, M. (2015). Policy Patrons, Philanthropy, Education Reform, and
the Politics of Influence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Vaughan, S.K. and Arsneault, S. (2008). Not-for-profit advocacy: Challenging policy
images and pursuing policy change. Review of Policy Research, 25(5), 411–28.
Vaughan, S.K. and Arsneault, S. (2020). Managing Nonprofit Organizations in
a Policy World, 2nd edn. Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh, Publishers.
Winston, K. (2000). Teaching ethics by the case method. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 19(1), 153–60.


Chap 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6.

Teaching the public policy context of

INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC

It is impossible to fully understand public policy without understanding the

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Table 6.1 NACC graduate curricular guideline 6.0: public policy,

Accordingly, it is advisable for those studying the nonprofit sector to thoroughly

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Tompkins-Stange, 2015). Teaching the role of public policy in nonprofit

Facet 1: Nonprofits Make Public Policy

Facet 2: Nonprofits Influence Public Policy

Nonprofits have long played a significant role in influencing public policy

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Facet 3: Nonprofits are Affected by Public Policy

Facet 4: Nonprofits are Subject to Public Policy

Nonprofits operate within an environment in which they are subject to regu-

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

TEACHING APPLICATION MINI CASE STUDIES AND

Having students research organizations or read existing cases provides deeper

Facet 1: Nonprofits Make Policy: Mini Case No. 1 with Discussion

A useful case study to illustrate the nonprofit–policy relationship (NACC

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

• Identify another nonprofit organization that makes policy through direct

Facet 2: Nonprofits Influencing Policy through Advocacy: Mini Case No.

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

• How can nonprofit organizations protect themselves from the adverse

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Policy Implications of Nonprofits’ Missions: Mini Case No. 4 with

Nonprofit organizations are mission-driven and their missions have public

• Mission statements reflect the policy priorities of organizations. Working

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Nonprofit Lobbying: Mini-Case No. 5 with Discussion Questions

Policy scholars discuss the concept of policy venue as an institutional point at

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

clear limits on lobbying expenditures (Smucker, 1999). For example, in 2015

• Discuss the multiple venues the US federal system of government offers

ASSIGNMENTS, DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, AND

1. Exploring the Policy Implications of Giving

A web-based exercise used to explore the policy implications of donations to

Students, working individually or as a group, collect background information

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

3. Creating a Policy Wiki

The class Policy Wiki is an exercise in collaborative learning in which groups

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

The diversity of nonprofit organizations as well as the diversity of students

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Just as tools are helpful in managing the scope of the nonprofits/public

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

3. To compare wiki software packages see: http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​wiki/​Comparison​

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan - 9781788118675

You might also like

3. To compare wiki software packages see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison