A Tale of Two Immigration Laws: Arizona and Mississippi

By Nayantara Mehta

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments over Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant bill, SB 1070. The passage of the law kicked off a wave of anti-immigrant state legislation throughout the country. If the Court upholds the law, many worry about another round of state legislation similar to Arizona’s. But, regardless of how the Court rules, there are forces on the ground organizing against these discriminatory laws and showing the power of advocacy.

Earlier this month, advocates in Mississippi managed to once again defeat legislation similar to what’s in place in Arizona and Alabama. Despite a political climate in the state that seemed likely to usher in the passage of HB 488, a coalition of advocates – representing immigrants, the African-American community, labor, and even employers – was able to stop it.

One of the key players leading the effort to defeat HB 488 was the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA). AFJ has had the pleasure of providing legal support to MIRA in the past. For years, MIRA has been helping to build alliances throughout the state among communities that may not always see their interests as being aligned. The defeat of HB 488 is a good reminder that this hard work of coalition-building, civic engagement, and engaging in policy battles can pay off in very tangible ways. And it should offer hope to other states that citizens working together can put the brakes on discriminatory immigration laws.

Countering the “Final Exam” Approach to Evaluation

Measuring the impact of advocacy-related work can be challenging. Over the years, we’ve developed resources to make it easier to evaluate advocacy projects and to reassure funders that, yes, they can assess the value of their investments in advocacy. While we’ve made headway, findings from a new study of grantmakers underscore the obstacles faced by nonprofits around evaluation. 

A recent survey, from the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations reveals that many funders continue to approach evaluation as a final report. GEO’s survey of more than 750 grantmakers found that “many in the philanthropic field still view evaluation as an exercise in accountability — while 70 percent of grantmakers reported evaluating their work, the majority do so for internal reporting rather than learning.” 

This has implications for nonprofits engaged in advocacy. While the focus on end-of-project outcomes among funders is understandable, that cannot be the only filter for examining advocacy-related grants. In the work Alliance for Justice does with foundations, we strive to make sure that the valuable role nonprofits play in shaping public policy is not sacrificed at the altar of results-driven evaluations.  Our take on evaluation is that it should be used to build the capacity of an organization and help it grow.

Advocacy requires different criteria

Taking traditional methods of evaluating direct service projects and applying them to advocacy-related grants will never yield meaningful results.  The value of advocacy work and of building an organization’s capacity to influence public policy can be demonstrated only with approaches that fit the nature of advocacy. With advocacy projects, sometimes it’s as useful to know whether something did not happen (e.g., were those funding cuts to children’s health averted?) than if it did. 

We promote an approach to evaluation that suits advocacy-oriented projects and typically involves the following elements·        

• incremental measures that move an organization towards its goals (as opposed to only determining success by the ultimate change in policy or other outcomes that may take many years), 
• assessment of an organization’s growth in capacity to perform advocacy, 
• value placed on the flexibility to react to external political factors, and 
• use of a combination of qualitative and quantitative information in the evaluation.

Resources for evaluation

We want to make sure foundations have enough information to support advocacy-related projects with the confidence that they can assess the success of their grantmaking. To learn more about what’s unique in evaluating advocacy, check out AFJ’s evaluation resources online:

• Tips for Evaluating Advocacy
• The chapter on evaluation of advocacy the AFJ publication Investing in Change: A Funder's Guide to Supporting Advocacy
• From Assessment to Action

New approaches catching on?

Earlier this month, an article about evaluation in The Chronicle of Philanthropy highlights some of our concerns and, encouragingly, some approaches to evaluation we favor.

The article looked at how foundations are handling evaluation and how nonprofits are struggling with what they sometimes feel are “unrealistic” demands to collect data. Among the risks of the focus on evaluation noted in the article, like a diversion of staff resources, is that it discourages risk-taking. We have seen this concern in action.

But the Chronicle also emphasized how funders are beginning to acknowledge some of these drawbacks:

“… evaluators, foundation leaders, and charity officials say they [evaluations] must be seen not as ominous final exams but as checkups that allow nonprofit staff members to introduce mid-course corrections when they’re needed.”

Another grantmaker interviewed highlighted the importance of using both quantitative and qualitative analysis to assess impact.

What do you think?

Are these signs that some funders are adopting a more flexible approach to evaluation? If you are a grantee, are you seeing any changes in how your funder approaches evaluation? Let us know in the comments section below this blog.

Church Politicking

Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain wants
parishes to gather signatures for a state ballot initiative.

Preaching politics from the pulpit? It could be okay, as long as it’s only a little and the subject is a policy issue, not a candidate. I’m paraphrasing the answer Alliance for Justice attorney Melissa Mikesell gave a reporter last week about permissible levels of church involvement in politics.

A Wisconsin newspaper contacted AFJ after hearing reports of church political activity around the country. One incident involves Catholic Churches in Seattle which are allowing the circulation of petitions to repeal same-sex marriage in the state.

Melissa, based in AFJ’s Oakland office, explained to the Wisconsin Sentinel-Journal that the IRS draws a distinction between activities intended to influence public policy and those considered to be campaigning for a candidate.

“The IRS breaks it into two categories: political campaigning, which is strictly prohibited, and influencing the passage of legislation, which is allowed but subject to some limits,” said Melissa Mikesell, an attorney with the organization.

Churches are clearly forbidden from doing anything that supports or opposes a candidate for public office, Mikesell said. They cannot endorse a candidate, spend money on behalf of a candidate, distribute partisan campaign literature or display political campaign signs on church property. They also cannot urge the defeat or election of a candidate from the pulpit, in a newsletter or in a church bulletin, she said.

Legislation is approached differently. Churches are allowed to do a minimal amount of lobbying on proposed legislation and ballot measures, as long as that lobbying is considered only “insubstantial,” an admittedly vague test, Mikesell said. Gathering signatures for a ballot measure such as the one proposed in Washington state likely falls within the permissible zone for churches, she said.

The level of church engagement in political activity is bound to increase in an election year. Churches (which the IRS defines to include any house of worship, such as a synagogue or mosque) are subject to many of the rules governing other 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Unlike other nonprofits, however, churches do not file Form 990s with the IRS that disclose lobbying. Nonetheless, they must still ensure their lobbying activities remain an insubstantial part of the organization’s overall activities. Like other nonprofits, churches should be careful about tracking their employees’ efforts to influence public policy.

For more information, consult AFJ’s resources, including Worry-Free Lobbying and our links to state laws governing lobbying and election-related activity.

Public Financing Push in New York

By Corbin McVeigh

In recent decades, the landscape of political campaigns has evolved drastically. Money plays a greater role than ever in determining who runs and who gets elected. And increasingly, the citizens deciding which candidates can even afford to compete are wealthy donors. 

For example, in New York State in 2010, only 6 percent of candidates’ money came from donors who give $250 or less. In contrast, 78 percent came from non-party-organizations (such as PACs) and individuals who gave $1,000 or more.

When wealthy individuals and corporate donors dominate the election process, the needs and priorities of working families get pushed aside. Right now there’s a coalition campaigning for legislation to remedy this situation in New York State. Alliance for Justice has joined with other public interest groups, including Citizen Action and New York Leadership for Accountable Government, to urge government officials to pass public financing legislation to curtail the influence of big money in elections.

Last week, as part of the “Fair Elections” campaign, this coalition of organizations sent more than one million emails encouraging New Yorkers to contact their legislators and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and demand public financing of elections. Gov. Cuomo ran on the promise that he would support and enact the system of “Fair Elections” if he were to win office.

The governor’s proposal is to implement a program similar to the one in place in New York City, where the government matches every $1 dollar donated by an individual with $6 from the state. This would allow citizen participation to increase significantly while it limits the taxpayer burden to $175 per person. Another key element is a limit placed on the donations PACs can receive to $100 per individual per year. The hope of proponents is that candidates would be forced to address constituents’ concerns more carefully. The changes would also free candidates from spending immense amounts of time and energy on fundraisers and instead focus on more meaningful issues that the state faces every day.

As we said in our action alert,  “Whether it's access to justice, protection from discrimination, environmental regulations, education standards, fair taxes, or equality for all New Yorkers, the issues that matter to our families and our communities are being decided in Albany, and we can't afford to let them get decided by the highest bidder.”

Learn more about the effort to enact public financing in New York State at the FairElectionsNY website.

The Debate over the Catholic Campaign for Human Development

CCHD created this video
to depict life at the poverty line.

The Catholic Church has a long history of advocating for and promoting the rights of low-income and marginalized people in this country. A primary vehicle for this work is the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, a 40-year-old foundation set up by the Catholic bishops that awards $8 million dollars in grants annually. The Campaign’s decision to cease funding several organizations in recent years appears to run counter to the Church’s legacy of supporting groups serving disenfranchised Americans.

The Campaign is facing criticism for decisions to stop funding grantees based on the politics of other groups with which they form coalitions. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported on the latest example of the Campaign’s shifting funding strategy. Compañero, a Colorado immigrant rights group, like other organizations before it, may lose its grant from the Campaign because of its membership in a coalition whose members do work antithetical to Church doctrine (in this case, promoting gay marriage).

An internal Catholic conflict

Much of the concern over the Campaign’s funding decisions comes directly from Catholics themselves. These Catholics take issue with the fact that the grantees are not losing funding because of their direct work on issues that are counter to Church doctrine, but because they are working with other groups involved in such activity. Last week, the blog of US Catholic magazine deplored “…these kinds of guilt-by-association accusations” that are “are affecting even agencies that offer the most basic direct services to those in need.”

Following the New York Times story, a group of progressive Catholics launched a website to raise money for Compañero. Within days of putting up “With Charity for All” they raised $10,000. Catholics United, the group behind the site, told Alliance for Justice that they planned the site to launch later, but were compelled by the Times report to move up the date.

“The Compañeros debacle fit hand in glove with the kind of outrageous politically-charged attacks we've seen launched by right-wing elements in the Church in recent times,” Tim Pumpelly, communications director for Catholics United, wrote via email.

Evidently, the struggle within the Catholic Church over the direction of the Campaign’s work has been going on for years, as conservative Catholics have intensely scrutinized who is receiving financial support. When commenting on the internal debate two years ago, the Catholic magazine Commonweal pointed out that the end goal of the critics of the CCHD is to shut down the fund altogether. The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s director Aaron Dorfman echoes this point of view in his latest blog about the Campaign.

The Campaign’s legacy

The debate over whether the Campaign is adhering to Church doctrine shouldn’t prevent it from enabling ministry to those Americans in need. The Campaign’s decision to cut funding for select grantees serving immigrants and other vulnerable populations couldn’t come at a worse time. The nation faces the twin challenges of depleted government resources just as the need for those resources has reached levels not seen in decades.

While the Campaign isn’t the biggest foundation in the country, it has played a key leadership role, especially on community organizing. The executive director of the Catholic progressive group, Catholics United, told the Times that CCHD “is probably the most important antipoverty foundation in America.”

In this week’s Chronicle of Philanthropy, Pablo Eisenberg criticized the Campaign’s recent change in funding criteria. At the same time, he praised the Campaign’s work:

“[The Campaign] has had a rich and distinguished record of supporting community-organizing groups that have made enormous changes on behalf of social and economic justice. The foundation set an important tone for other grant makers who began to underwrite grass-roots organizations that not only ran antipoverty programs but also sought to build power for its low-income constituents.”

Sue Hoechstetter, who leads the foundations program and community organizing work at Alliance for Justice, emphasized the importance of the Campaign’s work with marginalized communities.

“CHD helps people with less become involved in our democratic processes, both empowering them and strengthening our democracy,” said Hoechstetter. “We hope that the bishops will place human needs above doctrinal debate.”

Access to the Ballot: Nonprofits’ Role in Election Protection

As Election Day nears, many nonprofit organizations are focused on protecting Americans’ right to exercise that most fundamental franchise: the right to vote. When access to the ballot box is threatened, 501(c)(3) organizations rise to its defense with a variety of strategies, including challenging laws that suppress the vote, countering misinformation with voter education, and monitoring polling places on Election Day. 

To promote this important work, AFJ is pleased to announce a new resource that offers guidance about how and when nonprofits can communicate with politicians and partisan organizations about our voting system. By releasing the fact sheet, “501(c)(3) Contact with Parties and Candidates concerning Election Protection Efforts” PDF, we want to encourage nonprofits to communicate with non-501(c)(3) groups in permissible ways. Too often, nonprofits become overly cautious because of uncertainty about the rules and thus hamper their legitimate work on election protection issues. 

As efforts to suppress the right to vote are underway around the country, advocacy efforts to ensure a fair and effective voting system are important. Several states are debating or have already passed voter ID laws despite the lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud. These laws may pose significant barriers to citizens’ ability to participate in our democracy. Experts estimate that as many as 1 in 10 Americans lacks a government-issued form of photo identification.  The groups of voters who are disproportionately burdened by voter ID laws include seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, people with low-incomes, and students.

Voter ID laws are only one strategy deployed by groups who wish to suppress the vote during elections.  Other measures to discourage citizens from casting a ballot include the elimination of early voting and Election Day registration and restrictions on voter registration drives.

Nonprofit organizations conduct a range of election-related projects that are vital to increasing participation in our democracy. Typical activities include distributing information about voting (e.g., poll location), conducting and publishing research about voting in the state, among others. At times, 501(c)(3) groups may wish to either share this information with or receive related information from  a political entity. AFJ’s new fact sheet describes under what circumstance this is possible to do.

The closer we get to November, the more involved in election protection many nonprofits will become. It’s important for nonprofit organizations to understand what is and what is not permissible in their election-related activities. With this knowledge, 501(c)(3)s should feel confident engaging in nonpartisan activities intended to promote – and protect -- voting.

Download AFJ’s free resource: 501(c)(3) Contact with Parties and Candidates concerning Election Protection Efforts

WPI's Annual Legislative Reception

Training California women to understand how to influence the laws, regulations, and other policies that affect issues they care about is a primary goal of the Women’s Policy Institute. Each year, the institute brings groups of women as “fellows” to Sacramento to give them the tools necessary to advocate for policies that “reflect the needs and realities of low-income women and their families.” 

AFJ is excited to co-sponsor the upcoming Annual Legislative Reception.  of the Women’s Policy Institute because of the important work they do to train advocates who advance the health and economic security of women in California. 

AFJ has been involved in the training of WPI fellows for the past several years, as part of our nationwide efforts to spread the message that bold nonprofit advocacy is not only legal, it is necessary! WPI fellows have helped pass 14 California laws on a wide range of issues that advance the health and economic security of women in California.

If you’ll be near Sacramento on May 8, celebrate the innovative work of the Women’s Policy Institute by attending the 7^th Annual Legislative Reception. Learn more here. 

Don’t Overshare with the IRS

The word of the day is: REDACT.  When your 501(c)(3) organization submits the 990 or 990-PF form this year, be sure to redact any identifying information about staff or board members that might be contained on schedules or attachments. One in five nonprofits is giving out private Social Security numbers on their tax documents, according to a story on the Chronicle website.  It is important that 501(c)(3) organizations remember that  990 forms are public documents. Be careful not to provide more information than is necessary.

As the article mentions, nonprofits could be liable should personal information about staff and board members get into the “wrong hands,” like those of an identity thief.

To understand better what information on your tax forms is available to the public, consult AFJ’s free pamphlet Give Me Your 990.