Influence by Design: Redefining and Reclaiming Nonprofit Advocacy

March 23, 2026

Advocacy is one of the most powerful tools nonprofits have to influence perceptions and shape public policy, yet boards hesitate to engage in it. The number of nonprofit organizations engaged in advocacy has declined steeply in the past 20 years, leaving the sector’s collective power and influence untapped at a time when it is most needed.

In an era marked by political volatility, heightened scrutiny of mission-driven work, and unprecedented pressure on nonprofit leaders, the question is no longer whether advocacy matters, but whether organizations can fulfill their missions without it.

During the Gupta Governance Institute’s 2025 Nonprofit Directors Dialogue, Jeff Moore, Chief Strategy Officer at Independent Sector, facilitated a candid conversation on how nonprofit leaders can reclaim advocacy as a core leadership responsibility and what boards need to engage confidently in public policy conversations.

The session functioned as a focus group for Independent Sector’s forthcoming update to its Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice. Participants representing more than 35 nonprofit organizations offered firsthand experiences, voiced the concerns that keep them from engaging in advocacy, and shared insights into what nonprofit leaders need to meet the moment.

The Retreat of Influence

Advocacy is a diagnostic marker of organizational health, a signal of good governance, and a contributor to public trust. Engaging in advocacy is one of four hallmarks of a healthy nonprofit organization according to Independent Sector, which defines advocacy as “educating stakeholders and policymakers on issues central to an organization’s mission” and distinguishes advocacy from lobbying, which the IRS defines as “attempting to influence legislation.”

Research shows that while 71% of nonprofits engaged in advocacy two decades ago, only 31% do today, a dramatic decline at a moment when policy decisions, public narratives, and political actions have an outsized impact on nonprofits, their staff, their financial security, and the communities they serve. As one participant noted, **“The power the nonprofit sector is leaving on the table is enormous.” **

Pursuing Influence Over Fear

Moore opened the session by asking participants whether they are more frightened of losing their organization’s voice or of becoming the target of politically motivated backlash. Responses showed fear of public exposure varies widely by region and mission. And participants noted that while wading into controversy requires courage, silence can be more damaging than controversy.

Some view losing voice as an existential threat, equating silence with mission abandonment. One participant noted, “If you’re not under attack, you may not be doing your job.” Others, particularly those whose organizations serve highly vulnerable communities, wrestle with the moral calculus of using their voice “if doing so impacts our ability to serve.”

Despite their differences, most agreed that losing an organization’s voice can erode trust, damage employee morale, and compromise mission integrity. Despite their differences, most agreed that losing an organization’s voice can erode trust, damage employee morale, and compromise mission integrity.

The four hallmarks of a healthy nonprofit are:

Financial resilience
A thriving workforce
Public trust
Engagement in advocacy

Barriers to Advocacy

The dialogue surfaced a host of barriers that keep nonprofit organizations from effectively engaging in advocacy including:

Fear of political backlash or media controversy
Lack of fluency in advocacy and lobbying rules
Resource constraints, particularly for smaller nonprofits
Aversion to appearing partisan
Concerns about donor reactions
Misalignment among board members about mission and values
Disagreement among board members over risk tolerance

Education Empowers

Effective advocacy requires board and staff education. The steep decline in the number of nonprofits engaged in advocacy is, in part, because although most know what they cannot do with respect to advocacy, few know what they can.

Independent Sector reports that only 32% of nonprofit organizations know they can legally support or oppose federal legislation. One participant summarized the group’s general sentiment: “Our board members need to understand what is allowable. Fear fills the vacuum left by misunderstanding.”

Clarity, Alignment and Oversight

While boards can struggle to define their role in advocacy and effectively manage perceived risks, they should oversee advocacy like they oversee other risks and opportunities — by setting expectations, understanding risks, ensuring advocacy is strategic, and that it upholds the organization’s mission, visions and values.

Core responsibilities of the board include:

Defining advocacy and the board’s role in it. Before entering public debates, boards must define advocacy and their role in it–to support management, ensure alignment with mission and values, and enable responsible advocacy within legal and ethical boundaries.
Upholding mission, visions and values. Boards should align on the fundamental purpose of the organization, and be equipped to articulate it to ensure the organization’s policy agenda is grounded in its mission.
Aligning mission and message. The organization’s communications plan should establish clear expectations and include principles to guide engagement and ensure consistent messaging.
Clarifying leadership roles. The executive director should be the public spokesperson for the organization. The board and individual members are champions of the organization’s policy agenda and support public stands that align with the organization’s mission.
Ensuring legal and ethical compliance. Boards should confirm that advocacy activities comply with IRS rules, election laws and internal policies. Legal counsel should inform strategy, not restrict advocacy unnecessarily. As one attorney in the room stated, “Nobody benefits from the lawyer who says no to everything.”
Providing strategic oversight. Boards should set expectations, understand risks and opportunities, and ensure advocacy is strategic. Whenever possible, clarify risk thresholds and identify “red lines.”
Serving as thought partners in risk assessment. Boards must help management navigate reputational, operational, political and safety risks.

Foster Constructive Dialogue

Given the growing risks of threats against staff, hostile media attention, politically motivated investigations, and backlash against public positions on polarizing issues, it is imperative that boards make room on the agenda for regular, recurring discussions of advocacy-related risks alongside financial and operational risks. Although these discussions can be difficult, avoiding them is itself a risk to both mission and morale.

To foster constructive dialogue on potentially polarizing issues, boards should consider the following actions:

Deploy the board chair and/or executive director to lead the conversation
Emphasize shared values to keep conversations productive and inclusive
Frame the debate around the impact on the organization’s beneficiaries to help depoliticize the issue
Address potential power dynamics between board, management and staff
Include external experts or facilitators to reframe tense discussions

The path toward greater impact through advocacy begins with an honest board conversation about the organization’s mission, goals, and vision for the future.

Mind the Gap

Participants identified the following as tools that would empower boards to support civic engagement and elevate boardroom discussions about advocacy from reactive to strategic:

Case studies of organizations that are navigating advocacy successfully
Crisis and scenario planning templates for reputational, political and physical threats
Crisis communication protocols
Legal and ethical frameworks that clarify rules around nonprofit advocacy
Table-top exercises to prepare for real-life scenarios
Sector-wide policy agendas to define shared priorities
Board self-assessment tools to understand members’ values and comfort levels
Shared tools, data and resources between peer organizations
Practical playbooks for navigating advocacy in polarized environments
Access to data and advice from outside experts

Key Takeaways

Advocacy is a core indicator of nonprofit health. Elevate advocacy from a task to a governance imperative.
Define advocacy clearly.. Distinguish mission-driven advocacy from lobbying and partisan political activity.
Alignment is essential. Unity on mission, message and risk tolerance strengthens impact.
Stay in your lane. Board members should support public stands but not speak for the organization.
Knowledge is power. Most boards know what they cannot do, few know what they can.
Silence has consequences. Retreating from advocacy due to fear of controversy can erode mission and morale and leave power on the table.
Review risks regularly. Being prepared is a sign of relevance and courage.