May 3, 2025

Beyond the Moment: How Nonprofits Can Leverage Civic Engagement

Amy Marquis, April 21, 2025   NonProfit Quarterly

Within days of taking office in January, President Donald J. Trump kept his word and began to target diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives with a series of executive orders framing DEI as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.

Trump followed up with a memo from the Office of Management and Budget that ordered a temporary halt to all federal financial assistance related to nongovernmental organizations, among other institutions and initiatives. The freeze hit roughly 2,600 programs, and although it was rescinded the next day, it was enough to prompt widespread concern among nonprofits relying on federal grants, loans, and contracts.

In an interview with Chronicles of Philanthropy, Lauren Hughes, director of development for Better Tomorrow, echoed worries about the nonprofit sector: “When Trump announced the executive order, ordering the spending freeze, we were devastated.” Twenty-five percent of Better Tomorrow’s budget comes from federal sources.

When it comes to federal funding, Columbia University, under pressure from the Trump administration, has been prominently featured in recent news stories. First, for bowing to the demands of the administration, which threatened to revoke $400 million in federal funding until the administration’s requirements were met. Second, for not publicly defending Mahmoud Khalil, a U.S. resident, Palestinian activist, and Columbia University graduate student detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Khalil acted as a negotiator and spokesperson during protests at the university that advocated for Palestinian human rights and divestment from companies tied to Israeli occupation policies. The arrest of Mohsen K. Mahdawi, marks the ninth Columbia student targeted for deportation.

Some claim Trump is making an example of Columbia University, but nonprofit organizations outside the university sector are also bracing for the ripple effects of another potential funding freeze.

In the face of these political pressures and funding threats, nonprofit organizations are at a crossroads. Do we go quiet to preserve our footing, or do we use this moment to show up more fully for our communities? The answer may lie in civic engagement—but before we act, it is helpful to understand what civic engagement means: why it’s a viable tool for nonprofits, and why it’s urgently relevant now.

Nonprofits face mounting pressures to retreat, stay quiet, or to narrow their scope, but that trend is counter to what nonprofits are built for.

What Is Civic Engagement?

Civic engagement is any action you take to participate in and improve your community, influence public decisions, or shape a more inclusive society. Voting or protesting might come to mind, but it’s not the whole story. The Points of Light Civic Circle program, which organizes volunteers in tandem with nonprofits, organizations, and community leaders, has identified a total of nine distinct pathways for civic engagement.

Unlike traditional frameworks that may focus solely on voting or volunteering, the Civic Circle acknowledges a wide range of possibilities for people and nonprofits to shape society. This model expands thinking around traditional actions to include choosing where to work, exercising purchase power, becoming a social entrepreneur, committing yourself to public or military service, listening and learning, or donating. When you combine these elements, your civic power can be amplified.

“People are looking to align all the different aspects of their lives around who they are, what they stand for, and what they believe in,” former Points of Light Board Member Marty Rodgers wrote. “Whether it’s the rise of socially responsible investing, purchase power, advocacy, or where you choose to give your time, talent, and treasure, service today is about alignment of purpose across all dimensions of our lives.”

As useful as this model is for everyday people, it can be equally as helpful for nonprofits in finding ways to engage with their communities.

How to Engage Without Mission Creep

“I’m trying not to think about this time as a time to be combative, but as a time to be empowered. I can fight harder than some of these people can, and they need us to fight for them.”Today, nonprofits face mounting pressures to retreat, stay quiet, or to narrow their scope, but that trend is counter to what nonprofits are built for. Leaning into civic engagement is one of the most empowering ways to face unfolding threats. And the best part? Civic engagement is not mission creep—or losing focus—it’s mission support. When employed intentionally, it can deepen impact and protect the communities that nonprofits serve.

In fact, nonprofit professionals understand that choosing to devote your career to serving your community is, in itself, a form of civic engagement.

One organization that exemplifies this approach is the National Afterschool Association, a small but mighty nonprofit with a focus on supporting, connecting, and equipping professionals who work with and for afterschool children. CEO Gina Warner noted in an interview with NPQ that people drawn to working in the nonprofit field have something in common: most had a meaningful experience with an advocate in the field who inspired them to give back in the same way.

Civic action is about showing up for your community in ways that make an impact.

Warner leverages her role and the organization she leads to help those in the out-of-school programs to determine who the decision-makers are, how the system works, and where they can influence change.

“A lot of the work we do is under attack,” Warner told NPQ. “But I’m trying not to think about this time as a time to be combative, but as a time to be empowered. I can fight harder than some of these people can, and they need us to fight for them.”

Lean into Civic Engagement

Civic engagement does not have to require a full pivot. Most nonprofits are already doing this work in some form—they just may not be naming it.

For example, a local food bank might help people register to vote, while staying focused on hunger relief. This tactic is not a distraction from the organization’s core mission, it is reinforcing its mission. Whether it is helping community members understand their rights, organizing a coat drive, or joining a coalition to push for policy change, civic action is about showing up for your community in ways that make an impact.

Nonprofits can build deeper, longer-lasting relationships with their communities by developing engagement strategies that are active throughout the calendar year. A strong engagement plan should include moments for education, reflection, and feedback.

Here are seven ways nonprofits can lean into civic engagement without losing sight of their core missions:

1. Integrate civic action into existing programming

Try using the Civic Circle’s interactive diagram and video as a tool to assess how you are showing up in the community and where you have opportunities to engage more deeply.

2. Support advocacy without partisanship

Start by clarifying what 501c3 organizations can do legally as nonpartisan entities. For example, you might delve into issue-based advocacy or provide civic education.

3. Empower grassroots leadership

Tap into community members as trusted leaders, and center marginalized voices like those from BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ communities.

4. Volunteerism as a civic lever

Go beyond traditional volunteerism to support skills-based volunteering, virtual options, and community organizing.

5. Leverage digital engagement

Lean into online petitions, civic apps, and storytelling platforms to amplify voices.

6. Build resilience through cross-sector partnerships

Collaborate with local schools, museums, or health centers to deliver impact to a wider segment.

7. Create a year-round engagement plan

Start by mapping out your existing touchpoints with the community—programs, events, outreach, storytelling—and look for opportunities to weave in civic actions.

Civic engagement is all about building trust and collective capacity. By planning ahead and connecting the dots between mission and movement, nonprofits can make civic engagement more than a moment. It can become a mindset.

————————

More from NPQ, 11/24

Legal Boundaries for 501c3 Organizations

Despite differing viewpoints, the prohibition against political campaign intervention remains law. Therefore, 501c3 organizations, whether public charities or private foundations, must navigate carefully to comply with regulations. They may not: 

• Directly or indirectly engage in or sponsor any activity that supports or opposes any candidate for public office, whether local, state, federal, or foreign
• Make campaign contributions, whether financial or in-kind
• Use organizational resources—like mailing lists, office space, staff time, websites, social media, or email communications—to assist a political candidate or campaign

In a nonpartisan manner, 501c3 organizations may:

• Create, publish, and distribute educational materials that advocate on issues of importance to the organization and in furtherance of its mission
• Comment on the performance of an elected official in such a capacity and not in their capacity as a candidate for public office
• Support voter registration drives (though private foundations are subject to certain restrictions in providing such support)
• Support get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives
• Hold candidate forums or debates
• Advocate for a legislative hearing or investigation
• Advocate for changes to an administrative agency’s regulations (which do not constitute legislation under federal tax laws)
• Organize boycotts
• Participate in protests
• Provide general support to public charities that engage in the foregoing activities

Organizations must also be cautious of subtler forms of political intervention.

In addition, public charities may:

• Engage in lobbying so long as it is not a substantial part of the charity’s activities. Substantiality varies depending on the standard a charity chooses to follow:
  • Substantial Part Test: Under this test, all pertinent facts and circumstances, including cash expenditures, volunteer efforts, and other allocation of resources, are considered. Charities must carefully document their lobbying activities and report them on the Form 990. Some charity advisors use a rule of thumb test, providing that devoting less than 5 percent of an organization’s resources to lobbying may generally be considered insubstantial.

• 501(h) Expenditure Test: Under this test, lobbying is measured only by expenditures, and there are clearly defined limits. Charities may elect to have their lobbying activities measured under this standard by filing a very simple Form 5768. Under this test, charities can lobby without risking their tax-exempt status if they do not exceed specific (and reasonably generous) expenditure limits. Additionally, charities are not subject to limits on lobbying activities that do not require expenditures, such as volunteer efforts. For more information on the 501(h) Expenditure Test, see “Taking the 501(h) Election” from the National Council of Nonprofits.
• Establish and affiliate with a 501c4 organization that, under federal tax law, is not subject to a public charity’s lobbying limits and can engage in political campaign intervention so long as it is not its primary activity. See Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, which held that the Section 501c3 prohibition of substantial lobbying was constitutional, concluding that an organization’s right to speak need not be subsidized.

Private foundations may provide general support to public charities that lobby, subject to certain requirements. See “Private Foundations May Advocate” from Bolder Advocacy, Alliance for Justice.

Nuances and Compliance

While avoiding explicit endorsements is straightforward, 501c3 organizations must also be cautious of subtler forms of political intervention. For example, using code words in a communication that might be reasonably interpreted as a favorable or critical reference to a specific candidate or party during an election season might constitute prohibited electioneering.

The IRS’s Revenue Ruling 2007-41 provides 21 examples illustrating these nuances, recognizing that 501c3 organizations may take positions on public policy issues. This includes issues that divide candidates in an election for public office, provided that they avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. It explicitly states: “Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.”

Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

• Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
• Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions
• Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
• Whether the statement refers to voting or an election
• Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office
• Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election
• Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event, such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who is also a candidate for public office

A nonprofit’s mission statement and governing documents can be crucial in defining its permissible advocacy efforts.

If creating, publishing, and distributing educational materials, 501c3 organizations must ensure they are not doing so at the request of a political candidate or distributing the materials in a partisan manner.

In the context of voter registration and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives, public charities must encourage voting by all who are eligible and must not select targeted areas based on party affiliations.

When hosting candidates to speak, public charities must not frame questions to show partisan bias or provide greater opportunities to certain candidates over others. In addition, they must not ask candidates to pledge to support the charity’s position if elected as this may evidence tacit endorsement of a candidate who makes such a pledge.

Mission Statements and Advocacy

A nonprofit’s mission statement and governing documents can be crucial in defining its permissible advocacy efforts. If a 501c3 organization engages in issue advocacy unrelated to its mission, particularly on a wedge issue between political candidates or parties, such advocacy may suggest that the organization is unlawfully attempting to influence an election. The governing documents may be viewed by regulators as a framework for the types of issue advocacy that are aligned with the organization’s charitable purposes and permissible.

Determining whether a 501c3 organization’s activities constitute prohibited campaign intervention usually considers all facts and circumstances involved. Nonprofit organizations should train staff and volunteers on the distinction between advocacy, lobbying, and political campaign intervention to avoid inadvertent violations of the Johnson Amendment.

Clear guidelines and regular audits of advocacy activities can help ensure compliance with IRS regulations while maximizing the organization’s impact. By understanding the legal boundaries and implementing diligent practices, nonprofits can effectively advocate for their missions without risking their tax-exempt status or public trust.