Partisanship Undermines Problem-Solving

We are living in increasingly polarized times. The policy discourse has shifted from focusing on functionality and problem-solving to an environment motivated by partisanship and the reinforcement of in-groups and out-groups. This disconcerting trend has diluted the efficacy of the government and its corresponding policy implementation functions. It has also compromised the ability of nonprofit organizations to operationalize their missions and to work as implementers of social solutions in partnership with the government. 

This is Part I of a two-part series on reframing policy narratives and paradigms for nonprofits. 

Problem-Solving Focus in Government & Nonprofits Partnerships

Although the relationship between nonprofits and government goes in cycles from collaborative to adversarial, there has always been a broader focus on problem-solving. The efficacy of these relationships has also varied based on a series of factors, including, but not limited to: 

• The amount of unrestricted resources that nonprofits have been able to use; 
• Whether the funding comes directly from the local, state, or federal level;
• The administrators and their philosophy on community engagement (i.e., dictatorial or collaborative);  
• The complexity, intensity, and administrative burden of the compliance requirements; 
• The reporting requirements; 
• The technical capabilities of both the government partner and the nonprofit; and 
• The policy priorities of both the legislature and the executive. 

Although the list of variables that impact the nonprofit and government relationship is much broader, there has always been a degree of public service focus irrespective of the policy environment. Lately, though, there has been a growing trend of partisanship that is beginning to inhibit the ability of nonprofits to help the most vulnerable in our society. 

In the recent past, the importance of maintaining conversations on how to solve the social maladies of the time has been seen as a critical component of policymaking. Increasingly, though, government actors, particularly political appointees, have been reframing the context of this practical solution and outcomes-driven exchanges. Instead of engaging in rational discussions on budget allocations and eliminating bureaucratic obstacles, the process of outlining the pros and cons of policy decisions has been infused with partisanship. As a result, what was productive exchanges focused on correcting and improving systems have resulted in nonprofits being targeted, having their government funding cut, and expelling key partners who understand the impact of programs from key policy conversations when they have identified implementation problems. This inevitably has had a chilling effect on nonprofits, who make up the key sector of field experts that implement a significant portion of the government’s initiatives in the health and human services fields.  

For more information on other challenges, nonprofits face click on the link Compromised Funding and Capacity for Nonprofits and Government.

Partisanship Undermines Our Social Safety Net

The end result is that the safety net that the nonprofit industry has quietly weaved to serve as a buffer against adverse social and economic outcomes is being undermined. Nonprofits have served as a quiet and almost invisible protection mechanism against poverty, hunger, homelessness, domestic violence, poor health outcomes, and many other challenges since the inception of our nation. Without advancing their own private interest, they have made progress on local, state, and regional problems that:

1. Individuals cannot solve on their own,
2. Require collective action to solve, and 
3. Necessitate the mass mobilization of resources and the coordination of the logistics to be successful.

 The insertion of partisanship in the problem-solving structures of both government and nonprofits inevitably undermines the efficacy of these partnerships. 

Partisanship Impedes Problem-solving in Public Policy

Partisanship impedes true problem-solving and substitutes it with narratives that affirm only what we want to be true, rather than what is true. When policy entrepreneurs and brokers are not proactive in solving issues that require collective action to solve, people look for ways to solve those issues on their own. When cognitive bias governs policy-making and societal problems are ignored, mischaracterized, or hidden, there are consequences. More often than not, when people are out of options and resources for generating solutions, they solve their problems through very unhealthy approaches. There is a rise in populism, racism, discrimination, violence, crime, exclusionary policies, poverty, isolation, and many other preventable circumstances. Therefore, it is our moral duty to ensure that policy discussions focus on problem-solving that is based on truth, rather than fantasies that aim to affirm a particular group’s identification and their view of the world. Policy discussions must allow for different perspectives to be heard and considered, even when we do not agree with them, so as to make sure we are thoughtful about the policy interventions, preempt any negative unanticipated consequences, and adequately allocate our very limited resources. 

Nonprofit Advocacy: 

As nonprofits continue to advocate for their missions in the policy realm, they should be mindful of the following: 

• Their values and purpose, 
• The correlation between their missions with the betterment of our social fabric, and 
• They are our silent protection mechanism from adverse social outcomes. 

Next time, we will focus on steps to take to re-shift the policy paradigm towards functionality and problem-solving. 

Please Subscribe

Please subscribe to Third Sector News, which will also provide resources and toolkits for managing real-life situations that those working in the nonprofit field experience. For example, this week, we have included a “Nonprofit Website Toolkit”. However, these resources are only available to those that subscribe.