Independent Sector: Preserving the Status Quo?

Dana R. H. Doan,Andrew L. Williams

doi:10.1515/npf-2020-0014

Abstract

Abstract In October of 1978, a committee met to explore the possibility of a merger between the National Council on Philanthropy (NCOP) and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations (CONVO). The vision was more than the mere marriage of two small organizations facing uncertain futures. Participants in this endeavor dreamed of an entity that would represent the entire nonprofit sector. The organization they birthed in 1979, Independent Sector (IS), was a meaningful step forward in unifying the sector. The IS board represented a broad range of sub-sectors and causes and also made strides in gender and, to a lesser extent, racial and religious diversity. Yet, there was an inherent tension in the project. Yes, it was true that people did not want to “interfere with pluralism” but they also wanted “a strong voice” to champion the sector—those involved called this dilemma a “persistent contradiction.” The tension was resolved in favor of the concerns of the powerful national non-profit institutions and foundations: tax policy, government relations, and sector advocacy. That is, the umbrella organization acted principally to preserve the sector, as constituted, and had little appetite for structural reform or discussion of competing notions of “the good” within the sector. Critics pointed to the exclusion of local organizations fighting issues that challenged societal injustice and inequitable distribution of power and resources. To them, and in retrospect to the authors of this paper, greater sector “unity” entailed consolidation of traditional power and continued marginalization of communities already on the periphery. Though four decades have passed, the same tension remains in the philanthropic sector. Contest and division between various interests and constituencies is as evident now as it was then. Enthusiastic support for the advancement of public goods often over-shadows issues of power—including the ability to impose one’s own definition of the public good on others. This critique has been leveled forcefully in recent years. Is it possible or even desirable to seek greater unity for the public good? Whose voices are privileged in the quest for greater sectoral unity? These are the questions this paper aspires to provoke and inform by examining the founding of the first major nonprofit sector association in the United States.

Highlights

In October of 1978, a committee met to explore the possibility of a merger between the National Council on Philanthropy (NCOP) and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations (CONVO)
The minutes of the October 1978 Organizing Committee meeting noted that “educational institutions, opera, libraries, environmental groups, health agencies, etc.” would not have seen a “real kinship among themselves, but today that is changing.”[43]. This theme was captured in the committee’s report when it stated the hope of CONVO and NCOP that the new organization would encompass a broad cross-section of “those concerned with the vitality of the independent sector,” which included “social welfare agencies, corporate philanthropy, nonprofit health organizations, private education, cultural groups, public interest organizations, chambers of commerce, foundations, better business bureaus, scientific laboratories, religious groups, etc.”[44]. That aspiration became reality as the 1980 Independent Sector board of directors represented at least a dozen nonprofit sub-sectors.[45]
The creators of Independent Sector made meaningful progress in terms of diverse representation. They brought together donors and donees; representatives from a wide spectrum of philanthropic sub-sectors; and organizations and leaders with a greater degree of gender, and to a lesser extent racial and religious diversity than their predecessors

Summary

Introduction

In October of 1978, a committee met to explore the possibility of a merger between the National Council on Philanthropy (NCOP) and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations (CONVO). The National Mental Health Association ( Mental Health America), advised Albrecht and Ewing that “philanthropy and the broader voluntary sector” should do “something better to protect and enhance giving, volunteering, and the tangible and intangible contributions of the sector to our democratic society.”[33] O’Connell recommended that CONVO and NCOP take steps toward the creation of a “vehicle for closer organizational cooperation” in pursuit of “their common ideals.”[34] In this context, the boards of CONVO and NCOP invited O’Connell to conduct a “Feasibility Study of Closer Collaboration” between the organizations in August of 1978. A joint luncheon of CONVO and NCOP to formally announce the Organizing Committee described its purpose as creating “a new national force to protect and enhance the opportunities of citizens and their NGO/nonprofit sector to have impact on society’s problems and directions.”[37] On the one hand, as was the case with the Peterson and Filer Commissions, the statement highlights the foundational aspiration “to protect” the sector.

Who was Independent Sector?

Who was not Independent Sector?

Challenging the Status Quo

Findings

Discussion and Conclusion