Nonprofit advocacy is often framed as a binary. You either advocate or you don’t. You are political or you are not. You testify, organize, and mobilize—or you “stay in your lane.” That framing, however, oversimplifies the relationship nonprofits have with advocacy and obscures the real forces shaping engagement.
In reality, nonprofits experience forces pulling them toward advocacy and forces pushing them away from it. An all-volunteer group advocating for clean water may be far more sophisticated in policy engagement than a multi-million-dollar arts organization simply because the pull of mission is so strong. Meanwhile, a publicly funded childcare center may care deeply about childcare policy but still hesitate to engage because advocacy feels risky or difficult to sustain.
I think we need a way to look under the hood of nonprofit advocacy because it could fundamentally change how we teach and support nonprofit advocacy engagement.
I’ve been noticing three conditions that seem to shape advocacy engagement.
push is manageable, and readiness is supported.
Let’s take a closer look at each one.
🟢Pull factors
Advocacy begins where mission meets systems. Pull factors are what draw organizations toward advocacy in the first place.
- Mission: Advocacy aligns with our purpose and values.
- Dependence: Public policy affects our funding, operations, or survival.
- Proximity: We see recurring barriers and systems failures up close.
- Identity: People expect us to speak because we are trusted voices.
Consider an organization like the American Civil Liberties Union. They have very high pull factors because they were created to advocate. Advocacy is not adjacent to the work; it is the work. Similar pull factors may exist for a childcare center dependent on city funding or a neighborhood group protecting old-growth trees.
Other organizations may have much weaker pull. Advocacy may feel peripheral to the mission or disconnected from everyday work.
🔴Push factors
“Push” factors are the forces that make advocacy feel difficult, risky, or unsafe.
- Capacity: There is not enough time, staffing, or infrastructure.
- Risk: Advocacy feels politically or emotionally unsafe.
- Uncertainty: People are unsure about lobbying rules, tactics, or where to begin.
- Efficacy: It is unclear whether advocacy will actually make a difference.
Push factors do not affect every organization equally. Some nonprofits are operating in environments with very high push. Organizations focused on DEI or immigrant communities may face political backlash, fear, scrutiny, or funding pressure simply because of who they serve. Publicly funded nonprofits operating in areas with high levels of government mistrust may experience advocacy as professionally risky, even when the pull toward engagement is strong.
That difference matters because it changes what kinds of support nonprofits actually need. If nonprofits experience advocacy differently based on their push-pull relationship, then readiness cannot be one-size-fits-all either.
🔵Readiness factors
Readiness factors are the conditions that help advocacy feel possible and sustainable. They increase an organization’s ability to move from concern to action.
- Leadership support: Leaders encourage and reinforce advocacy engagement.
- Relationships: Coalitions, partnerships, and trusted connections create support and access.
- Confidence: Staff and board members feel capable of participating.
- Psychological safety: People feel safe speaking up, experimenting, and taking small risks.
- Entry points: Organizations can identify manageable ways to engage.
- Experience: Prior participation and small wins build momentum over time.
- Tools and guidance: Organizations have access to resources, examples, and practical support.
Readiness matters because two organizations may face identical policy threats while responding in completely different ways. One mobilizes while the other stays silent. Often the difference is not mission alignment but whether the organization feels ready to act.
Different push-pull relationships call for different pathways into advocacy engagement.
| Push-pull relationship | How it is experienced | Readiness approach |
|---|---|---|
| High pull / high push e.g., immigrant rights organizations, publicly funded childcare centers, DEI-focused nonprofits |
“We care deeply, but advocacy feels risky.” | Risk reduction, psychological safety, coalition support, manageable entry points |
| High pull / low push e.g., environmental advocacy groups, neighborhood organizing efforts, policy-focused nonprofits |
“We are ready to move.” | Strategy, coordination, scaling influence |
| Low pull / high push e.g., service organizations concerned about donor, board, or government response |
“Advocacy could create problems for us.” | Mission connection, systems awareness, relevance |
| Low pull / low push e.g., organizations not currently connecting mission to policy or systems change |
“Advocacy is not really on our radar.” | Exposure, storytelling, small invitations to engage |
This way of thinking changes how we design advocacy support. We can sequence support based on the unique push, pull, and readiness of an organization. Some organizations may need mission connection and systems awareness. Others may need confidence, coalition relationships, or lower-risk pathways into participation.
If we want broader nonprofit participation in advocacy, we need to invest not only in tactics, but in the conditions that help nonprofits see advocacy as possible, relevant, and worth the risk.