This is the full text of the speech by Diana Aviv, president and CEO of Independent Sector, to the NCVO Annual Conference on 23 February 2010

"Thank you, Stuart, for your invitation to address how the US election and the subsequent year has shaped our work in the voluntary sector. I’m delighted to do so and honored to address this august group of civil society leaders.

Our countries share a rich heritage and a storied history, though we remain divided by a common language. Speaking of, I hope that – despite my South African heritage – you are able to understand my American accent. Our friendship is grounded in an enduring commitment to a set of shared
values – the right to assemble peaceably, to speak one’s mind openly, to be represented fairly in a court of law. Such bonds have anchored our relationship through the most
difficult moments in history – nothing less than two world wars, a Cold War that stretched over 40 years, and more recently, perilous deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our countries have also enjoyed robust economic ties. As the British Ambassador to the US pointed out, today we are each other’s biggest trading partners.

I have tried to do my share by encouraging my American colleagues to try a smidge of Marmite I keep on my desk at the office. But I have no takers, and my cause was not
helped when a Washington Post columnist claimed that marmite tastes like an “ocean wave befouled by oil from a sinking tanker.”

As I prepared for this engagement, I reflected on the subject I was invited to discuss: the 2008 presidential elections and how the past year or so has unfolded
before the American charitable sector. Against this backdrop, I asked, ‘what wisdom can I share with you that might be relevant given your upcoming election?’

What happens on one side of the Atlantic does not translate without a wad of caveats, and I’ve no doubt you are in the best position to discern what’s most salient to British NGOs, compared to those of your American cousin. As I look back, I can draw the following broad conclusions.

Manage expectations. Question assumptions. And remain
fiercely independent -- all three deeply rooted in the way we relate to government.

A two-party system. The American political system, as you probably know, hinges on two parties with fundamentally different philosophies – a blessing or curse depending on who holds office. The liberal philosophy asserts that your station in life is defined by your own deeds and by circumstances beyond your control. Its basic principles include a vigorous government responsible to and for its citizenry, particularly the most vulnerable. In contrast, the conservative philosophy avers that people are responsible
for their own wellbeing. Government should not interfere with the market or for that matter the affairs of citizens, but instead be pared down. Individuals – not government
– must care for their own needs.

Despite their differences, these two parties must work together because our political system requires compromise to govern – a deliberate attempt by our founders to prevent tyranny of the majority. Laws cannot be passed without bipartisanship since the Senate requires almost a two-thirds majority vote on most matters.

This system works well enough when lawmakers understand that one day, the other party will be elected, and then the new minority will need the help of the
opposition to serve their constituents. And that except for rare moments in history, legislation requires all parties, no matter their platform, to recognise that getting laws
passed occurs only when both sides gain from the process. But today, many worry – myself included – that the partisanship dividing the two parties threatens our very
democracy.

Now our politicians, much like yours, have never failed to argue passionately about topics dear to them, but they did so partly to express their deeply held beliefs and partly as a matter of political theater. Ardent speeches were reserved for center stage, while the real work took place in the wings. I recall a story about Senator Edward Kennedy, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, who earned the epithet “Lion of the Senate” during his 47 years in Congress. When Kennedy passed away last August, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah described one of Kennedy’s fiery speeches on the
chamber floor years ago. Hatch, a staunch conservative, described how Kennedy dished out “the harshest red meat liberal rhetoric you can imagine”. After the speech,
Kennedy crossed to the Republican side of the Senate and with a big smile asked, “How did I do, Orrin?”

My point is that lawmakers waxed eloquent to stake out a policy position or appeal to their voter base, but rhetorical flourish was only part of doing business. Behind closed doors, politicians were free to horse trade with colleagues from all parties until striking a mutually beneficial agreement.

Somewhere along the line, American politics lost its way. Political hyperbole, once the narrative of election season, has become the norm - shunning compromise, a
badge of party loyalty. The sheer cost of running a campaign today, which now adds up to over £4m for a Senate seat, requires that re-election bids begin within hours of tallying votes. Regardless of who wins, legislative action is viewed through the prism of whether it will advance prospects for re-election. And further, our election system favours candidates leaning further right or left - fewer whose world view supports compromise.

Amid this backdrop, the 2008 presidential elections unfolded just as voter dissatisfaction over political gridlock reached new heights. Seizing this opportunity, both candidates pledged to upend ‘business as usual’ and restore bipartisanship. John McCain flagged his record as a maverick willing to cross party lines and Barack Obama called for change saying, "I'm asking you to believe not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Over 61 percent of the electorate responded – the highest turnout rate in 40 years, and citizens welcomed our first African American president into the White House, a structure built by the hands of slaves.

Lesson one: Manage expectations.

As I look back on the wave of euphoria that ushered in President Obama, I did not fully grasp then how important it is to manage expectations proactively. The public’s hopes for what this young, smart charismatic leader could accomplish were unrealistic from the get-go. They cloaked him with weighty aspirations believing he could single-handedly soothe Washington, red and angry from stinging accusations and invectives.

Further, we learned just how badly partisanship had hobbled government when Democrats, who had a clear majority at the time of the election, believed they could
carry legislation on their own. To their peril, they ignored Republicans who, now locked out, were determined to thwart the liberal agenda at a time when the nation
could least afford it.

The new administration’s first true test arose when the economy was in peril and the housing market collapsed. The opposition did not like the idea of spending about £504bn proposed by the Obama team to stimulate the economy.
Republicans critiqued the proposal as big government; almost none voted for it. The bill barely squeaked through – foreshadowing the tough road ahead.

Granted, the spirit of bipartisanship initially offered up by President Obama seemed promising when Congress enacted legislation with significant support from
both parties to expand community service opportunities for a quarter million people – welcome news to 1.5 million US charities.

But since then, the Democrats have had severe difficulty making progress on their other priorities: health care, education, and energy reform. Voter confidence has waned and newspapers around the country now talk about Americans souring on President Obama’s inability to solve “kitchen-table” issues for middle and working class families. Many felt betrayed when their hardearned tax dollars enabled Wall Street executives to take government bail out money and still earn big bonuses. Communities are growing impatient for results. A large number of Latinos voted for the president hoping for movement on immigration
policy where none has been forthcoming.

Last month, voters in Massachusetts expressed their dissatisfaction in what was a solidly Democratic state by decisively electing a Republican to replace Senator
Kennedy. The effect was a clarion call to roll up their sleeves and get to work, or else!

Speaking to Congressional leaders last month, the president addressed the impasse between parties. He urged renewed bipartisanship, saying: “What frustrates
the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing
headlines about the other side – a belief that if you lose, I win. . . . But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people.”

I am not so foolish as to long wistfully for the good ‘ole days when lawmakers “hand in hand at the edge of the sand,” to borrow from Edward Lear, “danced by the light of the moon.” In those earlier days, insults were no less biting; Abraham Lincoln was once labeled, “a well meaning baboon.”

The difference now is that progress has ground to a halt. Some even question our government’s viability. Author Thomas Friedman, just back from the World Economic Forum, spoke with a number of non-Americans who described the US government as ‘politically unstable”. Friedman writes, “You can understand why foreigners are uneasy. They look at America and see a president elected by a solid majority, coming into office riding a wave of optimism, controlling both the House and the Senate. Yet, a year later, he can’t win passage of his top legislative priority: health care.”

This political environment creates myriad challenges for any organisation trying to work with the government, notwithstanding the administration’s sympathetic ear and out stretched hand. And the charitable sector has had a painful crisis of its own resulting from the economic tsunami over the last two years, which you’ve suffered first hand as well.

Demand for services delivered by the US nonprofit community is sky high – and costs are only partially reimbursed by government. One in eight Americans don’t
have enough food; one in ten can’t find work. People who once ran shelters are now sleeping in them. In addition, charitable giving dropped by 2 per cent in 2008, a
year before the real crisis – the first decline since 1987. Financial market conditions, though picking up now, shrunk private foundation endowments last year by an average of 25 per cent. One study found that 83 per cent of nonprofits surveyed had experienced fiscal distress in 2009. Figures may get worse before they get better.

A growing problem for our sector is that political leaders are disinclined to spend as easily as they did in the first economic stimulus bill because of anxiety about deficit spending and elections this fall. We also are likely to see a White House sifting every new development through the lens of how the opposition might react, given the
president’s renewed determination to foster bipartisanship. Already White House officials have told me that if I want to see key proposals enacted, I must ensure Republicans will support them.

All told, we learned over the year that a change of government brings a sense of exhilaration for supporters, but riding that wave lasts only so long. No matter how
charismatic or capable the new leader or party, passing bipartisan legislation ultimately requires trust between political leaders and a willingness to compromise – that takes time.

So, the day after votes are tallied, be ready to mobilize your network and tackle policy issues that dovetail with the new government. But at the same time, steel yourselves and your members for the long haul so that you properly manage expectations about what realistically can – and cannot – be accomplished before and after the elections. On our side of the pond, the minority party powerfully thwarted
the majority, so now our challenge has become managing expectations and transforming malaise into meaningful, full speed ahead movement that includes outreach to both parties.

Over the past year, we have learned another surprising lesson. Just because an individual worked in a nonprofit organisation doesn’t mean that he or she necessarily
has a deep understanding of how it is funded, how it operates, or how best to partner with us to advance common agendas. The lesson for me and my colleagues: question assumptions.

Lesson two: Question assumptions

By the time President Obama and the First Lady moved into the White House, they already had significant experience working in our sector. The day before the
Inauguration, the president helped paint the walls of a teen homeless shelter in downtown Washington. After moving in, Michelle Obama invited primary school pupils to plant a garden at the White House. The First Family donates extra food to a local pantry, directly touching the same people we serve – an unambiguous statement about the importance of citizens helping each other and of eating healthy food.
Around the same time, the president started to tap people from our sector to fill vacancies in the administration. The administration even nabbed a few members of my
team, with one serving as the vice president’s speechwriter.

By dint of the Obama’s personal experience and the talented people he invited to join him, many of us assumed Administration officials had both a depth and breadth of knowledge about our sector. We were, in fact, wrong. Three events hammered this hard lesson home.

When one version of the health care reform bill passed the House last November, it included tax credits to small business to mitigate costs of insurance coverage. This provision does not benefit tax-exempt organisations like ours and 13 million sector employees – nearly 10 per cent of the US work force. Legislation that assists small businesses but provides no relief for our sector is an oversight on two
counts: first, most US nonprofits are similar in scope to small business: 74 per cent have budgets of less than £320,000; second, the economic downturn has hit nonprofits
exceptionally hard. I experienced a similar oversight when I attended the President’s Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth in December. Of the 130 people who participated, only a handful from nonprofits. Yet again, the discussion focused on using tax credits to promote jobs – a worthy initiative that would help business but again, offer no help
for our sector.

My third example has half of the American charitable community up in arms as we speak. The president’s budget, offered just weeks ago to Congress for next year’s
programmes, advocates paying in part for his priorities by limiting deductions that wealthy donors can take for charitable giving. A similar notion was offered in his
health care proposal and was beaten back in no time. Their tin ear on this issue has underscored for me how little those crafting such proposals understand what drives the
charitable sector. This from an administration that reaches out daily to my colleagues to discuss every kind of policy matter, except how to pay for them!

The Administration is, I believe, genuinely compassionate toward our causes. But, as I think back, we overestimated the extent to which key decision-makers were sector experts. We know from our experience that it is in everyone’s best interest to help elected leaders understand how partnering with the charitable sector can advance
shared goals.

Because of the way the American political system is arranged, we have the advantage of being able to press the administration through our work with members
of Congress, and vice versa. Like you, we are constantly encouraging our member organisations to strengthen ties with political leaders.

But on a deeper level, it is prescient to underscore our sector’s independence no matter how much we like – or dislike – who is in office. The ruling party has their
business to attend to and we have ours. In this case, when our agendas differ sharply with Democrats, we must hold them accountable as we have the Republicans, while
fostering multilateral relationships as well.

Lesson three: Our independent voice

In closing, let me say that political relationships shift quickly for any number of reasons. President Clinton often joked that he named their dog “Buddy” because he wanted one loyal friend in Washington. The past year has reinforced the message that relationships endure when our sector maintains a nonpartisan stance as required by law. Even the appearance of failing to do so invites problems.

At the end of the day, like you, we believe that giving back to your community falls to neither Republican nor Democratic, Labour nor Conservative. To create the
world we want, we must recognise that though we call ourselves the independent sector, our work is truly interdependent – part of a larger ecosystem that includes
business and government. Business, at its best, brings forth innovation, efficiency, and creativity, helps keeping the economy strong and decent jobs available. Improving the world around them is the most effective way to create real wealth for their shareholders and stakeholders.

Government has the power to encourage, compel, and enforce action for the greater good, as well as the ability to marshal the resources to solve our most pressing problems. We need the muscle that comes with political will and government funding if we are to have a fighting chance against today’s immense challenges.

When all three sectors pull together, we amplify our efforts to create a rich, vibrant world: one that encourages the creativity of its citizens; guarantees dignity in old age; provides access to basic health care, affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage; values newcomers and their traditions; eliminates prejudice and discrimination; assures that its citizenry are safe; supports freedom of expression; and aspires to better care for our planet – goals worthy of our highest aspirations regardless
of who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 10 Downing Street.

Thank you.