advocacy by human service organizations marcela sarmiento mellinger, msw, ph.d. university of...

Advocacy by Human Service Organizations

Marcela Sarmiento Mellinger, MSW, Ph.D. University of Maryland at Baltimore CountySchool of Social Work 1

Should human service leaders be involved in advocacy?

2

Advocacy?

Why?

When?

How?

At what level?

Who should be the target?

Nonprofits

•Has been recognized by experts as a vital part of social, economic, political development of modern society

•Service provision and advocacy are two of the functions of human service NPOs identified in the literature (Kramer, 1981; Salamon, 2002)

Nonprofit Sector

3

Advocacy

•Action taken on behalf of a group•Goal is broad level change•Through advocacy, human service

nonprofit organizations (NPO) have: ▫Identified social problems▫Protected basic human rights▫Provided a voice to social, political,

cultural, and community affairs ▫Acted as critics and guardians to bring

about change4

Review of the Literature• No agreement on one definition of advocacy

▫Emphasis on different aspects of advocacy depending on context

• Points of agreement:▫Advocacy: intervention on behalf of others▫Macro or cause advocacy: action taken on behalf of

a group of people▫Micro or individual advocacy: action taken on

behalf of one person or family ▫Advocacy: active not passive

• Advocacy as a political activity is the most commonly used definition

5

Review of the Literature

•Most research includes only legislative advocacy▫Is intervention at other levels advocacy?

•Scope of advocacy participation▫Studies yield conflicting findings ▫Organizations are believed to participate in

advocacy but intensity of participation is unclear

▫Activities utilized seen as peripheral

6

Review of the Literature •Structure of advocacy among organizations

▫Conceptually important, but there is a lack of systematic research

•Advocacy Targets▫Advocacy is a broad concept that includes

legislative advocacy but also advocacy at other levels (Ezell, 2001)

Administrative Legal Community

7

Review of the Literature

Factors that influence advocacy

Funding and resources Environmental changes and political

climateOrganization’s mission

Membership in coalitions and associations

Tax laws

Professionalization

8

Purpose of Study

•Explore institutional factors that influence advocacy behavior of human service nonprofit organizations

•Where? ▫Northeast Georgia region

•Regarding:▫Overall advocacy participation▫Structure of advocacy▫Targets of advocacy

9

Conceptual Framework

Control variables • Organiz

ations’ size

• Organizations’ age

Institutional variables • Formali

zation• Professi

onalization

• Funding • Tax laws

Advocacy• Overall

advocacy participation

• Advocacy structure

• Advocacy targets

10

Study

• Quantitative • Explanatory-descriptiveType

• Cross-sectionalDesign

11

Sample

•Availability or convenience sample •Northeast Georgia Region•Sample size = 72 organizations•Sampling criteria:

▫501(c)3 NPOs▫Provide assistance to promote individual,

social, economic, and psychological well being

▫Excluded: strictly medical and educational organizations

12

Procedure

•Self administered electronic survey▫One time administration

•Survey construction based on literature and practice wisdom

13

Descriptive statistics – Sample Characteristics

Variable Value Number (%) Mean (SD)Type of NPO Non-faith-based

Faith-based 63 (87.5%)9 (12.5%)

Age of organization (years in operation)

Range 1-187 32.1 (32.5)

Total annual budget (size)

Budget categories

Range $11,980 - $15,000,000

Small < $500,000

Medium $500,001 - $3,000,000

Large > $3,000,001

41 (57%)

16 (22.2%)

15 (20.8%)

$2,144,288 (3796947)

14

15

Results: Predictor Variables

Variable Value Number (%) Mean (SD)

Formalization Range: 0 - 5 4.2 (1.2)

Clinical identity

YesNo

8 (11.1%)64 (88.9%)

Funding Restricted Unrestricted

45 (33.3)55 (33.3)

Knowledge of the law

Range: 0 - 8 4.3 (2.5)

16

Results: Outcome variables

Advocacy participation

• Yes 65% (47)• No 35% (25)

Advocacy Structure

• Yes 65% (47)• No 35% (25)

Advocacy Targets Mean (SD) (Range 0-4 )

• Legislators – federal 0.8 (0.95) • Legislators – state 1.2 (1.1)• Legislators – local 1.1 (1.0)• Administrators (agency) 1.5 (1.3)• Legal 0.6 (0.9)• Community 1.6 (1.1)

ResultsTarget Frequency of advocacy

participationPercentage

Legislative Federal

NeverExtremely LowLowMediumHigh

22.9%50%

14.3%7.1%5.7%

Legislative State

NeverExtremely LowLowMediumHigh

22.9%37.1%14.3%21.4%4.3%

Legislative Local

NeverExtremely LowLowMediumHigh

20%37.1%21.4%17.2%4.3%

17

Results

18

Target Frequency of advocacy participation

Percentage

Agency NeverExtremely LowLowMediumHigh

21.4%20%

18.6%27.1%12.9%

Legal NeverExtremely LowLowMediumHigh

48.6%32.9%11.4%2.8%4.3%

Community NeverExtremely LowLowMediumHigh

21.4%10%

32.9%24.3%11.4%

What Was Predicted?Overall Advocacy Participation

•Knowledge of the lobbying law predicted advocacy participation

•Relationship between variables was negative

19

What Was Predicted?Structure of Advocacy

•Formalization predicted structure of advocacy

•Relationship between variables was positive

20

What Was Predicted?Targets of Advocacy

•Knowledge of lobbying law predicted all targets except legal (courts)▫Relationship between variables was

positive•Restricted funding only predicted

legislative advocacy at the state level•None of the predictor variables predicted

legal advocacy

21

Limitations

•Advocacy definition was given to participants

•Non-random sample•Lack of instruments to measure advocacy

targets. Scales used were new•Low response rate (72 cases out of 435)•Topic—potential fear of addressing an area

that may be perceived as a threat to survival

•Length of survey may have decreased participation

22

Implications - Practice• Increased visibility for NPOs within

community• Increased legitimacy for NPOs within

community•A seat at decision making table and a voice

when decisions are made ▫At public policy level and beyond

•Administration issues:▫Staffing ▫Training (staff and board)▫Resources

23

Implications - Policy

•Increased visibility of NPOs where policies are implemented

•A voice to the disadvantaged that should not be silenced - ability to inform public policy

•Relationships with those in positions of authority

•Exploration of advocacy beyond the legislative level

24

25

How Much (lobbying) Can We Do?•It depends! Are you advocating or

lobbying? ▫At what level, federal, state, or local?▫Which target, legislative, agency, legal, or

community?•Federal level has regulations for lobbying

▫The “substantial rule” ▫The “H elector” rule or “expenditure test”

Limits on expenditures are based on a formula

▫IRS form 5768

26

A bit about lobbying• The substantial rule is not specific (in the law since 1934)• The law does not say that NPOs cannot speak out

regarding public policy, but it does say they cannot lobby “substantially”

• In reality, legislators need to and should interact with NPO leaders

• Communication for educational purposes is not considered lobbying

• Testifying or offering advice is not considered lobbying• This only applies to the legislative branch of government

▫ Going to the executive branch or judicial branch is not covered by the law

27

H electors• If an H elector, the NPO is no longer governed by

the “substantial rule”• Part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 • Two sliding scale formulas

▫Direct lobbying of legislators NPOs with budgets of up to $500,000 can spend 20%

of all their expenditures on direct lobbying NPOs with budgets $1.5-$17 million, can spend

$225,000 + 5% of the budget over $1.5 million▫Grass-roots lobbying

Allows NPOs to spend up to one fourth of the total allowable lobbying expenditures

What to do• Partisan political action violates the law

▫No endorsement of candidates for public office▫Do not use government funds to lobby congress

• It is alright to:▫Focus your efforts on policy and regulation changes▫Focus on clarifying or seeking change of

governmental roles and responsibilities▫Bring awareness of public interest issues ▫Educate legislators, administrators, judges, and

community leaders ▫Develop relationships

28

“Nonprofit organizations can and should lobby. It isn’t difficult. It isn’t mysterious. It isn’t expensive. It is not an unnatural act. It is a responsibility to those we serve and support, and it is a proper role for nonprofits.”

Ron Cretaro, CAN Executive Director, and Marcia Avner, Director of Public Policy, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits

29

References• Boris, E. T., & Mosher-Williams, R. (1998). Nonprofit advocacy

organizations: Assessing the definitions, classifications, and data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 488-506.

• Donaldson, L. P. (2008). Developing a progressive advocacy program within a human services agency. Administration in Social Work, 32, 25-48.

• Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

• Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 283-307

30

References• Gibelman, M., & Kraft, S. (1996). Advocacy as a core agency

program: Planning considerations for voluntary human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 20, 43-59

• Kramer, R. M. (1981). Voluntary agencies in the welfare state. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

• Leiter, J. (2005). Structural isomorphism in Australian nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 16, 1-31

• Mosley, J. E. (2006). The policy advocacy of human service nonprofits: How institutional and environmental conditions shape advocacy involvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles.

31

References• Ruef, M. M., & Scott, W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model of

organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877-904.

• Salamon, L. M. (2002). The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

• Schneider, R. L., & Netting, F. E. (1999). Influencing social policy in a time of devolution: Upholding social work's great tradition. Social Work, 44, 349-357.

• Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

• Taylor, E. D. (1987). From issue to action: An advocacy program model. Lancaster, PA: Family Service.

32