From Social Service to
Social Change
Advocacy for Service Organizations
July 12, 2010
Outline of Workshop
 Explore why social service organizations should
be engaged in advocacy and social change
work
 Review best practices
 Conduct a self-assessment of your organization
 Panel Discussion with Latin American Community
Center, TODEC, and MAAC Project
Why should service
providers engage in
advocacy?
 To protect their own funding
 To fulfill their missions (the limits of the direct
service model)
 Because service providers have valuable
resources, networks, and credibility in the
community that can be leveraged for social
change
State Budgets in Crisis
 48 states faced $200 billion in shortfalls in 2010
 45 states cut public services (for health, elderly
and the disabled, K–12, etc.)
 $180 billion in shortfalls projected for 2011
 California—$20 billion annual shortfall projected
through 2014
Sources: The Pew Center on the States, “State of the States 2010: How the Recession Might Change States,”
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=57200 (accessed July 2, 2010) and Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, “The State Budget Crisis and the Economy,” http://www.cbpp.org/slideshows/?fa=stateFiscalCrisis
(accessed July 2, 2010).
.
Social Service vs. Social Change
Social Service:
Social Change:
 Individual
 Collective
 Adaptive
 Transformational
 Clients
 Citizens
The California Affiliate
Network
 57 service-provider organizations
 7,800 employees
 $700 million collective budget
 1.1 million clients (Population of CA≈37 million)
 Presence in 51 of 120 legislative districts
Best Practices
 Organizational commitment to advocacy and
social change
 Client engagement and leadership
development
 Integration of advocacy/civic engagement
activities into programs and services
 Technological capacity
 Participation in coalitions/networks
Organizational commitment
 Executive director and board engaged in
advocacy
 Advocacy is part of mission statement
 Designated organizer/advocacy staff person
 Advocacy included in all job descriptions
 Staff provided with ongoing training
Client Engagement
 Clients mobilized regularly for advocacy activities
 Integration
 Systems of reciprocity
 Emphasis on client leadership development
(training, leadership teams/roles, etc.)
 Mechanisms to engage clients in
strategy/decision-making
Lone Ranger
Some staff/mgt
and client
involvement
Integration
El Concilio/NCLR Health Reform
Campaign—A Model for Integration
 3,677 health reform postcards
 2,861 phone calls to members of Congress
 Engaged clients through health access
transportation program, maternity advocates, a
mental health clinic, a health education
program, and Promotores
 Monthly staff call-in days
 Entire staff engaged in effort
Reciprocity
“…Reciprocity may involve the mutual exchange
of services: the community member receives a
service and in return participates in voluntary
work with the organization….Reciprocity
demonstrates mutual dependence between the
organization and the community that
participates in its services…Power relations
potentially shift through the process of valuing
the contributions of community members and
demonstrating mutual reliance.”
Source: Building Movement Project “Making Social Change: Case Studies of
Nonprofit Service Providers,” http://www.buildingmovement.org/news/entry/108
(accessed July 2, 2010).
Best Practices—Technology
 Web-based data base—list building, client
tracking, E-activism
o Democracy in Action
(www.democracyinaction.org)
o Capwiz (www.capwiz.com)
o Convio (www.convio.com)
o PowerBase (Progressive Technology Project www.progressivetech.org)
 Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
“Three-Dimensional”
Capacity-Building
Executive Director
Staff
Clients/Constituents
“Three-Dimensional”
Capacity-Building
Allies
Allies
Allies
Your
Organi
zation
Allies
Allies
Coalitions and Networks—
NCLR California Affiliate
Network
 57 Affiliates throughout the state
 Affiliate-led housing, health, and education
committees
 Statewide lobby day (2010: 266 people, 110
legislative visits)
 Partnerships with other statewide organizations
and coalitions
Advocacy Capacity SelfAssessment
Panel Discussion
 Ana Velazquez, Latin American Community
Center, Wilmington, DE
 Luz Maria Gallegos, TODEC Legal Center,
Montebello, CA
 Karina Serrano and Karim Bouris, MAAC Project,
San Diego, CA
Resources
 NCLR, www.nclr.org
 Building Movement Project,
www.buildingmovement.org
 The California Endowment, www.calendow.org
 Alliance for Justice, www.ajf.org