Advocacy by Human Service
Organizations
Marcela Sarmiento Mellinger, MSW, Ph.D.
University of Maryland at Baltimore County
School of Social Work
1
Should human service leaders be
involved in advocacy?
Advocacy?
Why?
When?
How?
At what level?
Who should be the target?
2
Nonprofits
Nonprofit
Sector
• 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)
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
change
4
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 climate
Organization’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
Institutional
variables
• Organizations’
size
• Organizations’
age
•
•
•
•
Formalization
Professionalization
Funding
Tax laws
Advocacy
• Overall
advocacy
participation
• Advocacy
structure
• Advocacy
targets
10
Study
Type
Design
• Quantitative
• Explanatory-descriptive
• Cross-sectional
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
Type of NPO
Age of organization
(years in operation)
Total annual budget
(size)
Budget categories
Value
Non-faith-based
Faith-based
Range 1-187
Number (%)
63 (87.5%)
9 (12.5%)
32.1 (32.5)
Range $11,980 $15,000,000
Small < $500,000
Mean (SD)
$2,144,288
(3796947)
41 (57%)
Medium $500,001 - 16 (22.2%)
$3,000,000
Large > $3,000,001
15 (20.8%)
14
15
Results: Predictor Variables
Variable
Value
Formalization Range: 0 - 5
Number (%)
Mean (SD)
4.2 (1.2)
Clinical
identity
Yes
No
8 (11.1%)
64 (88.9%)
Funding
Restricted
Unrestricted
45 (33.3)
55 (33.3)
Knowledge of Range: 0 - 8
the law
4.3 (2.5)
16
Results: Outcome variables
Advocacy participation
• Yes
• No
65% (47)
35% (25)
Advocacy Structure
• Yes
• No
65% (47)
35% (25)
Advocacy Targets
•
•
•
•
•
•
Legislators – federal
Legislators – state
Legislators – local
Administrators (agency)
Legal
Community
Mean (SD) (Range 0-4 )
0.8 (0.95)
1.2 (1.1)
1.1 (1.0)
1.5 (1.3)
0.6 (0.9)
1.6 (1.1)
Results
Target
Frequency of advocacy participation
Percentage
Legislative
Federal
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
22.9%
50%
14.3%
7.1%
5.7%
Legislative State
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
22.9%
37.1%
14.3%
21.4%
4.3%
20%
37.1%
21.4%
17.2%
4.3%
Legislative Local
17
Results
Target
Agency
Legal
Community
Frequency of advocacy
participation
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
Percentage
21.4%
20%
18.6%
27.1%
12.9%
48.6%
32.9%
11.4%
2.8%
4.3%
21.4%
10%
32.9%
24.3%
11.4%
18
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