Marcela Sarmiento Mellinger MSW PhD University of Maryland at Baltimore County School of Social Work 1 Should human service leaders be involved in advocacy 2 Advocacy Why When How ID: 723227
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Advocacy by Human Service Organizations" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Advocacy by Human Service Organizations
Marcela Sarmiento Mellinger, MSW, Ph.D. University of Maryland at Baltimore CountySchool of Social Work
1Slide2
Should human service leaders be involved in advocacy?
2
Advocacy?
Why?
When?
How?
At what level?
Who should be the target? Slide3
Nonprofits
3Slide4
Advocacy
Action taken on behalf of a groupGoal is broad level changeThrough advocacy, human service nonprofit organizations (NPO) have: Identified social problemsProtected basic human rightsProvided a voice to social, political, cultural, and community affairs
Acted as critics and guardians to bring about change
4Slide5
Review of the Literature
No agreement on one definition of advocacyEmphasis on different aspects of advocacy depending on contextPoints of agreement:Advocacy: intervention on behalf of othersMacro or cause advocacy: action taken on behalf of a group of peopleMicro 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
5Slide6
Review of the Literature
Most research includes only legislative advocacyIs intervention at other levels advocacy? Scope of advocacy participationStudies yield conflicting findings Organizations are believed to participate in advocacy but intensity of participation is unclear Activities utilized seen as peripheral
6Slide7
Review of the Literature
Structure of advocacy among organizationsConceptually important, but there is a lack of systematic researchAdvocacy TargetsAdvocacy is a broad concept that includes legislative advocacy but also advocacy at other levels (Ezell, 2001)Administrative LegalCommunity
7Slide8
Review of the Literature
8Slide9
Purpose of Study
Explore institutional factors that influence advocacy behavior of human service nonprofit organizationsWhere? Northeast Georgia regionRegarding:Overall advocacy participationStructure of advocacyTargets of advocacy
9Slide10
Conceptual Framework
10Slide11
Study
11Slide12
Sample
Availability or convenience sample Northeast Georgia RegionSample size = 72 organizationsSampling criteria: 501(c)3 NPOsProvide assistance to promote individual, social, economic, and psychological well beingExcluded: strictly medical and educational organizations
12Slide13
Procedure
Self administered electronic surveyOne time administration Survey construction based on literature and practice wisdom
13Slide14
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)
14Slide15
Results: Predictor Variables
15
Variable
Value
Number (%)
Mean (SD)
Formalization
Range
: 0 - 5
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 the
law
Range: 0 - 8
4.3 (2.5)Slide16
Results: Outcome variables
16Slide17
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
22.9
%
37.1%
14.3%
21.4%
4.3%
Legislative Local
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
20
%
37.1%
21.4%
17.2%
4.3%
17Slide18
Results
18
Target
Frequency of advocacy participation
Percentage
Agency
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
21.4
%
20%
18.6%
27.1%
12.9%
Legal
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
48.6
%
32.9%
11.4%
2.8%
4.3%
Community
Never
Extremely Low
Low
Medium
High
21.4%
10%
32.9%
24.3%
11.4%Slide19
What Was Predicted?Overall Advocacy Participation
Knowledge of the lobbying law predicted advocacy participation Relationship between variables was negative
19Slide20
What Was Predicted?Structure of Advocacy
Formalization predicted structure of advocacy Relationship between variables was positive
20Slide21
What Was Predicted?Targets of Advocacy
Knowledge of lobbying law predicted all targets except legal (courts)Relationship between variables was positiveRestricted funding only predicted legislative advocacy at the state levelNone of the predictor variables predicted legal advocacy
21Slide22
Limitations
Advocacy definition was given to participantsNon-random sampleLack of instruments to measure advocacy targets. Scales used were newLow 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
22Slide23
Implications - Practice
Increased visibility for NPOs within communityIncreased legitimacy for NPOs within communityA seat at decision making table and a voice when decisions are made At public policy level and beyondAdministration issues:
Staffing
Training (staff and board)
Resources
23Slide24
Implications - Policy
Increased visibility of NPOs where policies are implementedA 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
24Slide25
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 lobbyingThe “substantial rule” The “H elector” rule or “expenditure test”Limits on expenditures are based on a formula
IRS form 5768
25Slide26
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 leadersCommunication 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
26Slide27
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 formulasDirect 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
27Slide28
What to do
Partisan political action violates the lawNo endorsement of candidates for public officeDo not use government funds to lobby congressIt is alright to:Focus your efforts on policy and regulation changesFocus on clarifying or seeking change of governmental roles and responsibilitiesBring awareness of public interest issues
Educate legislators, administrators, judges, and community leaders
Develop relationships
28Slide29
“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
29Slide30
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
30Slide31
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.
31Slide32
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