/
Advocacy by Human  Service Organizations Advocacy by Human  Service Organizations

Advocacy by Human Service Organizations - PowerPoint Presentation

calandra-battersby
calandra-battersby . @calandra-battersby
Follow
345 views
Uploaded On 2018-11-08

Advocacy by Human Service Organizations - PPT Presentation

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

lobbying advocacy social organizations advocacy lobbying organizations social human legislative predicted nonprofit public policy 000 medium npos service variables law participation extremely

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

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.


Presentation Transcript

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