ost a brief explanation of two similarities and two differences between each pair of concepts (i.e., social change vs. leadership, social change vs. advocacy, and leadership vs. advocacy). Provide examples to illustrate your points. Then, explain 2–3 conc

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2014, Vol. 43(1) 11 –35 © The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0899764013483212 nvsq.sagepub.com

Article

Advocacy Activities of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations: A Critical Review

Michal Almog-Bar1 and Hillel Schmid2

Abstract Policy advocacy is widely regarded as an eminent feature of nonprofit organizations’ activities, allowing them to represent their constituencies. The article presents a literature review of research on nonprofit policy advocacy that has been published over the last decade, focusing on advocacy by nonprofit human service organizations (NPHSOs) and its unique characteristics and contributions. The review focuses on several key topics, including: the definitions and origins of the term advocacy and its current uses in studies related to NPHSOs; the current situation and prevalence of NPHSO advocacy activities; organizational and structural variables as they relate to policy advocacy; dependence on external funding sources and policy advocacy; strategies, tactics, modes of operation, and the effectiveness of NPHSO policy advocacy. The article presents and discusses the implications of this research and suggests directions for future research.

Keywords advocacy, policy-making, human service organizations.

1Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel 2Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Center for the Study of Philanthropy in Israel, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel.

Corresponding Author: Michal Almog-Bar, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Center for the Study of Philanthropy in Israel, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel. Email: [email protected]

483212NVS43110.1177/0899764013483212Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyAlmog-Bar and Schmid research-article2013

12 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

Introduction

Policy advocacy is widely regarded as an eminent feature of nonprofit organizations’ activities, allowing them to engage and represent their constituencies; give voice to diverse views and demands, promote economic, and social justice; contribute to a more vital, active civil society, and strengthen democracy and equality of opportunity. However, the abundant literature on nonprofits published through the years has paid limited attention to the ways in which nonprofits represent their constituencies in political and policy-making processes and arenas (Berry & Arons, 2003).

This article presents a literature review of research on nonprofit policy advocacy published over the last decade, focusing on nonprofit human service organizations (NPHSOs). While interest in nonprofit advocacy has grown in recent years, many studies have focused on “advocacy organizations,” defined as organizations whose main goal and core activity is advocacy. However, these amount to only a small per- centage of the nonprofit organizations active in many countries. Most nonprofit activ- ity is undertaken by organizations that combine advocacy with the provision of services, usually their primary goal.

The political and social environments in which NPHSOs operate have changed dramatically in the last two decades in many countries. These changes relate mainly to processes of welfare state retrenchment following the introduction of a neoliberal ideology that has led to privatization, devolution, and the contracting- out of social services. Consequently, the number and scope of activities of NPHSOs—the main providers of social services—have grown significantly. Although previously they tended to control the field of social services, they are now competing with for-profit organizations in the same field (Schmid, 2004). As a result, NPHSOs providing services largely funded by government are more attuned to political fluctuations and policy changes. Their dependence on govern- mental resources enables the government to impose on them policies, regulations, and work procedures as a condition for ensuring a steady stream of resources that they need for their activities and survival. However, these organizations have addi- tional roles in enhancing human and social rights, to protect and advance the well- being of the clients they represent: advocacy, an essential component of their mission as civil society organizations.

This article presents an extensive review of the literature discussing the current situation of advocacy activities employed by NPHSOs, and discusses the dilemmas associated with these activities and their effectiveness. We focus mainly on studies conducted in NPHSOs and do not review the extensive literature that addresses inter- est groups and social movements. While one can learn extensively from this rich body of research and the similarities that are evident between these types of organizations and NPHSOs, many differences remain. Those relate to the fact that interest groups and social movements are in many cases not considered to be formal organizations as NPHSOs, most of them do not receive funding from the government and they do not provide services to populations in need. In addition, they are usually less bureaucratic in their nature and their organizational culture tends to be more organistic than

Almog-Bar and Schmid 13

mechanistic (Christiansen et al., 2010). These make advocacy activities in NPHSOs unique and they deserve careful examination. Our goal is to present a critical examina- tion of the literature on advocacy by NPHSOs from an international, comparative per- spective, and to shed light on topics still to be covered or discussed and requiring further development in both theory and research.

A review and analysis of the literature has led us to focus on several key topics, providing a basis for a comprehensive examination of the unique characteristics and contributions of NPHSO policy advocacy. The article begins with a presentation of the origins and definitions of the term advocacy and its current uses in studies related to NPHSO advocacy. The following sections deal with different aspects of advocacy that are crucial for these organizations: the current situation and prevalence of advocacy activities of NPHSOs; organizational and structural variables, and their relation to policy advocacy; dependence on external funding sources and policy advocacy; strate- gies, tactics, and modes of operation, and the effectiveness of NPHSO policy advo- cacy. There are certainly other important topics related to NPHSO advocacy, such as the involvement of their constituencies in advocacy (Smith & Pekkanen, 2012) or regulatory policies for advocacy by nonprofits (Reid, 2006), which is more relevant to the understanding of nonprofit advocacy in the United States. These and other topics are excluded from our review, due to space limitations. Finally, we present and discuss the implications of the research on NPHSO advocacy and suggest directions for future research.

Definitions and Origins of the Term “Advocacy”

In recent years, interest has been growing in the role of nonprofit human service orga- nizations in policy advocacy. These organizations engage in advocacy in addition to their core activity as providers of social services. They represent disadvantaged, disen- franchised, excluded, and vulnerable populations, mediating between these groups of citizens and governmental agencies (Berry, 2001; Dalrymple, 2004; Ezell, 2001; Hoefer, 2002; Hudson, 2002; LeRoux, 2009; LeRoux & Goerdel, 2009; Reid, 2006; Salamon & Geller, 2008; Schmid, 2004; Strolovitch, 2006). An attempt to understand the origins of the term “advocacy” brings us back to the root “advocare,” meaning “coming to someone’s aid.” According to the Free Online Dictionary (2000), advo- cacy is defined as “the act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.” Synonyms proposed for advocacy include active espousal, aid, approbation, approval, auspices, championship, countenance, encouragement, and endorsement. All express the desire to provide help and support and to encourage individuals who need support. Late Middle English forms that appear in the World English Dictionary are “advocacye” and “advocatia.” The Merriam Webster Dictionary (1982) offers a different definition: “the act or process of advocat- ing or supporting a cause or proposal.” This broad definition of advocacy activity, reaching beyond assistance to individuals, focuses on supporting, promoting, or defin- ing a certain cause or proposal in an attempt to change laws, policies, practices, and attitudes. This kind of activity, which began with the Citizen’s Advocacy Movement in

14 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

the United States and Canada in the mid-1970s, derived from the principle of normal- ization developed by Bengt Nirje (Nirje, 1969).

Organizations such as Scope in the United States are associated with advocacy activities initiated in 1954, which demanded that every child in the country be entitled to education. In 1946 Judy Fryd began a campaign to provide support and promote the rights of children with special needs and learning difficulties. Ms Fryd, whose own son had a learning disability, established the National Association for Parents of Backward Children which later changed its name to Mencap. Over the years, other organizations— primarily for mental health services—joined the effort to protect the rights and well- being of disabled patients, whose needs were being ignored by the government. According to Reid (2000), the term “advocacy” describes a wide range of individual and collective expression or action for a cause, idea, or policy; it may also refer to specific activities or organizations. Thus, Reid also modified the definition of advo- cacy to include the venue of a political action.

Accordingly, the literature presents additional definitions that expand the meaning of the word advocacy beyond that of providing assistance, protection, and support to individuals. These new definitions include activities in the political arena; they focus on attempts to change policies or influence the decisions of elite government and state institutions through enhancement of civic participation, in order to promote a collec- tive goal or interest (Berry, 1999, 2001; Boris & Mosher-Williams, 1998; Jenkins, 1987, 2006; Warren, 2001). Similarly, it has been argued that advocacy and political activity aim to effect changes in existing or future practices for a group of citizens with a common interest (Ezell, 2001), as well as to protect basic civil rights (Boris & Krehely, 2003; Frumkin, 2002; McCarthy & Castelli, 2002; Mosley, 2010; Rektor, 2002; Schoff & Stevenson, 1998). According to Boris and Mosher-Williams (1998), building social capital, facilitating civic participation, and providing a public voice are activities central to an analysis of the interaction between nonprofits and public policy in a democratic civil society. Andrews and Edwards (2004) emphasize the act of advo- cacy in “promoting or resisting social change that, if implemented, would conflict with the social, cultural, political, or economic interests or values of other constituencies and groups” (p. 481).

Other definitions relate to advocacy as a tactic for managing the external environ- ment in an attempt to mobilize support and change power-dependence relations (Mosley, 2010); others emphasize social justice (Mickelson, 1995), advocacy toward corporations and the business world, a topic which has not been developed intensively so far (Nelson,2007; Ottinger, 2009), and global advocacy (Bryer & Magrath,1999; Edwards,1993). In addition, the literature deals extensively with different types of advocacy. Important distinctions relate to direct versus indirect advocacy (Andrews & Edwards, 2004; Casey, 2011), pragmatic versus legislative advocacy (Kimberlin, 2010; Laws, 1997), and case advocacy versus policy advocacy (Mosley, 2010). Direct advocacy refers to lobbying and other appearances before key decision-makers by organizational representatives on behalf of others; indirect advocacy describes the par- ticipatory aspects of advocacy in nonprofits, particularly the capacity of groups to stimulate individual citizens to take action on their behalf. Legislative advocacy means

Almog-Bar and Schmid 15

reliance on the state and the federal legislative process as part of a strategy for creating change. “Case advocacy is when the interests of a particular individual, family or organization are being represented. It is different from policy advocacy, because it generally does not include changing policy” (Kimberlin, 2010, p. 508).

There is also a distinction between self-interested organizational advocacy (e.g., advocacy to protect agency funding contracts) and progressive advocacy, which “seeks to advance the interests of nonprofit constituents rather than the organization’s inter- ests, and fully engage constituents in the advocacy process” (Donaldson, 2008, p. 26).

It is important to note the distinction between two closely related terms: advocacy and lobbying (Mosley, 2010; Salamon & Geller, 2008). “Lobbying” has a legal and IRS definition for nonprofit organizations and refers to advocacy efforts that aim to influence specific legislation through appeals to policy-makers or individuals. This is a specific form of advocacy, which involves promoting a position on specific pieces of legislation to legislators or legislative staff, either directly or indirectly (Salamon & Geller, 2008).

It is also important to note the distinction between an “advocacy organization” and advocacy as performed by nonprofit organizations. Some studies concentrate on a nar- row set of organizations defined as “advocacy organizations,” whose core function is advocacy (Kimberlin, 2010). However, as McCarthy & Castelli (2002) remind us, advocacy is widespread across the entire spectrum of nonprofit organizations. Participation in advocacy is not limited to organizations that define themselves as “advocacy organizations” and thus should be studied as an activity, and not as an orga- nizational classification.

In sum, advocacy as a component of the mission and activities of NPHSOs has shifted over the years from an emphasis on assisting and representing individuals, to the representation and protection of disadvantaged, disenfranchised, marginalized groups (Hyman, 1983). Advocacy activities initiated by nonprofit human service orga- nizations are channeled toward the political arena in which policies are formulated and decisions are made about allocation of resources for different purposes and popula- tions (Berry, 1999; Verba, Scholzman, & Brody, 1995).

The Current State of Advocacy in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations

Research findings indicate that the scope of advocacy activities is limited, and that advocacy does not play a major role in NPHSOs, which concentrate more on the pro- vision of social services. Findings suggest that most nonprofits are ambivalent about advocacy. In a study on advocacy by UK-based development NGOs Hudson (2002) reports on the unease and suspicions directors of services had about advocacy unit that was in charge of promoting advocacy activity, saying “they’re working on issues which are nothing to do with us”(p.408). Some do not engage in it at all, and many participate in some form of advocacy, even though it is not part of the organization’s mission-related activities or primary goals. Only a small proportion of nonprofits

16 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

devote considerable resources to advocacy and limited positions, but this pattern dif- fers significantly among different types of organizations (Berry & Arons, 2003; Boris & Krehely, 2003; Child & Gronbjerg, 2007; DeChesnay & Robinson-Dooley, 2011; Nicholson-Crotty, 2007).

Findings reported by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (2010) indicate that less than 1% of all registered nonprofits in the United States identified advocacy as their primary purpose. Of 1.5 million registered nonprofits there, only 11,463 iden- tified their primary purpose as civil rights, social action, and advocacy; furthermore, only 159 indicated that the Public Interest Law—also connected with advocacy—is relevant to them.

Salamon (2002) examined 3,400 public benefit organizations in 16 regions through- out the United States in the early 1980s. His findings indicate that only 16% of them had spent any funds on advocacy activities, and that half of the agencies reporting advocacy expenses spent less than 10% of their operating funds on advocacy. Boris and Krehely (2002) reveal that, between 1989 and 1998, only 1.2% to 1.5% of 501c(3) organizations reported advocacy and lobbying expenses. Salamon and Geller (2008) report that 85% of the organizations examined in their study reported expenses for advocacy amounting to less than 2% of their budget for such activities.

Similar findings are presented by Schmid, Bar, and Nirel (2008), indicating that the scope and intensity of political activity in Israeli NPHSOs is moderate and limited. The organizations allocated a limited number of staff positions and most of the work- ers were engaged in provision of services. Lack of appropriate resources restrained the organizations’ ability to initiate political activity.

Onyx et al. (2010) found that in Australia many organizations that grew out of ear- lier social movements have lost their strong activist orientation and collectivist work practices, and instead adopted more bureaucratic and professional structures, while seeking out stable and secure funding sources primarily from the government. They concluded that in Australia overt political advocacy is repressed and in decline (see also, Casey& Dalton, 2006).Other findings have revealed more comprehensive advo- cacy activity in these organizations. In a study conducted jointly by the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest and OMB Watch, Berry & Arons (2003) find that 75% of the participating organizations have engaged in certain forms of policy activity. Bass, Arons, Guinane, and Carter (2007) find that most of the organizations examined in their survey (75%) have engaged in some type of advocacy, and nonprofit executive directors feel strongly that advocacy is a critical component in achieving mission- based goals. Salamon & Geller (2008) find that 73% of 311 nonprofit organizations in four key fields—children and family services; elderly housing and services, commu- nity, and economic development and the arts—reported engaging in some type of policy advocacy during the previous year. Engagement in policy advocacy is found to be somewhat frequent, as 61% of the organizations engaging in advocacy efforts reported doing so at least once a month. Mosley (2010) finds that 57% of 641 NPHSOs in California reported participating in advocacy in 2002.

The discrepancies between the different studies of advocacy participation can be explained partly by the different ways in which advocacy is defined and measured.

Almog-Bar and Schmid 17

Generally, studies that define advocacy more broadly, based on a more detailed set of policy activities, report higher rates of nonprofit participation in advocacy activities (Bass et al., 2007; Mosley, 2010; Salamon & Geller, 2008).

However, most studies reveal low levels of advocacy, indicating that political advo- cacy is marginal and limited in scope. Resources are not allocated and very few staff positions are assigned for this purpose (Bass et al., 2007; Donaldson, 2007; Salamon & Geller, 2008). NPHSOs have not assimilated advocacy activity into their organiza- tional culture; nor have they integrated it appropriately into their work programs (Balassiano & Chandler, 2010; Kimberlin, 2010; Saidel, 2002; Schmid, 2012).

What are the reasons for the limited scope and intensity of advocacy in these orga- nizations? Various explanations have been provided, supported by organizational the- ories analyzing the relations between NPHSOs and their funding sources (governmental or private). According to resource dependence and neoinstitutional theories, NPHSOs are highly dependent on external resources and do not bite the hand that feeds them (Bass et al., 2007; Donaldson, 2008; Gormley & Cymrot, 2006; Leech, 2006; Schmid et al., 2008). They conform to government policies to ensure funding streams, and are reluctant to engage in advocacy because it can endanger their survival (D’Aunno, Sutton, & Price, 1991; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Philanthropic funding sources are also hesitant to support advocacy activity because it could be perceived as a protest against the government. Instead, they are interested in supplementing or complementing the government’s role, and seek to share responsibility for initiating and promoting social service programs (Atlantic Philanthropies, 2008; Guo, 2007).

Other explanations for the limited scope of NPHSO advocacy activity relate to laws that provide nonprofit organizations with benefits and tax deductions. NPHSOs are concerned with ensuring the continued receipt of government grants, benefits, and subsidies that they are entitled to under these laws, and are therefore reluctant to engage in advocacy activities. Furthermore, some organizations lack knowledge about their options for engaging in political advocacy activities (Berry & Arons, 2003; Raffa, 2000).

The low level of advocacy activities in nonprofit organizations has also been asso- ciated with their executive directors’ lack of organizational skills. Findings indicate that these office-holders lack the professional knowledge and appropriate education, skills, and competence to enter the political arena, which is inherently different from the provision of services (Ezell, 2001; Gronbjerg & Smith, 1999; Minkoff, 1994; Mosley, 2010; Pawlak & Flynn, 1990; Schmid et al., 2008). Advocacy activity is also time consuming. Furthermore, in order to meet with politicians, government officials, policy-makers, and others who influence public opinion, it is necessary to work beyond regular work hours and outside the premises of the organization. This requires a con- siderable personal investment that not all directors are willing to make (Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal, 2001; Sosin, 1986). Finally, the lack of adequate resources limits the scope of the advocacy activity because executives are primarily committed to the provision of services to their clients.

18 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

Dependence on External Funding and Policy Advocacy

One of the main concerns raised in the literature is how dependence on external fund- ing influences policy-advocacy activities. Some researchers report a positive associa- tion between these factors, indicating that government funding causes nonprofit organizations to become active in advocacy (Beck, 1970; Berry & Arons, 2003; Chaves, Stephens, & Galaskiewicz, 2004; Donaldson, 2007; Jenkins, 1987; Leech, 2006; McCarthy & Castelli, 2002; Mosley, 2011; Silverman & Patterson, 2010; Wolch, 1990). These studies clearly indicate that increased institutionalization and dependence on government funding provide an incentive for advocacy activities, par- ticularly in NPHSOs (Mosley, 2011). According to Mosley, organizations that are dependent on government funding may advocate for the protection of vital funding streams that can ensure funding stability. They also build relationships with decision- makers, creating advocacy opportunities that would not arise otherwise. A slightly different perspective is presented by Chaves et al. (2004), who argue that the receipt of government funding does not suppress involvement in nonprofit advocacy. Leech (2006) reveals similar findings, indicating that federally funded 501C(3) organiza- tions lobby federal agencies slightly more often than those without such funding. Berry and Arons (2003) find that 26% of executive directors whose organizations receive funding from the government participate at high levels in policy or planning groups with government officials, putting directors not only in close contact with official decision-makers, but often also in a position to influence those officials. Similarly, Jenkins (1987) argues that government funding could be viewed as a form of social control by institutional elites who choose to fund particular organizations that they feel comfortable supporting. Moreover, in an analysis of partnerships between the government and NPHSOs, Salamon (1995) argues that government funding encourages advocacy activity by instilling values and norms of public ser- vice such as democratic participation in decision-making, and enforcement of the laws that bind nonprofit organizations. As such, government funding helps them pro- mote their civil and social ideology.

In contrast to these studies, another group of researchers argues that dependence on government funding neutralizes and obstructs advocacy activities in NPHSOs (Bass et al., 2007; Cruz, 2001; Grogan & Gusmano, 2009; Guo & Saxton, 2010; Maddison & Dennis, 2005; Roelofs, 1987; Schmid et al., 2008; Smith & Lipsky, 1993). All these studies reveal negative relationships between the extent of govern- ment funding and the scope of NPHSO advocacy efforts. Child and Gronbjerg (2007) reveal slightly different findings: that government funding is unrelated to participa- tion in advocacy, but organizations that receive more than half of their funding from the government are more likely to engage in advocacy as a secondary activity than as a core agency pursuit.

The differences in the findings of the various studies can be attributed to the differ- ent contexts and political environments in which the organizations operate, and to the nature of their special relations with the government and other funding sources.

Almog-Bar and Schmid 19

In addition, differences are found in the scope and intensity of policy advocacy and its relation to external funding sources among nonprofit organizations, in the United States and other countries. In many countries, nonprofits are not subject to legal con- straints on political advocacy, whereas in the United States there are clear definitions and legal restrictions on such activity. However, although American organizations are legally permitted to allocate the budgets at their disposal for advocacy and lobbying, they are often cautious about the way in which they define those activities (Reid, 2000). These findings are supported by earlier studies that have examined social movements and their responses to external funding and support (Piven & Cloward, 1977). Dependence on government funding causes social movements to moderate their responses to state institutions, reducing their effectiveness in attaining their espoused goals.

Organizational and Structural Properties and Their Relationship With Policy Advocacy

Various organizational properties are found to be associated with measures of politi- cal advocacy in NPHSOs: the size and age of the organization; the existence of organizational and financial support networks; the accessibility of information sys- tems; and partnerships with other organizations, professional leadership, and admin- istrative experience. The scope and intensity of political advocacy has been found to be greater in organizations with larger budgets and a larger number of workers (Bass et al., 2007; Child & Gronbjerg, 2007; Cruz, 2001; DeVita, Mosher-Williams, & Stengel, 2001; Donaldson, 2007; Gibelman & Kraft, 1996; Mosley, Katz, Hasenfeld, & Anheier, 2003;

In contrast, small organizations are less institutionalized, formal, and bureaucratic; they are less obligated to governmental and public agencies, and engage less in advo- cacy than larger organizations. The organization’s age has a positive impact on advo- cacy. Findings clearly reveal that older organizations enjoy broad legitimization from government agencies. This ensures a flow of resources, which are also allocated for advocacy (Donaldson, 2007; Minkoff, 1998; Salamon & Geller, 2008). Similarly, it has been argued that administrative experience affects the promotion of advocacy in organizations. Experienced managers are less hesitant to advocate and lobby for their clients than are inexperienced, young managers who are still at the stage of establish- ing themselves and therefore invest limited personal and financial resources in advo- cacy (Schmid, 2012).

Furthermore, the organization’s financial capacity to promote advocacy plays an important role (Berry & Arons, 2003; DeVita, Montilla-Williams, & Stengel, 2004; LeRoux & Goerdel, 2009). Organizations that are financially stable and have a solid organizational infrastructure invest more resources in promoting advocacy. Notably, these organizations have the ability to mobilize resources, and are not threatened by governmental fluctuations that might adversely affect the flow of resources. This is also true of other variables, such as the accessibility of information technology in the

20 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

organization (McNutt, 2008; McNutt & Boland, 1999), and the existence of alliances, partnerships, and coalitions with other organizations for the purpose of promoting social initiatives (Belzer, 2011; Geller & Salamon, 2009; LeRoux & Goerdel, 2009; Newhouse, 2010; Reid, 1999; Salamon, 1995; Sandfort, 2011). Commitment to and awareness of leadership also are found to play an important role in promoting advo- cacy (Cohen, 2001; Donaldson, 2007; LeRoux & Goerdel, 2009; Saidel & Harlan, 1998).

Finally, a study conducted by Guo and Saxton (2010) reveals that the scope and intensity of nonprofit advocacy tend to increase as a function both in the board mem- bers’ communication with constituents and the level of constituent involvement in strategic decision-making.

Advocacy Strategies, Tactics, and Modes of Operation by NPHSOs

The literature presents an extensive repertoire of potential advocacy activities that NPHSOs may use in their efforts to influence public policy. Berry (1977) distin- guishes between a strategy, which he defines as a general, long-range approach to advocacy, and a tactic, that he defines as actions taken to advance specific policy positions. However, in most studies there is no clear demarcation between strategy and tactics, and they are usually grouped into several clusters that include: legislative advocacy; administrative advocacy; grassroots advocacy; judicial (legal) advocacy; electoral advocacy; media advocacy; research and public education, coalition build- ing; and direct actions (Casey, 2011; Guo & Saxton, 2010; McCarthy & Castelli, 2002; Reid, 1999).

What are the advocacy tactics that NPHSOs use in their efforts to influence public policy? Several studies suggest a division between different types of tactics and activi- ties. Berry and Arons (2003) divide nine different advocacy tactics into two groups: the first comprises more legislative, aggressive, and confrontational tactics, including tactics such as lobbying for a bill or policy, testifying in hearings, releasing research reports, and encouraging members to write or call policy-makers. The second group comprises administrative—less aggressive—tactics, including more cooperative forms of interaction such as meeting with government officials, working in a planning or advisory group, responding to requests for information, and socializing with gov- ernment officials. They find a strong tendency among the surveyed nonprofits to rely on administrative advocacy and more cooperative tactics. The authors suggest that the consistent strategic approach of most nonprofit leaders who work with government is to create a set of relationships that enhances the position of their organization within the governmental process. The key for these leaders is to understand what governmen- tal bureaucracies want from nonprofits, build those capacities into the organization, and develop personal relationships with the policy-makers who make the decisions affecting the nonprofit. As trust is established, the nonprofit hopes it will be integrated increasingly in the governmental process and will be able to work alongside of

Almog-Bar and Schmid 21

policy-makers. They conclude that “nonprofit leaders do not think so much of tactics of advocacy as they do of ways to insinuate themselves inside government” (Berry & Arons, 2003, p. 104).

Onyx et al. (2010) distinguish between radical and institutional tactics. Radical advocacy is associated with external democratic processes that are overtly political and, therefore, open to dispute. They find that Australian NPHSOs are much more likely to undertake institutional than radical advocacy action. These actions—which the authors term advocacy with gloves on—are perceived as more professional, enabling organizations to establish constructive working partnerships with govern- ment and facilitating access to policy-making processes while protecting them from punishment and government repression. In a similar vein, Donaldson (2007) finds that NPHSOs prefer elite strategies, which rely more on the expert power of professionals, to empowerment and mass strategies, which rely on encouraging the active participa- tion of clients in policy-making and protest activities.

Similarly, Schmid et al. (2008) and Salamon and Geller (2008) find that activities vis-à-vis governmental agencies such as correspondence with, visiting or calling gov- ernment officials—which are perceived as less demanding—are the most prevalent tactics among NPHSOs in Israel and the United States, while more radical, demanding tactics such as “protest activities” and grassroots lobbying are the least prevalent.

Onyx et al. (2010) and Hoefer (2000) also refer to the importance of the strategy of sector coordination, which involves partnerships and coalitions formed across the non- profit sector. They perceive this as a culture of fostering advocacy as well as enhancing collective sectoral power and the ability to achieve broader support in society.

Other studies use a more common classification of activities, differentiating between insider and outsider strategies and tactics (Gais & Walker, 1991; Gormley & Cymrot, 2006; Onyx et al., 2010). Insider tactics are intended to change policy by working directly with policy-makers and other institutional elites that emphasize working “inside the system.” Outsider tactics, sometimes termed indirect tactics (Mosley 2011), refer to extra-institutional tactics that emphasize working outside the system, such as public education; mass media; protests, boycotts, and demonstrations.

These studies point to NPHSOs’ preference and greater use of insider tactics over outsider tactics, such as participating in the development or revision of regulations. These tactics are considered more important and effective in influencing policy (Bass et al., 2007; Donaldson, 2007; Gormley & Cymrot, 2006; Hoefer, 2001; Mosley, 2010). In line with resource dependence and institutionalization theories, the greater use of insider tactics is associated with higher rates of institutionalization and govern- ment funding (Mosley, 2011).

What can explain the greater usage of insider, institutional, and less aggressive tactics by NPHSOs? Processes of privatization and contracting out of services have led to the growing mutual dependency of NPHSOs and government agencies. Government is increasingly dependent on local nonprofits to provide services, feed- back, and expertise in the implementation of programs and relating to social needs, while nonprofits are dependent on government for contracts. The increased collabora- tion on program design, implementation, and evaluation may be making more insider

22 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

tactics a part of the routine interactions between nonprofits and government (Bass et al., 2008; Mosley, 2011). In fact, as Berry and Arons (2003) suggest, partnering with government should be seen as form of lobbying by nonprofits. Collaborative work creates an opportunity to shape policies and programs, and to exert influence. While fundamental decisions about funding and the broad outlines of social policy lie far beyond the reach of nonprofit executives, at the next level of decision-making— regarding the specifics of public policy and the allocation of funds within the sector— the directors of nonprofits have a real opportunity to take part and influence these processes. However, while institutional, insider tactics may ensure access to key play- ers and deliver policy change, in a reality of nonprofit dependency on state resources it may create a close elite group of nonprofits that is, in effect, a part of the state machinery of participation. These are vulnerable to cooption, risking the alienation of advocates from memberships and constituencies (Onyx et al., 2010).

One of the advocacy tactics that has received growing scholarly attention is online advocacy (“e-advocacy”). Nonprofits are increasingly using electronic media for advocacy, mainly because most nonprofit organizations do not allocate adequate resources for the promotion of their activities. The use of electronic media aims to increase efficiency in terms of costs and benefits, and to increase the possibilities for engaging in advocacy over distances and for mobilizing new groups and supporters (McNutt, 2010). The most common means of expanding advocacy activities are online petitions, blogs, and social media sites (Bhagat, 2005; Browning, 1996; Fitzgerald & McNutt, 1997; Grobman & Grant, 1998; Hart, Greenfield & Johnson, 2005; Hick & McNutt, 2002; McNutt, 2006; McNutt & Boland, 1999; Schwartz, 1996; Suárez, 2009; Turner, 1998). However, insufficient information is available on the contribu- tion and effectiveness of these activities. In addition, there is a lack of information on advocacy campaigns and their relationship with policy advocacy (Bergan, 2009; Gerber, 2004). Moreover, common theoretical models and approaches for the assess- ment of organizational effectiveness have yet to be adapted to an evaluation of the quality and impact of online political advocacy (McNutt, 2010).

The Effectiveness and Impact of NPHSOs’ Policy Advocacy

Measuring the effectiveness of NPHSOs’ advocacy is a complex topic for research, mainly because of the methodological difficulties involved in examining this activity and its ultimate impact in the political arena (Hoefer, 2000, 2001, 2005; Hoefer & Ferguson, 2007; Hudson,2002; McNutt, 2010). However, evaluation of the effective- ness of advocacy activities is needed in order to learn how to advocate more effec- tively, to develop advocacy skills and capacities, and to make more informed decisions about resource allocation. It is also needed in order to demonstrate the value of advo- cacy, both to external stakeholders and within the organization (Hudson, 2002, p. 416).

Evaluations of the effectiveness of advocacy have usually focused on input and building organizational capacities, training managers to engage in advocacy and the

Almog-Bar and Schmid 23

strategies and tactics that organizations use in these processes (Sandfort, 2011; Starling, 2010; The Evaluation Exchange, 2007; The Urban Institute, 2010). Another approach that has been proposed for evaluating the effectiveness of policy advocacy distinguishes between internal and external factors that affect this activity (Berry & Arons, 2003). Internal factors include the strategies and tactics that organizations employ to implement advocacy activity, and structural-organizational factors such as the degree of organizational autonomy, the extent of centralization of authority and power at the management level, and the quality of leadership in the organization. External factors include the context in which the organization operates and the avail- ability of resources for advocacy activity. Other factors found to contribute to the effectiveness of nonprofit advocacy are: the staying power of the organizations main- taining their long-term commitment to work on selected issues, and presence on an ongoing basis; policy expertise, including technical knowledge and production of materials based on research conducted by specialists, and the allocation of resources to the development of staff and the enhancement of the organization’s potential for advocacy (Berry, 1999, 2001). In addition, Rees (2001) finds that highly effective nonprofit advocacy organizations are characterized by building personal relationships with policy-makers and their staff members; they engage in ongoing efforts to connect policy-makers to the organization’s grassroots constituents. These effective advocacy organizations maintain a strong focus on a small number of core issues. The rational for measuring effectiveness of organizational processes and attaining resources for the purpose of achieving goals is well presented and justified in the literature (D’Aunno, 1992; Forbes,1998; Herman & Renz, 1999; Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967).

While most studies deal with the usage and prevalence of different advocacy tac- tics, not enough is known about the effectiveness of these tactics. Which strategies and tactics do NPHSOs perceive as more effective in influencing policy? It is interesting to note that, while the studies on the usage of tactics clearly point to a preference of institutional and insider tactics over radical, outsider tactics, studies that have explored the effectiveness of different advocacy tactics portray a more complex picture. Onyx et al. (2010) find that the organizations studied perceive elite strategies of advocacy such as direct lobbying and participating in governmental committees as only moder- ately successful in changing policy. The most effective advocacy strategies described are campaigns and combined elite, empowerment, and mass strategies: these include activities such as initiating meetings between government officials and clients; help- ing clients to prepare and submit their own policy recommendations, training clients in self-advocacy; and facilitating media space in which clients can speak about their experiences. For example, when trying to effect changes in welfare regulations, Hoefer (2000) finds that coalition building and bringing the current regulations to the atten- tion of both Congress and officialdom are perceived as the most effective strategies for achieving this goal.

However, it is important to draw a distinction between effectiveness and influence or impact. Effectiveness is a narrower concept than influence, power, or impact. One expression of this is the degree to which a goal is attained. Berry and Arons (2003) claim that the goal of NPHSO advocacy is to develop a cooperative relationship with

24 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

government and work together to resolve public issues. This involves the incorpora- tion of delegates of these organizations into administrative policy-making. While the goal of a joint production of public policy may be achieved, and these organizations may take an active part in the production of public policy, we still do not know whether they have had an impact on the process of policy-making.

Notwithstanding these difficulties and constraints, there have been some attempts to propose possible models and measures for understanding the influence of nonprofit advocacy (Andrews & Edwards, 2004; Berry & Arons, 2003; Donaldson & Shields, 2009; McNutt, 2010). Casey (2004) proposes a framework for understanding the out- come of nonprofit organizations’ advocacy in the policy process. This framework is composed of elements from the interest groups theory, social movement theory, and organizational theories; it focuses on environmental (external) and organizational fac- tors that are likely to influence the outcome of nonprofit advocacy, defining four groups of determining factors:

1. The political and socioeconomic environment in which the advocacy efforts take place, including dominant political discourses; institutional policy struc- tures, the strength of political parties, and the spectrum of advocacy actions.

2. The policy in question, including the nature of the policy conflict and the phase of the policy cycle toward which the advocacy is directed.

3. The characteristics of NPHSOs, including their ideology and culture; organiza- tional capacity; resource mobilization and membership, representation and the status that the organization has achieved in terms of the way it is viewed by official policy-makers.

4. The network of other actors involved in the field relevant to the issue with which a particular organization deals.

Following Burstein (1985), Andrews & Edwards (2004) suggest examining the poten- tial influence of advocacy organizations through measurement across six different dimensions of the policy process: agenda setting; access to decision-making arenas; achieving favorable policies, monitoring, and shaping their implementation, and shift- ing the long-term priorities and resources of political institutions. The model assumes that each part of the policy process is shaped by different factors, so the influence of advocacy organizations should vary in different stages or components of the policy cycles. Similarly, Casey (2011) proposes a model that consists of six possible levels of outcome of advocacy. The first level is access: the voices of previously excluded stakeholders are now heard. The second is agenda: powerful decision-makers support a desired policy change. The third is policy: the desired change is translated into new legislation or regulations. The forth is output: the new policy is implemented as pro- posed. The fifth is impact: the new policy has the intended consequences, and the sixth is structural: the new policy is widely accepted as the new norm. However, to the best of our knowledge, these models have yet to be tested empirically in studies that focus on NPHSOs.

Almog-Bar and Schmid 25

While influence and impact are usually treated as general terms, it is important to note that policy advocacy can achieve different types of impact and influence. Scott, Deschenes, Hopkins, Newman, and McLaughlin (2006) have studied the role of three advocacy organizations in restructuring the field of youth services in California. They suggest that these organizations have achieved different kinds of impact: They have promoted new ways of understanding youth, new ways of working toward a common goal for youth and new types of policies to address issues confronting youth. In their efforts, these organizations have utilized processes and techniques associated with emergent social movements—namely, the construction of collective meanings, shared objectives, and overarching frameworks for spanning diverse groups and interests. Other studies also point to the impact of nonprofit advocacy in framing processes and changing discourses about social problems (Cress & Snow, 2000; Howse, Weiss, & Green, 2006).

Despite these efforts, studies still point to the difficulties in measuring outcome, because the goals of advocacy are broadly defined and tend to be amorphous and ambiguous (McNutt, 2010; Mosley, 2010). In addition, the process of evaluating effectiveness is complex, because policy advocacy is related to the activities of other agencies and organizations as well as to the activities of individuals, interest groups, and communities. Hence, it is difficult to evaluate the differential contribution of each of these actors. For example, passing (or not passing) laws is not a direct outcome of the activity of the organization that engages in promoting or preventing legislation. This process involves the legislators themselves, interest groups and other organiza- tions that join the campaign to enact or defeat the law. External factors, constraints, and changes in the task environment that are not directly related to or controlled by the organization also affect its ability to achieve the goals of advocacy (Bergan, 2009; Gerber, 2004; Guigni, 1998; Guthrie et al., 2005).

In the same vein, public policy-making and efforts to influence policy-makers can- not be evaluated or measured on the basis of one group or organization, because these processes consist of several stages and streams involving different actors (Kingdon, 1995). Strategies, tactics, and modes of action are also indeterminate, and there is little empirical evidence to determine the success of one given strategy and the failure of another.

One possible explanation for the lack of systematic, rational evaluation and mea- surement of the effectiveness of advocacy relates to the organizations’ lack of motiva- tion and interest in investing their limited resources in this kind of activity. It can be assumed that the directors of these organizations prefer to report on their activities and on the public relations associated with them, and are less interested in measuring their effectiveness, because it is likely that their success is limited. By limiting evaluation, organizations can maintain ambiguity and avoid criticism from the funding sources and constituencies that are involved in these activities. By contrast, it can also be argued that if there were more research evidence on successful efforts to protect minor- ity groups and disadvantaged populations, and if there were evidence of success in placing issues on the public agenda and influencing public policy-makers, more

26 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

resources might be allocated for advocacy. This, in turn, might increase the scope and intensity of advocacy activity.

Conclusion

In the last decade, there has been an increasing interest and empirical research on political advocacy by nonprofits in general and on advocacy by NPHSOs, in particu- lar. To date, studies have mainly focused on the scope and prevalence of nonprofit advocacy; the complex relationships between organizations that engage in advocacy and their funding sources, organizational properties related to advocacy and advocacy strategies, tactics and modes of operation. While these studies have advanced our understanding of these topics, advocacy by these organizations still deserves further investigation in light of the important role that policy advocacy plays in promoting the goals of NPHSOs and their relations with their constituencies. Reviewing the state of knowledge presented and described in this article brings us to the following under- standing, insights, and conclusions.

First, it seems that the goals, organizational structure, organizational culture, and budget constraints of NPHSOs are the driving forces in the provision of services, rather than engagement in policy advocacy. The lack of intensive advocacy activity in these organizations and the perception of service provision as their core activity have prevented them from fulfilling their social and civic missions. While some studies have addressed these concerns, more scholarly attention should be given to the percep- tions of nonprofit leaders as policy advocates, the importance of their relations with government, and the ways in which these perceptions affect their decisions and choices with regard to policy advocacy.

Second, studies have dealt extensively with various methods, strategies, and tactics that nonprofit organizations in general—and advocacy organizations in particular— adopt in order to carry out their mission. However, not enough interest has been shown in organizational dilemmas relating to advocacy activities. Questions related to the choice of advocacy goals, targets, strategies and tactics, as well as to decision-making processes governing these choices, deserve more attention (Gormley & Cymrot, 2006).

Moreover, advocacy activities are intended to influence policy-making processes. It is important, therefore, to ask how these activities, strategies, and tactics relate to different stages and components of the policy-making process. Strikingly, there are very few studies that have examined the advocacy activities of NPHSOs in relation to policy-making processes that use public policy-making theories or building on knowledge from policy studies. Berry and Arons (2003, p. 111) point to the “pene- tration of nonprofits into the budgetary and policymaking process,” which is espe- cially manifest in stages of policy design and formulation where the specifics of policy and the allocation of funds within the sector are discussed and decided. Other scholars have pointed to the potential influence of nonprofits in different stages of the policy-making process, from agenda setting through participation in decision- making, policy enactment, and implementation (Andrews & Edwards, 2004; Jenkins,

Almog-Bar and Schmid 27

2006). Agenda setting is still considered the stage at which advocacy organizations will have their greatest influence (Andrews & Edwards, 2004; Jenkins, 2006). However, in the case of NPHSOs there is insufficient research to show any clear results that link advocacy activities to different public policy-making stages or phases.

In addition, the current literature lacks analysis and evaluation of the extent to which methods, strategies, and tactics are adapted to different organizational cul- tures (Onyx et al., 2010). The cultural context is important as it effects perceptions of advocacy and the wider environmental context in which this activity takes place. With very few exceptions, most of the existing literature on nonprofit advocacy is based on experience in the United States, disregarding advocacy activities in other parts of the world. Thus, most of the explanations that have been provided in these studies relate to the political, legal, and social context of the United States; such contexts are, of course, quite different in other countries. In order to further our understanding of advocacy by nonprofits in general, and by NPHSOs in particular, it is important to study these activities from a cross-cultural perspective, which will allow for comparison between different regimes, political, legal, and administrative systems and cultures.

Furthermore, while existing research has examined a diverse repertoire of strate- gies and tactics, it does not offer a critical analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. Nor have existing studies examined the extent to which the NPHSOs have succeeded in achieving their stated goals. Fundamental questions relating to the impact and efficacy of these activities thus remain unanswered. Unfortunately, Andrews and Edwards (2004, p. 500) are still correct in their assertion, made almost a decade ago, that “the area most lacking in the contemporary scholarship is the influence of advo- cacy organizations on politics.” This lack of knowledge about the consequences of advocacy may deter these organizations from participating in such activities, as there is no certainty that the outcome is worth the effort involved. Directors of NPHSOs prefer to invest in training workers to provide services as well as participating in the processes themselves (e.g., maintaining relationships with policy-makers in the leg- islature, and with politicians and senior officials at national and local levels). As a result, they invest less in examining the outcomes of advocacy activities, which are more difficult to measure and assess objectively. In our view, it is possible that the limited achievements of advocacy activity derive from the extensive time investment and long processes required to attain visible outcomes. The complexity of these pro- cesses, which includes the amendment and initiation of laws; enactment of new leg- islation, changing policies, and changing priorities for allocating funds to assist disadvantaged populations, does not provide an incentive for an evaluation of out- comes and achievements.

We have also learned that most of the studies on advocacy have related to a number of leading theories, including the resource mobilization theory, neo-institutional the- ory, and resource dependence theory. There have been no developments of these theo- ries or any further theories in recent years. Without a doubt, each of these theories provides explanations that shed light on the organizational behavior of nonprofit

28 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

organizations in the context of advocacy. Nonetheless, there is still a need to seek innovative explanations that can provide new perspectives on existing knowledge. In this context, efforts need to be made to gain a deeper theoretical understanding of why the level of advocacy is still relatively low in these organizations, and what needs to be done in order to intensify this activity—assuming that this is perceived as one of the main roles of civil society organizations. In a similar vein, studies related to strategies and tactics and to their effectiveness have used two main scholarly approaches: inter- est groups and social movements. While there is much to learn from this abundant body of literature, and while there are certainly some similarities between interest groups, social movement organizations, and NPHSOs, there are some inherent differ- ences that call for different explanations and point to other factors that determine advocacy activity. Thus, one of the crucial tasks for scholars in coming years will be to develop new models and theoretical approaches that focus on the unique organiza- tional characteristics of these organizations, and the diverse contexts in which advo- cacy activities are taking place. Some scholars have developed such models for nonprofit advocacy in general (Andrews & Edwards, 2004; Casey, 2004), but more work is needed in research and theory.

A review of existing research in the field indicates that little attention has been paid to developing and enhancing professionalism in the implementation of advocacy activities. For the most part, studies have described and analyzed advocacy activities, strategies and tactics, and raised interesting questions. Nonetheless, there is a vacuum with regard to the issue of skills, abilities, and the professional qualifications needed for strengthening the advocacy mission. As discussed above, directors and workers are trained and skilled to provide services rather than to advocate for their clients. Advocacy skills relate to political, persona,l and interpersonal interactions with actors in the political arena (e.g., legislators, heads of interest groups, heads of lobby organi- zations and groups, and senior executives), whom they need to persuade to promote social rights. The existing literature neither devotes enough attention to these aspects nor offers advanced theories for dealing with the dilemmas that NPHSOs confront. Continuous development of theoretical and empirical knowledge can provide explana- tions relating to the transition from management based on past experience, intuition, and benchmarking to evidence-based management. This can result in changing the organizations’ approach regarding the added value of advocacy, and bring it closer to the center of the organizations’ activity, while developing sector-wide capacities that will support advocacy.

In conclusion, research in the last decade has shown that, while still limited, advo- cacy is becoming a more common NPHSO practice, and is gradually being recognized as a necessary way of coping with the uncertain, complex environments in which they operate. This research has made progress and presents more findings on the scope, intensity, and modes of operations of nonprofit policy advocacy; however, in order to expand our understanding of the role of advocacy employed by NPHSOs, more work is needed—especially in the areas of the effectiveness and impact of policy advocacy and its relation to processes of policy-making.

Almog-Bar and Schmid 29

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Advocacy. (1982). In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Retrieved from: http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/advocacy

Advocacy. (2009). In The Free Online Dictionary (4th ed.). Retrieved from: http://www.the- freedictionary.com/advocacy

Andrews, K., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the US political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479-506.

Atlantic Philanthropies. (2008). Investing in change: Why supporting advocacy makes sense for foundations. Retrieved from http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/learning/atlantic- report/investing-change-why-supporting-advocacy-makes-sense-foundations

Balassiano, K., & Chandler, S. M. (2010). The emerging role of nonprofit associations in advocacy and public policy: Trends, issues, and prospects. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 946-955.

Bass, G. D., Arons, D. F., Guinane, K., & Carter, M. (2007). Seen but not heard: Strengthening nonprofit advocacy. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Beck, B. (1970). The voluntary social welfare agency. Social Service Review, 44, 147-154. Belzer, H. (2011). Building advocacy from within: Report on the West Coast listening post

project roundtable on nonprofit advocacy and lobbying. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society.

Bergan, D. E. (2009). Does grassroots lobbying work? A field experiment measuring the effects of e-mail lobbying campaigns on legislative behavior. American Political Research, 37, 327-352.

Berry, J. (1977). Lobbying for the People: The Political Behavior of Public Interest Groups. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Berry, J. (1999). New liberalism: The rising power of citizen groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Berry, J. (2001). Effective advocacy for nonprofits. In E. Reid & M. Montilla (Eds.), Exploring organizations and advocacy: Strategies and finances. Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process: A seminar series (Vol. 2, Issue 1., pp. 1-8). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Berry, J., & Arons, D. F. (2003). A voice for nonprofits. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Bhagat, V. (2005). Online advocacy: How the internet is transforming the way nonprofits reach, motivate, and retain supporters. In T. Hart, J. Greenfield, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Nonprofit internet strategies (pp. 119-134). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Boris, E., & Mosher-Williams, R. (1998). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Assessing the definitions, classifications, and data. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 488-506.

Boris, E., & Krehely, J. (2003). Civic participation and advocacy. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 299-330). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

30 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

Browning, G. (1996). Electronic democracy: Using the internet to influence American politics. Wilton, CT: Pemberton Press.

Bryer, D., & Magrath, J. (1999). New dimensions of global advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 168-177.

Burstein, P. (1985). Discrimination, jobs and politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press. Casey, J. (2004). Third sector participation in the policy process: A framework for comparative

analysis. Policy & Politics, 32, 241-257. Casey, J. (2011). Understanding advocacy: A primer on the policy-making role of nonprofit

organizations. New York: Baruch College, City University of New York, Center for Nonprofit Strategy.

Casey, J., & Dalton, B. M. (2006).The best of times, the worst of times: Community sector advocacy in the age of compacts. Australian Journal of Political Science, 41, 23-38.

Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. (2001). Building community capacity. New York, NY: Aldine / DeGruyter.

Chaves, M., Stephens, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Does government funding suppress non- profits’ political activity? American Sociological Review, 69, 292-316.

Child, C. D., & Gronbjerg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteris- tics and activities. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 259-281.

Christiansen, P. M., Norgaard, A. S., Rommetvedt, H., Svensson, T., Gunnar, T., & Oberg, P. (2010).Varieties of democracy: Interest groups and corporatist committees in Scandinavian policy making. Voluntas, 21, 22-40.

Cohen, D. (2001). Critical lessons learned in social justice advocacy: United States, South Asia, and Southern Africa. Paper presented at the Urban Institute Seminar on Nonprofit Advocacy and the Policy Press, Washington, DC.

Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1063-1104.

Cruz, V. (2001). Advocacy in nonprofit human service organizations. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York, Albany.

Dalrymple, J. (2004). Developing the concept of professional advocacy: An examination of the role of child and youth advocates in England and Wales. Journal of Social Work, 41, 179-197.

D’Aunno, T. (1992). The effectiveness of human service organizations: A comparison of models. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (pp. 341-361). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R., & Price, R. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 636-661.

DeChesnay, M., & Robinson-Dooley, V. (2011). Advocacy role of providers. In M. DeChesnay & B. A. Anderson (Eds.), Caring for the vulnerable: Perspectives in nursing theory, prac- tice, and research (pp. 17-28). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning International.

DeVita, C., Montilla, M., Reid, B., & Fatiregun, O. (2004). Organizational factors influencing advocacy for children. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

DeVita, C., Mosher-Williams, R., & Stengel, N. (2001). Nonprofit organizations engaged in child advocacy. In C. DeVita & R. Mosher-Williams (Eds.), Who speaks for America’s children? (pp. 3-38). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.

Almog-Bar and Schmid 31

Donaldson, L. (2007). Advocacy by nonprofit human service agencies: Organizational factors as correlates to advocacy behavior. Journal of Community Practice, 15, 139-158.

Donaldson, L. (2008). Developing a progressive advocacy program within a human services agency. Administration in Social Work, 32, 25-47.

Donaldson, L. P., & Shields, J. (2009). Development of the policy advocacy behavior scale: Initial reliability and validity. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 83-92.

Edwards, M. (1993).Does the doormat influence the boot? Critical thoughts on UK NGOs and international advocacy. Development in Practic, 3, 163-175.

Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Fitzgerald, E., & McNutt, J. G. (1997, March). Electronic advocacy in policy practice: A framework for teaching technology-based practice. Paper presented at the CSWE Annual Program Meeting, Chicago, IL

Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the umeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 183-202.

Frumkin, P. (2002). Service contracting with nonprofit and for-profit providers. In J. Donahue & J. S. Nye Jr. (Eds.), Market-based governance (pp. 67-87). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Gais, T., & Walker, J., Jr. (1991). Pathways to influence in American politics. In J. Walker (Ed.), Mobilizing interest groups in America (pp. 103-121). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Geller, S. L., & Salamon, L. M. (2009). Listening post project roundtable on nonprofit advo- cacy and lobbying: Communique no. 13. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society.

Gerber, A. S. (2004). Does campaign work? American Behavioral Scientist, 4, 541-574. Gibelman, M., & Kraft, S. (1996). Advocacy as a core agency program: Planning considerations

for voluntary human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 20(4), 43-59. Gormley, W., & Cymrot, H. (2006). The strategic choices of child advocacy groups. Nonprofit

& Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 102-122. Grobman, G. M., & Grant, G. B. (1998). The nonprofit internet handbook. Harrisburg, PA:

White Hat Communications. Grogan, C. M., & Gusmano, M. K. (2009). Political strategies of safety-net providers in response

to Medicaid managed care reforms. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 34, 5-35. Gronbjerg, K. A., & Smith, S. R. (1999). Nonprofit organizations and public policies in the

delivery of human services. In C. T. Clotfelter & T. Ehrlich (Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America (pp. 139-171). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Guigni, M. (1998). Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social move- ments. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 371-393.

Guo, C. (2007). When government becomes the principal philanthropist: The effect of public funding on patterns of nonprofit governance. Public Administration Review, 67, 456-471.

Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1, 1-25.

Guthrie, K., Louie, J., David, T., & Crystal-Foster, C. (2005). The challenge of assessing policy and advocacy activities: Strategies for a prospective evaluation approach. Los Angeles: California Endowment.

Hart, R., Greenfield, J., & Johnson, M. (2005). Nonprofit internet strategies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

32 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

Haynes, K. S., & Mickelson, J. S. (2000). Affecting change: Social workers in the political arena. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Herman, D. R., & Renz, D. (1999).Theses of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107-126.

Hick, S., & McNutt, J. G. (Eds.). (2002). Advocacy and activism on the Internet: Perspectives from community organization and social policy. Chicago, IL: Lyceum.

Hoefer, R. (2000). Making a difference: Human service interest group influence on social wel- fare program regulations. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 27(3), 21-38.

Hoefer, R. (2001). Highly effective human services interest groups: Seven key practices. Journal of Community Practice, 9(3), 1-13.

Hoefer, R. (2002). Political advocacy in the 1980s: Comparing human services and defense interest groups. Social Policy Journal, 1, 99-112.

Hoefer, R. (2005). Altering state policy: Interest groups among state-level advocacy groups. Social Work, 50, 219-227.

Hoefer, R., & Ferguson, K. (2007). Controlling the level of powers: How advocacy organiza- tions affect the regulation writing process. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 34, 83-108.

Howse, J. L., Weiss, M., & Green, N. S. (2006). Critical role of the March of Dimes in the expansion of newborn screening. Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 12, 280-287.

Hudson, A. (2002). Advocacy by UK-based development NGOs. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 402-418.

Hyman, D. (1983). Advocacy in the new world: Introduction to the special issue. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 12, 9-10.

Jenkins, J. C. (1987). Nonprofit organizations and policy advocacy. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 296-320). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Jenkins, J. C. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and political advocacy. In W. W. Powell & R. S. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 307-322). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kimberlin, S. E. (2010). Advocacy by nonprofits: Roles and practices of core advocacy organi- zations and direct service agencies. Journal of Policy Practice, 9, 164-182.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Laws, G. (1997). Voluntary organizations and advocacy: The case of housing for older Americans. Nonprofit& Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 307-342.

Leech, B. L. (2006). Funding faction or buying silence: Grants, contracts, and interest group lobbying behavior. Policy Studies Journal, 34, 17-35.

LeRoux, K. (2009). The effects of descriptive representation on nonprofits’ civic intermediary roles: A test of the “racial mismatch” hypothesis in the social service sector. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 741-760.

LeRoux, K., & Goerdel, H. ( 2009). Political advocacy by nonprofit organizations: A strategic management explanation. Public Performance& Management Review, 32, 514-536.

Maddison, S., & Dennis, R. (2005). Democratic constraint and embrace: Implications for progressive non-government advocacy organizations in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 40, 373-389.

Almog-Bar and Schmid 33

McCarthy, J. D., & Castelli, J. (2002). The necessity for studying organizational advocacy com- paratively. In P. Flynn & V. A. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector (pp. 103-121). New York, NY: Plenum.

McNutt, J. G. (2006). Building evidence-based advocacy in cyberspace: A social work impera- tive for the new millennium. Journal of Evidence-Based Practice, 3, 91-102.

McNutt, J. G. (2008). Advocacy organizations and the organizational digital divide. Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 7(2), 1-16.

McNutt, J. G. (2010). Is social work advocacy worth the cost? Issues and barriers to an eco- nomic analysis of social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 397-403.

McNutt, J. G., & Boland, K. M. (1999). Electronic advocacy by nonprofit organizations in social welfare policy. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 432-451.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.

Mickelson, J. S. (1995). Advocacy. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., vol. 1, pp. 95-100). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Minkoff, D. C. (1994). From service provision to institutional advocacy: The shifting legiti- macy of organizational forms. Social Forces, 72, 943-969.

Minkoff, D. C. (1998). Organizational barriers to advocacy. Paper presented at the Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector Strategy Group, Wye River, MD.

Mosley, J. E. (2010). Organizational resources and environmental incentives: Understanding the policy advocacy involvement of human service nonprofits. Social Service Review, 84, 57-76.

Mosley, J. E. (2011). Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: What tacti- cal choices reveal about the policy advocacy of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 435-457.

Mosley, J. E., Katz, H., Hasenfeld, Y., & Anheier, H. K. (2003). The challenge of meeting social needs in Los Angeles: Nonprofit human service organizations in a diverse community. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research.

Nelson, J. (2007). The operation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in a world of corpo- rate and other codes of conduct. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative (Working Paper No. 34). Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Newhouse, C. (2010). Report on the listening post project roundtable on nonprofit advocacy and lobbying. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society.

Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2007). Politics, policy, and the motivations for advocacy in nonprofit reproductive health and family planning providers. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 5-21.

Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In R. B. Kugel & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 179-195), Washington, DC: President’s committee on mental retar- dation.

Onyx, J., Armitage, L., Dalton, R., Melville, R., Casey, J., & Banks, R. (2010). Advocacy with gloves: The “manners” of strategy used by some third sector organizations undertaking advocacy in NSW and Queensland. Voluntas, 21, 41-61.

Ottinger, L. (2009). Closing the advocacy gap between charities and businesses. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 22, 37.

Pawlak, E. J., & Flynn, J. P. (1990). Executive directors’ political activities. Social Work, 35, 307-312.

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1977). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

34 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1)

Raffa, T. (2000). Advocacy and lobbying without fear: What is allowed within a 501(c)(3) charitable organization? Nonprofit Quarterly, 7, 44-47.

Rees, S. (2001). Effective advocacy on limited resources. In E. Reid & M. Montilla (Eds.), Exploring organizations and advocacy: Strategies and finances. Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process: A Seminar Series, 2(1), (pp. 9-16) Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Reid, E. J. (1999). Nonprofit advocacy and political participation. In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofit and government (pp.291-308). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Reid, E. J. (2000). Structuring the inquiry into advocacy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Reid, E. J. (2006). Advocacy and the challenges it presents for nonprofits. In E. T. Boris &

C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and the government (2nd ed., pp. 343-372.). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Rektor, L. (2002). Advocacy—The sounds of citizens’ voices: A position paper form the advo- cacy working group. Ottawa, Ontario: Government of Canada, Voluntary Sector Initiative Secretariat.

Roelofs, J. (1987). Foundations and social change organizations: The mask of pluralism. The Insurgent Sociologist, 14(3), 31-71.

Saidel, J. (2002). Nonprofit organizations, political engagement, and public policy. In E. Reid & M. Montilla (Eds.), Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process (Vol. 2, pp. 1-18). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Saidel, J., & Harlan, S. (1998). Contracting and patterns of nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 8, 243-259.

Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the mod- ern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Salamon, L. M. (2002). Explaining nonprofit advocacy: An exploratory analysis. Baltimore, MD: Center for Civil Society Studies, Johns Hopkins University.

Salamon, L. M., & Geller, S. L. (2008). Nonprofit America: A force for democracy (Communiqué no. 9). Baltimore, MD: Center for Civil Society Studies, Institute for Public Policy, Johns Hopkins University.

Sandfort, J. (2011, June). Enabling and constraining advocacy practices through human service networks. Paper presented at the Public Management Research Association Conference, Syracuse, NY

Schmid, H. (2004). The role of nonprofit human service organizations in providing social ser- vices: A prefatory essay. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Organizational and structural dilemmas in nonprofit human service organizations (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.

Schmid, H. (2012). Nonprofit organizations: Between identity blurring and adaptation to chang- ing environments. Administration in Social Work. Advance online publication. doi:10.108 0/03643107.2012,676611.

Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy activities in nonprofit human service orga- nizations: Implications for policy. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 581-602.

Schoff, R., & Stevenson, D. R. (1998). The national taxonomy of exempt entities manual. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Schwartz, E. (1996). NetActivism: How citizens use the internet. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. Scott, R.W., Deschenes, S., Hopkins, K., Newman, A. & McLaughlin, M. (2006). Advocacy

organizations and the field of youth services: Ongoing efforts to restructure the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 691-714.

Almog-Bar and Schmid 35

Silverman, R. M., & Patterson, K. L. (2010). The effects of perceived funding trends on non- profit advocacy: A national survey of nonprofit advocacy organizations. New York, NY: Baruch College.

Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contract- ing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Smith, S. R., & Pekkanen, R. (2012). Revisiting advocacy by nonprofit organizations. Voluntary Sector Review, 3, 35-49.

Sosin, M. R. (1986). Private benefits: Material assistance in the private sector. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Starling, S. (2010). Monitoring and evaluating advocacy: Lessons from Oxfam GB’s climate change campaigns. Development in Practice, 20, 277-286.

Strolovitch, D. Z. (2006). Do interest groups represent the disadvantaged? Advocacy at the intersections of race, class, and gender. The Journal of Politics, 68, 894-910.

Suárez, D. F. (2009). Nonprofit advocacy and civic engagement on the Internet. Administration and Society, 41, 267-289.

The Evaluation Exchange (Spring, 2007). Issue topic: Advocacy and policy change (Vol. 13, no. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

The Urban Institute (2010). Outcomes and performance indicators for 14 specific program areas: Advocacy. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.urban.org/center/met/ projects/upload/advocacy.pdf

Tolbert, P. M., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). Institutionalization of the institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175- 190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Turner, R. (1998). Democracy at work: Nonprofit use of internet technology for public policy purposes. Washington, DC: OMB Watch.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brody, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wolch, J. (1990). The shadow state: Government and the nonprofit sector in transition. New

York, NY: The Foundation Center. Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effec-

tiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903.

Author Biographies

Michal Almog-Bar, PhD, is a lecturer at the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research focuses on the relations between nonprofit organizations and the welfare state, advocacy activities of human service organiza- tions and cross-sector partnerships.

Hillel Schmid, PhD, is the Centraid-L. Jacque Menard Chair in Social Work for the Study of Volunteer and Nonprofit Organizations. He is also the Professor Emeritus at the School of Social Work and Social Welfare, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His areas of interest are the management of nonprofit organizations, adaptation to changing environments, leadership, organizational change, advocacy, and philanthropy.